Double negatives are sexy.

Cedric is spending a little time with his family for the holidays.
I can try to answer any questions you have regarding upcoming development.

We have discussed implementing inflation control through tx fees, along with updating the wallet to allow for donations via staking.

I am currently in communication with a crypto radio station who are interested in doing a piece on XQN.

Lots of interesting things coming down the pipeline.
A few of which, I will refrain from mentioning for the time being.

There was never any large buy support, and most (but not all) buys have eaten straight off the ask side. The value right now is higher than 2 weeks ago, with some ups and downs along the way, as is to be expected. Meanwhile, anyone that is staking, has generally increased their position in terms of absolute number of coins. What the hell are you even talking about?

What's important, is to see development moving ahead. I think that with the XAI crowd funding taking up some of Cedric's time as well, it's only natural that it will be a couple of days before we have an update, perhaps only after the crowd funding is closed. There's also something about people eating turkey and going on a shopping spree, but I suppose that's not for everyone 

I've actually been heads down focused on banging out a Quotient update/code drop and am aiming for a push EOD tomorrow or first thing Monday morning.  Also working on a few other things that go with it but you will see when that plays out.  I picked up a fantastic domain name to use partially for the QDEX feed as well as a few other features *cough* asset platform *cough*.   

One of the things we are looking at is bumping the transaction fee, as a counterbalance to inflation, and perhaps having the tx fees "burned".  5 XQN is a number that was being thrown around.  We have some time to think about that and reach a decision.

I think once we get past this big BTC auction and there is more clarity in the market surrounding the Mt Gox coin handling, things will pick back up again, generally speaking.  Friday will be an interesting trading day, between the outcome of the auction on the 4th and futures settlement.  Between now and then I expect alt markets to remain pretty flat.

Great sort-of-update Cedric! 

While I understand the need to control inflation, I'd suggest tightening the max stake reward cap to be a better solution than high tx fees being burned.

A tighter cap on max stake reward, promotes more & smaller inputs, which contributes to higher network security, and eventually causes inflation to be limited by means of max generation (max stake reward x stake units per day). Someone not-terrible-at-math could check how inflation would work out with a theoretical max stake for the entire coin supply everyday using the current reward cap, and comparatively, with a tighter reward cap (say 50% of the current maximum for example).

I'm also favorable to higher tx fees, but only as long as these are not discouraging to small transactions. In my mind, a reasonable number would be something along 0.5 ~ 1 XQN or thereabouts. Note: In any case, I don't see that tx fees alone - even as high as 5 XQN - are an effective inflation control mechanism.

Anyways, this just my personal opinion. I figure it's all food for thought.
Looking forward to the next update!

Yes anticlimax, I do realize that there's very little impact to inflation with 1 XQN tx fees. In fact, I suggested that even a 5 XQN tx fee alone is not a sufficient measure. What's worse, high transaction fees, will tax the users that are most providing liquidity, while the stake % continues to reward hoarding above all else.

The reward cap does impact the network as I explained, but only when the network has reached a point of stake saturation (which might be many months away as per the current parameters). The saturation happens when the emission has grown to such numbers, that holders effectively have to increase their block sizes in order to stake. Once the necessary stake weight is high enough, all blocks will have to be very large, causing all stakes to end up being capped, and thus inflation itself is capped.

Note: this discussion is not particularly meaningful without some numbers to look at. If there isn't a volunteer to produce a couple of simulations, I'll try to get something done next week... Heck ... I clearly had too much free time on my hands...

So here is a quick simulation.
The line in blue is for the current XQN parameters, while in green is a simulation with max stake capped at 161.8 XQN. Both graphs are assuming perfect stake generation, meaning, that every single coin is staking, and weight/size is balanced to have max reward without spilling over.
In real world conditions, the timescale will extend to a much greater length, in any case, what's represented is 180 days.

Max coins generated per day:


And how that impacts total emission:


Again, these are just simulations. In the real world, age is destroyed every time one combines/merges blocks, most blocks will not ever be hitting the max reward for the longest time, and coins moving around get their age reset. So the timescale is certainly off. However, the principles in question remain perfect valid.
I think that a tight max stake reward is the ideal way to control/limit inflation, and it does not rely or impose on a certain transactional velocity to achieve balance, it is an implicit brake on new coin generation once the current emission reaches a certain number.

If anyone cares, the maximum amount of XQN generated per day with the current stake cap is 875,088. We are obviously still very far from reaching an emission capable of generating that many coins per day. For this simulation, with stake capped at 161.8, the maximum amount of XQN generated per day would instead be 229,108.

A more aggressive stake cap could certainly be considered.
For example 61.8 (10 times less than current) would be an interesting case as well.

PS: I'm not trying to force any certain line of judgement here. Will be happy to take any and all constructive criticism!

Not at all, it's just a subject that I'm really enthusiastic about, so you pretty much just challenged me to do some math!   
See my edit above & please ignore the simplistic descriptions.

@CedricQuotient,
When you have a moment, this is something that I'd love to hear your thoughts on!

Those limits would essentially be the same as lowering the % it seems,
decreasing the % over time would be another option.
Both would relatively work the same.

Community feedback would be appreciated.

I agree decreasing % over time seems like a good way to go, I would also suggest having a coin cap at say 16,180,000

Hey, is this coin has x86 wallet?