Topic: [eMunie] eMunie Tech & General Q&A Thread - Get Involved - page 4. (Read 15671 times)

If I understand correctly, (and Im sure Fuseleer will correct me otherwise) the price is not set in stone or fixed as such, rather the protocol is designed to keep the price stable by adjusting the supply of new currency to fit the demand.

High demand? The system creates more eMu: the price stays steady.

Low demand? The system lowers the rate of new eMu creation.

The price is allowed to fluctuate in small amounts day by day but is prevented from boom/bust.


eid

Overall sounds like it has some potential. Glad to see something new coming out of the woodwork for a change.

What is the launch date for eMunie EMU?

I don't want to sound naive, but how exactly will the market decide the value of eMunie at launch? (perhaps I missed the post)  And once that price is set somehow, is that in stone and then it's 5% increase a year from that point on?  Just trying to understand the pricing model.  Would love to see a thorough Wiki on everything, although I realize you are probably swamped.

Very well, thanks for the explanation. I like the model, even if the initial pumping scheme is absent (or particularly because of that absence )


In that example, does "supply inflation of 1000%" mean 10x the amount of prelaunch issued coins are requested?

So the price of one Emu in USD terms remains the same throughout its life? What if people holding Emu sell to each other below this rate?

And once again, intruding: Why is the prelaunch purchase data not public?
I thought the sale was ongoing from Nov 18th to Dec 18th?
Who will decide the price, during the sale and after launch?

Thanks  

Yup, upon the announcement it will be open to everyone at that point

Will pre-launch sale be open to me even though I'm not a beta-tester? I would possibly like to buy a few thousand.

Originally (like 6 months ago) a 20-80 split was the idea....since then though we've done quite a bit of work with various models and analysis and determined that a split such as that would give too much power to the hatcher owners.   In the end a 50-50 split was deemed the most optimal in terms of keeping the currency supply nicely distributed.

No the price at launch isn't decided at all, that is down to the market, $0.10 was just as an example as that is value that was decided by the eMunie community for the initial pre-launch sale that is coming up shortly.

Good explanation Fuseleer, makes perfect sense. There will be inflation, but not like the FIAT inflation, where you actually loose value when you hold your money.

Both of you guys are making the same mistake that all do when I explain the above...I don't mean that as criticism, everyone makes the same assumption that a stable, gentle value increase doesn't give good return.

The ROI isn't made by the value, its made by the supply increase (msin you were SO close).

Assume I have 1000 eMu that cost me $100 @ $0.1 each and I was an early adopter.  All being well, eMunie will be a great success and there will be a lot of demand, but also assume that over time a nice easy uptrend in value is attained, and that 5% over that first year is met.

My 1000 eMu at the end of the 1st year is now worth $105 ($0.105 per eMu), not a great increase, supply inflation however due to huge demand is 1000% over the year.  New supply eMu is roughly split 50:50 between balance holders and hatchers as reward for clearing transactions.  I am a balance holder, so balance holders over the year will see a 500% increase in the amount of eMu they hold.

I'm now holding 5000 eMu @ $0.105 which equals $525, a nice ROI while at the same time giving a predictable, stable value of each unit.

Some might say that 1000% inflation is too large, but I pose these 2 arguments to counter that position:

1.  BitCoin and many other alt's have seen value increase upwards and above of 1000% this year alone, BTC in the past 3 months has risen from ~$100 to $1000, that is 1000%
2.  Unlike fiat inflation, eMunie inflation isn't stealing value from itself, the value comes from outside via the demand as people are buying in with some other form of valuable medium.

With BitCoin, the amount of BTC units is capped and creation of them is strictly controlled by the system over time.  The problem with this model is that value is pouring in from a virtually unlimited source, to a limited quantity of units.   Value can't be destroyed, so the only way for BTC to absorb that incoming value over time is for the overall value of each unit to increase, which leads to these HUGE unpredictable rally's, then sudden crashes as that value is then removed back out of the system for profit.

eMunie absorbs this incoming value via supply inflation which is distributed around the system proportionally and equally, so instead of increasing the value of individual units, the quantity of units instead is increased as required.

It is this which allows both stable value, PLUS the opportunity to profit long term and gain a ROI.

I fully agree with this. We need to be able to see beyond the quick and dirty pyramid altcoin atmosphere to build something worthwhile.

But the psychological fact remains that limiting initial investment ROI is a disappointment and greatly discourages investment. Is this the reason why it's so hard to clearly outline the range of initial potential profits, and for instance give out info about the amount of pre-launch allocation sold already?

Are profits for the initial investors technically capped at 5% per year? If not, what's a reasonable estimation / technical limit for the systemic roof for the profits of initial investors, say 1 month or 1 year from launch?

I think 5% is a great target gain for any stable currency, however, I do think that some (if not most) early investors would look for a bigger pay out.  People are pretty crazy right now with BTC valuation and alt coin potential.  I think what Emunie is trying to accomplish is bigger and more important that making a few early investors rich, and if it's popular, everything will take care of itself.

Also, from what I understand, when there is demand generated for eMu  (i.e. someone puts in a buy order for eMu), new eMu will be generated and distributed to those that already hold the currency, at which time the holders can decide to sell it. 

Apologies I remember reading this and thought I had replied, pretty mad over here.

