Topic: Best way of initial coin distribution - page 4. (Read 5230 times)

Giving a stake to each bitcointalk member who applies is a possibility. Its been done before. Some devs gave everyone who applied the same amount, some based the amount on bitcointalk activity rating, and some restricted the giveaway to members above a certain rank.

...or UtopianFuture.

Maybe , as an earlier poster mentioned, do it over the course of a few months. Ie minting period 1 in march, period 2 in april, period three in may, etc.

That way more people have time to participate.

So how can i game the system then? Lol

With CPU you'll mint much slower.

Does this mean that if you dont have a gpu miner for step 1 you are SOL?

After reading the suggestions I came to such a method:

1. Create a mintable Nxt subcurrency and let people mint as many coins as they can within 24 hours.
2. Create a special Bitcoin address and let those who took part in the previous step send several satoshis to back every minted coin.

These two simple steps solve sockpuppet issue (because resource testing is used), greatly reduce number of script kiddies (or school network admins) with botnets (because minted coins must be backed by bitcoins) and reduce advantage of being a Bitcoin early adopter (because minting requires a lot of GPUs and ASICs can't be used for that).

Much administration is not that bad. As many people as possible without socks because there is no need to promote the coin.

That depends on what you want to achieve with your distribution.

Is it supposed to be as easy as possible i.e. not much administration ?
Do you want to reach as many people as possible or is the generated funding more important ?
Would socks be a problem ?

What is the best always depends on the desired outcome.

Imo, this is the best way.  You could even spread out the distribution over several months before you launched the genesis block.  For instance, the percentage of NXT you own on April 1st, May 1st and June 1st determines your allotment in the genesis block and each month would distribute 33% of the currency.

100% IPO, all funds raised go to charities. IPO method is fair, no sockpuppets, and does something good. Could even be an educational non-profit that focused on crypto currencies.

edit: my preference for charity would be ones focused on alleviating extreme hunger

just a few ideas

1)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxZjpOK0pR0wMEZ2cVo0XzM0T3c/view?pli=1
https://github.com/Buskcoin/The-Chain-Gang

2) https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/creating-bitcoin-passports-using-sacrifices-140711

3) https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Zero_Knowledge_Contingent_Payment

(or a simplified version where user data is verified via a centralised db like https://www.trulioo.com/ or http://www.lexisnexis.com/risk/intl/en/instant-id-international.aspx)

the last 2 examples focus more on establishing some sort of ID to limit distribution of coins to real entities

I can't really think of any ideal method to widely distribute a coin fairly amongst a group without sacrificing user-privacy.  Ripple, Stellar and NEM were ok to get coins in the hands of those that hadn't already acquired hashing farms - they required very light verification at most but all of them were gamed. Whether it's twitter, facebook, or bitcointalk accounts they'd be brought in bulk as theres people with tons of socks .Even if it was something harder to obtain like passports or whatever being checked on a third party api (via a provable smart contract) identities would still be purchased off dark markets

I think perhaps the simplest method is a straight proof-of-burn. The more money any entity pours into the initial proof-of-burn (including the developers themselves) the more you might expect them to work for their investment- cause nobody is getting those funds back otherwise. (granted the biggest contributors might carry some passive whales on their shoulders without financial support afforded by an ICO) However at least It eliminates concerns of developers buying their own supply & massively dumping on market and theres no fixed IPO cap

The best way is IPO with full fund buy back @ ipo prices! This way the price can only go up and can not go down as long as you don't end up running away.

That's the way it worked best so far, except they all end up being scams so far.

Proof of Beluga Caviar.  

We have to distribute 100% of the coins in the beginning.

Lottoshares coin used the same type of distribution as Clams, but attempted to compensate sharecoin holders who lost out when the sharexcoin exchange was hacked.

The quote gives the exact distribution model, but the difference to the Clams model was most of the coins randomly became spendable over a period starting 2 months from launch, finishing 14 months after launch. After importing a key your wallet would show you had coins that needed tens of thousands of confirmations before they could be spent.

Why? i do not understand. thank for more explanation.

edit, genesis in nxt destroy the nxt coin, if it is that that you mean to reduce float.

The burn only really works if you could do it where it actually reduces the float rather than sending it to an unspendable address.

What about burn coin of an ipo/ico? You are then sure issuer do not self invest. In Nxt, that would mean send coin to genesis.

Wouldn't have to do all of it with exchanges first, you could use timelocks even. If you know what the exchange addresses are, you could even exclude them in the first round and make sure all the holders get their Coins first.

The Clams effect also means that the holders of the original Coin also keep their original keys so they aren't losing anything by participating.