MrWHALE
Newbie
 Offline
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
|
 |
May 23, 2014, 11:34:02 PM |
|
Yes I see it, but nevertheless I don't think it is good for the long term run. For example some investors avoid nxt because they have a distribution problem. I don't know if it is possible to have a richlist for anon coin but still the doubt for an unfair distribution is enough to avoid people. In the next month there will be plenty of anon coins and we have to compete with them. people have the choice. They will not pick a scam coin.
I guess I don't see how how whether mining goes on for 1 day or 1,000 days really effects distribution, either way it is the big multipools who will be getting all the coins. If you want the coin then why not buy it, at this point it's just a few cents a coin, hardly expensive. This gets a +1 from me as well +1 from me as well. Multipools dumping will hurt the price that the first PoS coin with anon wallet deserves. Something needs to be done about the current mining phase supply cap. If miners want to mine XC, let them do so from a XC multipool -- which will raise the price of XC rather than lower it. - there will be 30m total supply and if this goes to 50k sats, there will be 7.8m market cap = no room to move up. If price runs to 100k sats, people will dump ( because it will need to be 15m market cap when all coins are released to keep this price). = no growth beyond 100k sats, and people will dump the price down once/if it hits 100k. If we change to 7.5m max coins and stop PoW when anon wallet releases. XC at 50k sats will have a market cap of 1.9m = much room for price growth & sustainability well past 200k sats or higher. Do you understand the math behind this guys? Total supply is important. And 30m supply is too much for a coin with anon tech. Then stop the pump and dump, mine and hold, and buy coins from multipool dumpers. Notice only thing being discussed here is price? Not the tech, not the long term prospects or health of the coin, not sticking to the spec laid out in the ANN (which in my view is a signed contract between miners, investors, and the community when mining starts), not what is fair or right. Your only argument is "WE NEED LESS COINS SO PRICE CAN PUMP AS HIGH AS POSSIBLE AS FAST AS POSSIBLE!". Surprise surprise coming from a CINNI dev. Atcsecure, if you cannot see this scam artist for what he is and what he is trying to do, turn your coin into just another pump and dump which you specifically stated you did not want to see happen, you are blind. For the record, I hold 18k XC and am mining it, and am tempted more and more to dump them everyday if this is the direction the coin is taking. No one is pushing for a pump and dump. We, if anything, are pushing to sustain a high value of this coin. I am not saying the total supply has to be 7.5m, I was just going off of Veritas' example. But, I think most of here can agree that the total supply and 100 day distribution phase is way too much, with nearly 80 GH/s net hash, and about 90% of that being multipools + individual mining farms. This will make it so multipools dump to suppress the price and discourage investors, and those few individuals with mining farms asics will end up with an unbelievably large share. The best way for growth is for people collect XC by BUYING it, not mining it. And people will buy it if the dev team delivers. But people are less likely to buy it if they know for the next 2 months multipools will be dumping into their low-ball buy orders. And after 2 months of mining are over, anon tech will probably common. Come on people, think. I agree.. and I am a miner. But I also work for Cryptsy, and can safely say from experience, that regardless of tech as soon as most coins get listed they get dumped in to oblivion by miners looking for BTC. That being said, miners should absolutely be involved in the initial distribution of a coin. The argument that "they should buy like the rest of us" can just as easily be reversed to "they should mine like the rest of us". For equal and fair distribution to come in to play, anyone should be able to acquire at least a minimal amount of coin. And for a LOT of people, mining on there gaming GPU is their only option. So why should a coin be limited to only those who can afford to invest capital in it? It would be no different than real world markets, where investors with the most money own the market. I do however think there is something to be said for limiting the total amount of PoW minted coins. Miners are going to dump, end of story. My personal electric bill to run my rigs is round about $1000 USD per month. If that isn't investing in something I don't know what is. And many miners have substantially higher bills than I. The trick will be finding a fair and popular consensus among both miners and investors. Not all investors are going to hold and not all miners are going to dump. My $1000 dollar electric bill is no less of an investment than a $1000 wire transfer to Coinbase. So neglecting either demographic would be a wise idea. Frankly, I would vote for decreasing the amount of coins minted via PoW. Either by a decrease on the block reward, or simply shorting the mining period... or both. I will however leave actual hard numbers to wiser folks than I. As I have no idea what a viable "coin cap" would be. Yes, I agree with you for the most part. But as VeritasBS already said: "There is a profit motive here for both the investors and for the miners. The question is: which will build long term value, catering to the miners desire for quick profit by mining and dumping, or do you want to go after investors who will build out the coin ecosystem and improve the long term value of the coin. I'd say, without question, make the right moves to acquire investors." Investors who BUY are much more crucial to a coins long-term success than miners who DUMP. Agreed, but in a fledgling market volume is needed. And long term investors do not increase volume when they are all holding. Hence why so many "IPO" style coins fall flat on their face or get dumped by "investors" due to panic. Again though, I agree with you on the need for a significantly reduced PoW stage/coins. The questions is not so much, should miners be excluded? It's to late for that argument anyway. It's, at what point should they be cut off? A limited PoW period drives volume, which is good if it can be effectively managed. Frankly, I am not worried about investors, the Anon wallet alone will bring them flocking. I know I for one am now an investor in regards to the few thousand XC i managed to mine.  Agreed. My proposal is total supply: 10m coins and let PoW continue for another 1-2 weeks max with reduced block rewards. This will give XC enough time to get a proper XC multipool created so miners can continue mining after PoW is over, and instead of mining to dump XC, they will be mining to buy XC This Dev ^ Read everything please. |