You have the idea the wrong way around, the supply & demand model wants to keep the value on a shallow upward trend, of around 5% per year, and minimal daily fluctuations are fine as all currencies (even "stable" fiat) have these daily fluctuations and trying to control them too would be very difficult and not what I want the system to be.

It's a 2 part system, one part attempts to achieve a steady predictable upward trend over a longer period of time, the second part attempts to combat large value peaks and troughs.

Ultimately what the model should achieve is a long term predictable uptrend of value, whilst at the same time preventing the market from creating pump & dumps and sudden bulltraps etc.

It isn't unlimited in its scope though, if there is a consistent upward trend, over and above what the system want to keep, that upward trend will win out over time. Likewise on the flip side of the coin (heh nice pun) if a large holder is trying to pump the price and has more eMu reserves than the system has available to combat it, that pump will eventually win out.

One thing that this model can't do anything about is a general downward trend over time, it can't take supply OUT of the system (unless the system buys it with reserves it has and holds it) but generally with current crypto's, downward trends haven't been a source of problem as we can see from the $1000/BTC valuation currently.

Feel free to ask anything else, I'll make sure I catch it this time

Yes, would like an answer to this one. The coin sounds nice but where's the profit, Am I missing something?

Posting this for the third time now: (not setting a good example ignoring questions you find awkward imo).

I have a question about the demand based supply, as I'm sure other potential investors do too. If the point of the demand based supply is supposed to keep the price stable and avoid minimal fluctuations (correct?) what do I stand to gain from taking a big risk and investing my money by buying the currency? If the price is designed to remain stable how do I justify the lack of big potential payoff for the risk of investing?

As we all know in the early stages for a crypto currency actual usage for products and services is extremely limited and adopters are mostly drawn in by the investment potential. Once enough investors have been drawn in the coin gains critical mass and then there's enough people holding the coin to make it worthwhile for services to accept payment for it etc. This is what happened with Bitcoin and is happening with Litecoin.

Interested to hear your thoughts on this. My take on it is that you should not introduce a system to stabilise the price until after the coin has been very well distributed amongst adopters... Or perhaps incrementally increase the strength of the stablisation process... so the effect doubles in strength every interval.

got it....really looking forward to the features roadmap

The only eMu created at launch will be those that have been bought via investment prior to launch...there wont be any "secret" 100M eMu created on top of that or anything of the sort.

Over time new eMu are created depending on market demand and this is regulated by the system itself and its NOT constant.  Some weeks might be a lot, other none, it depends totally on what the market wants and the supply adjusts accordingly.

With that in mind, eMunie has no set limit...the limit is defined by the point where the market doesn't want anymore eMu.

Someone in another thread a while a go made the common mistake of stating that something with no demand over supply is worthless, which is incorrect...

Assume that everyone on earth has 10000 eMu, and it is enough each for everyone's needs...no one needs any more eMu, so no more eMu is created...demand < supply...that doesn't make an eMu worthless though, everyone is using it for daily transactions and such.

Does that answer what you needed?  I wasn't sure if I understood exactly what you wanted to know

Someone really told you that you were stupid? :S  I'm sure they didn't mean it sincerely, we have an odd bunch on the forums and some of them get carried away lol

Why wont this sleeping dog lie, ok, I'll pose a different scenario as to why I'm opposed to open source at launch.

I get all the above points and they are valid, no doubt, but the only point that everyone seems to keep concentrating on is clones and not the secondary point that I've raised many times.  I've never said never to open source, I've just declined to do it at launch....so....

eMunie at launch will have most of the additional features in basic form, messaging, chat, IM, ratings, profiles and a ton of other stuff will be bare bones functional.  Core functions will be complete, namely transactions (of course), ENS and P2P marketplace (aside from additional non-core functions later).

With that in mind, lets assume that we release open source at launch, and a competitor picks up the code....I dunno, Nxt is java and eMunie and Nxt are mentioned a lot in the same sentence so lets use them as the competitor.

We have announced our roadmap moving forward so everyone including NxT knows where we are going and what we are focusing.

Now, Nxt devs think, "hey, this chat is pretty cool, we'll grab that, and how eMunie manages to do it all P2P distributed including the security and focus just on that feature" they go off and spend 3 months solid improving our chat from the basic implementation.   We go off and improve/develop everything according to our roadmap.

Lets now assume that chat is the killer feature that crowns the next crypto, yes I know its unlikely, but its just an example.  Nxt have just concentrated solely on implementing out souped up chat starting at our code, we've been developing everything including chat and NxT's is better.

If that feature is the deciding factor, then we have just killed our chance of #1 spot because we released our code at a point where we have no edge on anyone else, and Nxt was able to get the edge overall because of the feature that was the decider on who became #1

THAT is the main reason I'm not inclined to release the source at launch, the goal here is to create a client so comprehensive in features and its execution over time that no one else can get a look in.  If we release the code before most of that is done, but the hard work and foundations are in place, then we just shoot ourselves in the foot and create real potential competition ourselves, which is quite simply crazy!

In closing, one of you points above is not true, loyalty...or more to the point, lack of it.  If BTC wasn't worth as much as it is, and was comparable in value to a competitor that was only slightly better, most would jump ship overnight.   This crypto arena is a kill or be killed environment both from the user side of things and the developer, so your claim that people would "stick with the original" isn't totally true.