Can someone link me to how the economics are planned to work (as far as the incentives to reward uploaders and seeders)?
I am worried that it may be similar to STEEM's economic model, which is proving to be unsustainable.
Also, the 5% PoS inflation must be considered by those that are invested in too many coins and do not want to go through the trouble of staking (read: me).
If there is anyway to make this economic model deflationary, then I highly suggest it. It is a no-brainer to invest in a deflationary cryptocurrency that has utility.
vTorrent is an interesting/exciting concept nonetheless.
I'm going to guess that a small percentage (1-3%) will be lost to transaction errors and abandon wallets leading to an actual lower inflation rate. I feel the maximum total supply of 20MM coins has a greater bearing on the price than does annual inflation rate. Also, if this project actually works, there is already an established network of users who would benefit greatly from the unique features offered by vtorrent. This should create utility and massive demand for VTR. I would expect participation rate to grow much higher than 5%/year. As a final note, making it a deflationary token might stifle its usage, as it is meant to incentivize sharing within the network rather than be a store of value like bitcoin.
Yes, coins like Steem are vulnerable to hyperinflation (+100%) without massive uptake. I'm not convinced it wasn't a scam right from the beginning.
Steem has only ~10% annual inflation (from memory) if your STEEM are powered up, which most are powered up.
3% PoS inflation combined with 1% to 3% uploader/seeder inflation incentive may be too much. It seems I will have to stake this coin if I get involved to lower that to 1% to 3%.
But, your answer is just a guess... it is really weird to me that no one seems to know how the uploader/seeder incentives will work. To be honest, it is quite worrisome to me as a potential investor.
I explained how I think it will work several pages back.
You set your own price for bandwidth.
$Zero to $1m
There was a discussion about it at the end of last year when the devs gave everyone an opportunity to have their say.
My main request was to trickle back payments to the original seeder to avoid a race to zero situation.
You also get the benefit of royalty payments going back to content creators, which encourages them to create more.
You see this on eBay where people find open source software, spend time marketing it and pretty quickly they end up selling stuff to other sellers and then everyone competes with each other on price. The originator of the whole thing gets priced out and they hardly ever recover their sweat capital.
So trickle down payments - The seeder of a file does it once and then as others help with seeding a swarm and they get a cut; but the originator is basically getting a cut from everyone, even a diminishing rate when multiplied up becomes a lot.