Hi everyone,
After months away from SolarCoin, I had a chance to read through this thread recently and found it very interesting to read and consider the various arguments being made here about economics issues, possible reworking of the SolarCoin methodology, etc.
For what it's worth I think I'll throw in my two photons.
Ever since I got into crypto, I've always believed in more of a demand-side approach to building an alternative currency. Currency, in my view, is essentially a collective fantasy. Groups of people decide to believe in the same fantasy about something, whatever it is, having "value" as "money." The decision is somewhat arbitrary, although has huge implications in the economy and society depending on what is chosen to be money. It could be a pretty mineral (gold or silver), or bank-issued debt (fiat), or a digital token created by an algorithm (most implementations of crypto), or whatever else. The key is to get large numbers of people to believe that something *should* have value -- i.e. be *given* value psychologically in the minds of society, regardless of its intrinsic worth or lack thereof -- and thus be used as a form of money.
As long as an alternative currency is perceived as "alternative," there will be a large percentage of people who, if they acquire it, will simply convert it into "mainstream" currency given the chance to do so (i.e. if markets exist).
Therefore, any alternative currency project has to solve one key issue: how to motivate at least an equal amount of *buying* of the currency by other people, to balance the selling by the people converting it into fiat. That motivation usually comes from a philosophical cause.
SolarCoin starts with an advantage over most cryptocurrencies because it is explicitly based on a cause, the cause of increasing solar power and to some degree the renewable movement in general. There are lots of passionate people out there who believe in these values -- and values can translate into "value" monetarily, if people choose to put their money where their mouth is.
I have always believed and continue to believe that SolarCoin will either catch the imagination of people who are passionate supporters of renewable energy or it won't, and that its success or failure will likely depend for the most part on this question. I don't believe in the supply-side theory that just by growing the number of grants, that will make SolarCoin a success. Most of the grants might just be turned into fiat on the markets, and that creates a vicious cycle of falling price and falling interest. What you really need is people who want to *buy* SolarCoin for ideological reasons.
If there is enough of a market for that, then it may ultimately become a significant currency. If not, it won't, no matter how many grants are distributed. So, if I were still involved in this project, I'd be doing everything possible to grow the demand side, by aggressively marketing SolarCoin to the kind of people who might want to buy it. That would mean renewable energy and sustainability activists, climate change activists and environmentalists.
I also continue to believe that any crypto project needs organization and capitalization (i.e. for paid staff, marketing, legal, and other expenses of building a startup) to have a realistic chance of success, but that's a whole other issue which would deserve a lengthy post which I don't have time or desire to write, so I think I'll just leave it there.
Y'all keep striving to use crypto to create a better world... and be smart about how you try.
Best to everyone here!
freebird