Topic: [DVC]DevCoin - Official Thread - Moderated - page 96. (Read 1058949 times)

I explained why in previous posts.

Edit: Main change motivation seems to be lower/limited supply and/or deflation. It doesn't therefore seem logical to convert existing supply (particularly a method with perpetual optionality) and expect a changed outcome.

The past is over. Gone. Those that contributed nothing by definition wouldn't be further rewarded because they have no skin in the game.

I did say "It may not reward holders".

what do you mean it wouldnt reward those that contributed 'nothing.' the fact that ppl believed in the project and actually took risk and bought dvc is not doing nothing. all ppl w/ dvc should be rewarded one way another bc they "contributed" by buying the coin!! hello? they are called passive investors. think community, together, in-this-together, inclusive, teamwork, etc. even as i write this im contributing to the betterment of dvc's future.

dont just say you dont agree without substantiating. please tell us why you dont agree.

I get where you're coming from. But pragmatically (whatever my own preference) in event of a fork a choice has to be made between best interests of the old vs the new.
Each has potential to hugely undermine the other, so a fix or new is necessary imo. Not something in between.

I don't agree but share the frustration.

It may not reward holders but it wouldn't reward those that contributed nothing. Otherwise that's not generally correct. There are definitely many issues with share allocations/concentrations but shares actually function(ed) as a pseudo measure of difficulty.

We know that:
$ value of share = DVC per share * DVC/BTC * BTC/USD

Just rearranged = DVC/BTC = $ share value/(DVC per share * (BTC/USD))

Therefore the more shares, the higher DVC price. This has always been the biggest issue. The early period of highest prices was an outlier because the few participants were believers rather than participants in a sustainable project.

What's perhaps debatable is whether price leads shares or vice-versa (I think price leads shares) but if you plot the two you'll see they track. What should have happened was an adjustment to dynamic supply where generation is inverse to dvc per share. Or something like that.

It is just an idea. Not final at all. Just to keep that in mind while designing the whole system.
Constant rate increase looks good until 1 say satoshi reached. Or maybe 10. But later it possible create problems with the exchange with constant increase of "reserve" for future conversions up to enormous amount. It greatly depends on unpredictable conversion demand changing over time.

We need to keep this obvious flaw of this proposal in mind. I can't  even imagine what distribution law applicable to that conversion-rate scheme. Completelly no idea ATM. It prevents me from predicting any demand in conversion with the reasonable rate change approach. Linear 20% a week increase is just for illustrative purpose - no rational behind this figure.

I think the rate increase idea would be a fundamental mistake. Not sure how else to explain why so will leave it at that.

I am actually 100% on board with the method provided whereby they'd convert for very little and after a year or two would be worth full value and keep going higher. This does two things: as you stated, it would keep the dumping from happening in the beginning, and at the same time would offer a PoS-like setup for existing users that rewards the longer-term holders.

Day T is not set at all. That is a idea.

The rate increase is set, not target date.

1 satoshi is not a final target - it is not even a target, it is just an ordinary exchange rate somewhere in future. Next week will give 1.2 satoshi. Another week - another 20% increase etc.

1, 10, 100, 1000 satoshis per DVC to be a reached someday with gradual exchange rate increase. But without any deadlines. Rate increase can be slowed down over the time

---

I have contributed a lot. And have a lot of DVC. They are worthless now. If there will be no conversion to a new coin in the future - no problem. No changes to my DVC wallet - zero stays zero.

---

Just take a look at the price chart:
https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/devcoin/

DVC was dumped all the time. Just from the beginning.
And it will be repeated with the new coin unless significant changes to reward distribution system. Even small fraction of existing devcoins converted to a new one will ruin new coin in days. I'm trying to develop reasonable way to sort it out with not devcoin holders left behind.

It will be very hard task.

The WORST thing you can do for long-term DVC members/contributors is not reward for existing holding. You would essentially be saying "So you contributed to DVC? Cool. You held your coins instead of dumping them because you believed in the project? Well, you should have just tanked it with the others because now you get nothing at all! Oh, by the way, interested in joining us on a new project?" Anyone that did this would end up with no reason NOT to continually dump at that point, because you'd be showing that it's the "right" thing to do.

You would literally be rewarding those that contributed nothing and continually dumped their free coins on the market, which is at least part of what caused this anyways (price was MUCH higher, 120+ satoshis, before a huge influx of people started getting added to the receivers. As more people were added, the more dumps occurred, which can be seen by just following its history).

It doesn't matter whether day T is set. The issue is the scale of existing optionality.

Devcoin's basic problem is already patience/greed vs. 'reward os dev'. People are people and doesn't seem much point starting anew to immediately rely on a different result from that trade-off.

"Once conversion to new coin.." - that's my point. I don't know what the solution is but would certainly be better to force all conversion at 1000:1 on day 1 (0.16 btc equiv) than 1:1 on day T (160 btc equiv).

Day T is not set.
It depents on patience and greed
So Day T will be distributed over some time, possible years.
It can help to aviod appearence of Day T on day 1. Even on day 100, 200 etc.
Take a look at Coingather - there are hundred of millions ready to dump. But there are no buy side - no possibilities to dump now.

