Some candid feedback, if you're open to it (or feel free to think I'm stupid and ignore it, what do I know anyways):
I think the idea of "locking" long-term deposits is a good one in principle. The problem with coins that aren't called BTC is that adoption as fiat is impossible unless there is confidence that others will not dump. If a user sees everyone else's coins are locked, that user doesn't have to fear a dump.
That being said, I think your team got too cute in its execution. Take just a minute to think - really think - about how many times you've have to explain the deal with your "units". When you type out 5 paragraphs explaining units to users who are already on a crypto-currency board, do you think to yourself: "wow all of these people are having a really hard time grasping such a simple concept, they must be really stupid" or do you realize that maybe, just maybe, in trying to solve the decimal-place problem you actually made it confusing beyond belief to the average user? I'm not questioning whether it's a good solution in theory, I'm questioning the utility and mass appeal of a numbering system that needs to be explained to someone five times. Maybe the dev team should consider whether a system that is less "intuitive" to them might nevertheless make more sense for adoption on this board.
The other issue is that you've set the interest rates way too high. It does nothing but cause inflation. Here is a simple example: imagine you have 1 XRY, and the value of your project is $100 (i.e. $100/XRY). You lock your XRY for a year. One year later, you have 1.15 XRY. But what makes your project now worth $115? You may argue that there will be other activities generating value to move the project above $100, but unless the XRY lock generating the extra .15 XRY is the source of that $15 value, it is inflationary. If other activities are increasing your project's value to $115, then the value of the base investment (the 1 XRY) will naturally increase to $115/XRY - there is no need to issue someone an extra 0.15 XRY to reward that investment. But by letting your currency supply artificially grow at the same time, you're just deflating the value of your currency back down, which means no one has any incentive to actually buy your currency to use on a daily basis, because all it will do is lose value unless locked.
The reason banks and governments offer more interest on long term deposits is that the deposit itself inherently generates value (by being lent out as capital to borrowers). Here, your locked 1 XRY is doing no work, providing no one any benefit, but being rewarded with .15 XRY for doing squat. This is different from Proof of Stake because there, the stake is securing the network. You could argue that your system is proof of stake, but the reason I'd disagree is that staking a coin for 24 hours at a time, 365 days in a row provides the same level of "stake" as staking a coin for 365 days at once. So any bonus interest you provide to the long term lock isn't rewarding the stake - it's still just rewarding the money sitting there untouchable for a longer period of time.
You may argue that the locking of the investment is an inherent source of value because it drives adoption (by discouraging dumping). But that's illusory because the second my currency unlocks, I can still dump it. Long-term interest is a bootstrap to adoption, but by making it inflationary you are increasing the odds that it will be dumped later
I don't know the right solution to this problem, but I suspect it's setting the interest rate on your currency to the same as long-term global inflation or long-term government bonds (something closer to 3%, not 15%). That way, people are assured that locking their currency isn't harming their investment, but at the same time you aren't rewarding their money for sitting in one place doing nothing.
EDIT: I just had another thought on how to illustrate this problem: you have set the interest rate as 15%. Why not just set it as 150%? Then, surely, no one will want to sell it, and the price will go up. 15% is just as arbitrary as 150% or 1500% as long as the number is divorced from the actual value being created by the lock.
cool something to touch on in the next video.. a few questions about this conservation you had with out me.. have you seen the first video and is this deposits right now or deposits 2.0 your talking about? only reason I ask is bc I would rather focus on deposits 2.0 as it solves most the problems with deposits and is soon to be launched..
