Bravo on the decrease in inflation.
I don't get why that's so complicated.
Every successful corporation spends billions per year to cut back dilution which is what a cut in subsidy and/or max cap supply is.
This is basic supply an demand and shouldn't even need an explanation. Staying true to a code which dilutes you into oblivion or kills future investor value is absurd.
And miners won't drop off any more than if you decided to add 100 trillion coins. The lower supply will result in an equal increase in price (when demand eventually increases) so miners will remain the same.
Glad the devs here made the right economic decision regarding the future inflation of this coin.
Cheers!
I WILL beat the hell out of this dead horse.
Gentlemen. Coin generation rate means nothing. Do you understand initial pricing on exchanges?
2,880,000 MYR per day x 0.00000500 MYR/BTC = 14.4BTC buy support to maintain 500 MYR assuming every miner dumps every day.
14.4BTC buy support. That's it. You can start to worry when the daily Mintpal volume approaches this number.
How do you increase the value of a coin? You give people reasons to inject their BTC in it. You don't artificially lower the coin generation rate. The innovation alone in this coin gave me a reason to inject my BTC into it on Poloniex. Now, we are doing as much as possible to build projects around Myriad so people feel confident acquiring MYR at a healthy rate.
If you artificially lower the coin generation rate, the price may "rise" initially to a proportional level (which is morally objectionable to even do in the first place), but then you still need the same number of BTC to sustain it at that level. The artificial price rise is equivalent to a pump and offers nothing to the coin except unfair advantage to everyone mining this coin in its early days.
If you invested 1BTC into Litecoin and 1BTC into Myriadcoin, you would need both to increase 100% to get 2BTC despite their relative price difference against BTC. LTC would need to jump from 0.025 LTC/BTC to 0.05 LTC/BTC while MYR would need to jump from 0.00000575 MYR/BTC to 0.00001050 MYR/BTC. Using this logic, I would actually argue that LTC's coin creation rate is way too high because we've only seen it hit 0.05 LTC/BTC once on a glorious pump. There clearly is not enough buy demand to sustain LTC anywhere above 0.03BTC
Argument over.
I will expound in my own words...
Let's make some favorable assumptions for the 'inflation steals value, period' argument:
1) Every single miner of UTC is mining and dumping as long as it is profitable to do so (Not a smart assumption. I know for a fact that it isn't true with YACoin because I mine it personally, and I hold all of those YACs)
2) If you take a snapshot of the UTC price right now, it is at the minimum price that is currently profitable to mine-and-dump.
3) All current miners are completely LOYAL, and they will mine and hold until reaching the same, constant profitability.
So with these favorable assumptions, let's say the block reward is reduced from 30 to 10 UTC per block (per minute). Supply and demand right? Since the miners are completely loyal, the difficulty is unchanged, and no one will be dumping the coin until the coin has reached triple the price. The demand will also be unchanged (another assumption), so the same buy support will still be there to maintain that level. Oh wait, but you have a lot of sell orders on the books between the current price and triple the current price, so let's make another assumption that every single buy order is removed. So you just used a little supply-and-demand logic and blasted the price up 3-fold concordantly with the 3-fold decrease in block rewards. UTC will have jumped from #150 to #87 in total marketcap. It will still be behind a YACoin clone, which has not manipulated the reward structure at all since inception, but people have different ideas of success.
UTC will prove that the marketcap/price of a coin can simply be manipulated by a dev team changing the reward structure. The news of this plan working perfectly will resonate throughout the crypto world and with economists everywhere. UTC would even prove Austrian economists wrong who claim central planning and manipulation of the money supply just doesn't work. Bitcoin will then have to reduce its block reward as well. Of course, the obvious question that will come next is: if it worked reducing the reward from 30 to 10, why not go from 10 to 1? Or 10 to 0.00000000001. Just make that supply side near zero? Right? Simple.
I will tell you my prediction. First, there will be people completely dumping the coin because they don't want to be invested in a coin that is manipulated like that. I'm sure there will be some people buying UTC anticipating a 'pump'--a pump is a pump artificial or not. However, the coin will NOT reach the triple price-point because 1) You will have a lot of sell orders to burn through of people turning a great profit 2) Mine-and-dumpers will continue to mine-and-dump because the difficulty will drop as necessary for miners to be able to turn a profit. A lot of disenchanted miners will look at other coins, which YAC will thank you for. I believe these things are already happening as part of speculation.
rapture333, I think you know that you are really banking on MORE buy support with your change in the reward structure. I personally wouldn't invest in any coin where the money supply is centrally manipulated--even if the 'dev' earned 5 PhDs and legally changed his name to Friedrich Hayek.
Finally, the whole commentary above really ignores the END money supply. I get that your plan is more about addressing the long-term reward structure vs the short term? But you still say inflation is diluting the value. The long-term inflation is zero. So it seems to me you are really saying in such a statement is that the long-term marketcap of $321,000 [100,000,000 (total Ultracoins there will ever be) X $0.00321 (current price)] is too high. Think about that...
