Skip to main contentBitcoin was designed as sound, deflationary digital money with predictable scarcity. This makes BTC excellent as a store of value and medium of exchange—digital gold. However, as developers have attempted to build applications on Bitcoin, they have often tried to use BTC itself for purposes it was never intended to serve. Some projects attempt to use BTC as “gas” for computational services, paying miners in BTC proportional to execution costs. Others try to fund long-term data storage with one-time BTC payments. These approaches fundamentally misunderstand what BTC is and create economic problems that undermine both the application layers and Bitcoin itself, not to mention fueling deep discord within the greater Bitcoin community.
Kontor addresses this by introducing a token for its metaprotocol, KOR, with economic properties purpose-built for application-layer services—gas metering and storage incentives. This allows BTC to remain what it is (digital gold) while enabling the functionality that applications need. The challenge is structuring this dual-token model so that KOR complements rather than competes with Bitcoin, creating a synergistic relationship where both tokens’ value propositions are strengthened.
Economic Alignment with Bitcoin
When users interact with Kontor—deploying contracts, calling functions, storing files—they must submit Bitcoin transactions that pay Bitcoin miners. This is not optional or mediated through bridges; it is direct and unavoidable. Every Kontor operation increases demand for Bitcoin blockspace, which increases fee revenue for miners, which strengthens Bitcoin’s economic model. The more successful Kontor becomes, the more valuable Bitcoin blockspace becomes.
This stands in contrast to sidechains and rollups, which explicitly aim to move transaction volume off Bitcoin. Their value proposition is “do more while using Bitcoin less”—execute thousands of transactions off-chain, then settle the results with a single Bitcoin transaction. This reduces the per-transaction cost to users, but it also reduces fee revenue to miners. When a rollup succeeds, Bitcoin miners earn less, not more. This creates misaligned incentives: rollup operators benefit from transaction volume that Bitcoin miners never see. The relationship is fundamentally extractive.
Kontor’s architecture is not parasitic. The protocol cannot move transactions “off-chain” because it has no separate chain. Scaling happens through efficiency in how data is encoded and how state is computed, but every state transition still requires a Bitcoin transaction, and there is a constant-factor relationship between Kontor data payload size and Bitcoin transaction fees. Users pay both BTC fees (to miners for inclusion) and KOR fees (to the protocol for execution and storage). The dual-token model ensures that neither fee cannibalizes the other—BTC compensates miners for the global service of transaction ordering and finality, while KOR compensates storage nodes for the application-specific service of maintaining protocol state and data.
This alignment extends to Bitcoin’s long-term sustainability. Bitcoin’s security budget depends on transaction fees replacing diminishing block subsidies as issuance approaches zero. Kontor contributes to this fee market by adding a category of transactions that have inelastic demand—if you want to interact with Kontor applications, you must pay Bitcoin fees, regardless of the fee rate. This provides steady demand that supports miner revenue even as block subsidies decline. Kontor’s success directly translates to Bitcoin’s long-term security.
Gas and Smart Contract Execution
Attempting to use BTC as gas for smart contract execution creates fundamental problems. Gas systems require tokens whose supply can adjust to meet operational needs—users pay fees that compensate network operators for ongoing costs, and these operators need predictable revenue in terms that match their expenses. Bitcoin’s deflationary model, by design, does not support this. BTC’s fixed supply and diminishing issuance make it excellent as a store of value but problematic as a metered resource for computational services.
The analogy is straightforward: BTC is digital gold, KOR is digital gasoline. Gold’s value comes from scarcity and durability—you hold it, you don’t burn it. Gasoline’s value comes from consumption—it powers activity, and its price reflects supply-and-demand balance in the service market. If gold were used as fuel, either it would be too expensive to use (making the service uneconomical), or its consumption would be too high (destroying its monetary properties). The solution is to separate the store-of-value function from the utility function, using different tokens with different economic properties for different purposes.
KOR has controlled inflation through emissions that reward storage nodes and other protocol participants. Users pay KOR for smart contract execution, and these fees are burned, creating deflationary pressure. The balance between emissions and burns determines net inflation, which adjusts based on protocol usage and network conditions. This is fundamentally different from BTC’s fixed-supply model—KOR’s supply expands and contracts in response to protocol needs, providing flexibility that enables sustainable service delivery.
This dual-token model respects BTC’s monetary properties while adding the flexibility needed for application-layer services. BTC remains the unit of account—assets are priced in BTC, exchanges quote pairs against BTC, and settlement happens in BTC. KOR is a metered input—users acquire what they need for immediate use, similar to how one buys gasoline. The relationship is complementary: demand for Kontor services increases demand for both KOR (to pay gas) and BTC (to pay miners), and neither token undermines the other’s value proposition.
Perpetual Storage Incentives
Attempting to fund perpetual storage with one-time BTC payments faces an impossibility: a finite payment cannot fund infinite service. Even if you collect a large upfront fee, it will eventually be depleted—you cannot pay for decades of ongoing storage costs with a fixed amount paid today. Storage nodes incur continuous expenses for equipment, bandwidth, power, and facilities. These costs must be met year after year, indefinitely, yet the initial payment is spent once and is gone.
Kontor addresses this through perpetual emissions: storage nodes earn KOR each block proportional to the files they store. This creates an ongoing revenue stream that lasts as long as the protocol exists. The system is designed so that for any rational operator, the net present value of future emissions exceeds storage costs, making it profitable to maintain files indefinitely. The user’s one-time fee is burned rather than escrowed—it serves to prevent spam and create deflationary pressure, but it does not directly fund the storage. The actual funding comes from inflation, which can adjust dynamically based on network conditions.
This emission-based model enables responsive incentives that fixed payments cannot provide. If replication falls below safe levels, emissions can increase, making storage more profitable and attracting additional nodes. If costs change—due to technology improvements, energy price fluctuations, or capital market conditions—nodes respond by entering or exiting based on profitability, and the protocol adjusts emissions to maintain adequate participation. The system self-regulates without requiring governance decisions or manual parameter updates.
The long-term sustainability comes from balancing emissions against burns. In the early network, emissions dominate—the protocol is inflationary by design to bootstrap participation. As the network matures, burn mechanisms (file creation fees, smart contract gas, slashing, exit fees) remove KOR from circulation. Eventually, as smart contract usage grows and file creation slows, burns can offset emissions, stabilizing or even reversing inflation. The dual-token model enables this: BTC remains deflationary and appreciates, while KOR inflates or deflates based on protocol dynamics, providing the economic flexibility needed to guarantee perpetual storage. 