Once conversion to new coin will be in place - all these hundred of millions will be dumped ruining the exchange rate of new coin to virtually zero.

Ok but in practice, for example:

Day 1: New coin, deflation/limited generation.
Day 1: Option to convert at 1000:1 sat equivalent - no thanks.
Day 8: Option to convert at 800:1 sat - no thanks.
...
Day T: Option to convert at 1:1 sat. Equivalent of 16 billion old coins (160 btc) dumped into existence.

Makes little sense. Price today is the knowable discounted future value. People are not stupid. If I know it's coming on future day T that will affect my choices today. Even more undermining if I know that conversion optionality can be exercised at any time - i.e. the option is perpetual.

Yes. Exactly. Dump later not now.
It new coin will not succeed - then better rate never become a reality, but if we put good conversion from the beginning - there will be no future at all.
And rational holders should be rewarded a bit, doesnt it?

Just give a new coin some time to breathe and gain strength. Do not "premine" or give any other possibilities to dump coins just from the beginning.

I'm saying that if you increasingly reward holdouts, rational holders will obviously just dump all coins at the last possible moment instead.
And at a better rate, which would undermine above objectives (deflation, price etc) far more.

(this is just about what's been discussed, not necessarily my own opinion where I agree it should just be a new project).

You want to force devcoin holders to dump all coins at the beginning of new coin?
Then there should be an enormous source of new coins for conversion of old devcoin to new ones.

I'm personally against any conversion/renewal actions.

New coin should be the new one without any "premining" heritage from old coin.

But, if new Devcoin team will reach an agreement that old devcoins need to be converted to new one - then we have to think about convertion mechanism which will help us to avoid huge dump of old devcoins through Renewal/Conversion system.
New coin will be burried alive if 16 billion of devcoin (OK, even if 10% of existing devcoins) will be "immediatelly" converted and dumped.
6 years of generation produced too much coins. Even a portion of it will kill new one once conversion system will be in place.

So the possible solution is to offer unfair conversion rate at the start of the conversion system offering much better rates for patient holders.

But, again, I'm strictly against any conversions for old devcoin. Just let it die and do not try to dig out its corpse.

Way too complicated and will work counter to your objective.

DVC distribution likely very concentrated and biggest holders those with the greatest power yet reluctance to change things. If you think current form doesn't work why [increasingly] reward holdouts? (that may include me btw). I don't get the point of conversion, but if anything the rate should get increasingly worse, not better.

Either just apply distributional changes to existing, or move on to fundamentally new.

Devcoin was launched on July 22, 2011. For six years there are nearly 16 billion of Devcoins.
In order to renew old Devcoins at the rate of 1 satoshi it will require about 160 BTC or about USD500K.
This is just for conversion/renewal alone.

What we need to do to avoid DVC flood for DRS?
Lets make conversion rate to rise gradually over time. It means the later you apply for a  conversion - the better conversion rate you have.

For example 1000 DVC to be converted to New DVC (nDVC) at the rate 1000 DVC for nDVC equal to one satoshi.
For a first week. Then increase the rate by 20% - 800 DVC for satishi.
In 32 weeks it will reach current rate of 1 DVC for 1 satoshi. And 10 times increase (to 1 DVC for 10 satoshi) in one year.

10% rate increase give us 1 DVC to 1 satoshi in about 66 weeks. 1 DVC to 10 satoshi - in 88 weeks. etc.

This is just an example - the rate can be made flexible and the rate change over time can be flexible as well. Maybe I'm not good at math But in any case this is an idea to implement DRS without flash sales at the beginning.

It will be completelly not wise to dump existion bitcoins almost for nothing. All existing DVC for 0,16 BTC at the start of DRS. Or keep it for a one year and get current rate (Coingather sometimes have some buy support at this rate, but in general it is impossible to sell even few million devcoins at this rate, for DVC/LTC pair it will be about 0.6 of satoshi for DVC, DVC/DOGE at about 0.4).

Yes, I undestand that this sounds like a Ponzi scheme, but this is reasonable limitation for a renewal service if we want to keep old devcoin, not just dump it.

The conversion rate increase should be made publicly available, rate change should be clear and predictable.

---

Regarding Receivers. I think it will be better to implement Smart Contracts to New DVC.
Will possibility to "invest" or "directly" donate open source projects within blockchain.
Maybe with GitHub intergation.
Make Master Smart Contract which will deal with charity/donations on regular basis.

Yes, it will require some coding work. Surely it will require serious changes to blockchain itself. Etherium as the base or something like this.

---

Block reward distribution thoughts:
10% to miners (in case of merged mining) or 25% for standalone mining.

60% of the rest for Receivers (55% of total for merged and 45% for standalone mining).
And the last portion for Devcoin development/promotion.

Say for the first year with quarterly review of this scheme.

consider masternodes for a better receiver system, current one sucks and is centralized. The innovation you need to do is do figure out how to vote out masternodes for non-performance.

develCuy, do you have more details on what the Devcoin -new characteristics would be?