There was a discussion on ravencointalk.org a couple months back about the cost of burning RVN for assets. Different ideas were pitched, but all of them had flaws that eventually came back to 500 RVN being the best option. The cost to create assets should not be minimal as it directly affects the token economics of the coin. If (when?) raven becomes widely successful, and the value of the coin makes a 500 RVN burn amount cost prohibitive, the burn price can then be reevaluated and adjusted accordingly. The $1 price point has been discussed internally quite a bit, and $500 to create an asset is very reasonable considering who will be creating assets at that point, and what they will be used for.
You can read more on this discussion at https://www.ravencointalk.org/post/discussion-on-the-rvn-cost-to-create-assets-9735335?&trail=10.
Page 4 is where Tron addresses many of the comments and the reasoning behind the current burn amount.
You can read more on this discussion at https://www.ravencointalk.org/post/discussion-on-the-rvn-cost-to-create-assets-9735335?&trail=10.
Page 4 is where Tron addresses many of the comments and the reasoning behind the current burn amount.
Max supply (21,000,000,000) / 500 per asset = 42,000,000 possible assets. If you burn all those there wouldn't be any Raven left. They need a much deeper drive into burning Raven and the value when there few or potentially no Raven coins left.
