Topic: Fair number of coins kept by dev (Read 1781 times)

Every Dev these days give themselves huge cuts of the coins which means huge profits even if the coin isnt that successful . In my opinion more often than not this can be the death of a coin due to dev having massive dumping power, when they know they can get so much money out of their coin they dont care if they cause it to collapse since they have their profits. Bitcoin is not so bad because we are at thge stage where the founders coins are irrelevant more or less but not so with many altcoins.

Lots option already mentioned: 100% could also be a good thing. If you seriously have a good idea for some business, you shouldnt put it up for grabs in the first place.

Where is 0.000001-0.1% ?

people keep saying the dev shoulnd have coins... wtf?
he/she is the main developer, working to make it real and he/she can even have some? lol

as long as it is a small percent (1~2%) i wouldnt care. that only change in those scam ico with lots of bitcoins in donations. in that case, dev already have funds to develop so no premine for him.

First, I would work out what you would like to be compensated for work already done. Then, make a road map and budget for future development. Publish this to the public and get their feedback, and tweak if it is found to be unacceptable.

These amounts should be in a stable currency like USD. There is no way of telling how much your coin may be worth before it launches, or how much any other coin will be worth in X amount of time, so it is impossible to say whether 1%, 5%, 10%, etc. of the total money supply would be acceptable or not.

All future work should be paid in increments among reaching milestones. You should only be paid immediately for work/services already rendered.

I suggest allocating a percentage of each block (and/or the ICO distribution) to development, then allowing stakeholders to vote on development proposals. I really like the way Decred and Bitshares handle shareholder voting to allocate development funds and future development. You should look into setting up something similar for your coin. Cryptocurrencies that rely on donations for development are dead ends, because hardly anyone willingly donates to development funds, and this is a very fast paced industry. Cryptocurrencies need to evolve or die.

Yep, no one's getting my 2% from me! It's clear I should publish my distribution acheivements - about 70% of the total circ is in the hands of people in it for the long term already, with none of those owning more than 2%

Thank you for your input!

Yes, zero premine. If he needs aditional funding he should use devcoin example and get small payout per block.

Conflict of interest is a problem but if he doesn't hold his own coin he also has no incentive to make it great. It's best for him to make his holdings public on the chain and also tell people his plan of purchase and selling. If he is following a longterm predefined buy and sellshedule i don't see an issue. He should hold his coins for longterm and not engage in daily tradingactivities. His coins are a commodity for him to reap reward of his work.

Maybe corret that a little: he shouldn't be among his 10 largest invests, maybe 20 even. So him being his second largest investor is still a bit too much imo. But somewhere on 20th or 30th spot should be perfectly fine. I think a dev holding 2% or 3% of his coin that he mined or bought and is holding public and not daily trading is ok.

Dev holdings and buy/sell shouldn't be a big topic actually. His default should be "hold". And only buy for hold longterm and only sell with weeks and months notice ahead and in small chunks - and never sell out completely.
Dev really shouldn't make more than 4 or 5 trades a year because he's a dev and not a trader.

That's a useful statement and one which certainly applies in my case. The poll is about premine in the context of reward for developer - so you are saying that you are in the nothing at all camp but with the developer having free license to purchase and mine as he wishes

Do you not think that this raises potential conflicts of interest?

For my project which I have worked on for two years I have capped myself and those who have bought coins from me at 2%. Incidentally myself and the existing community had no access to any premine.

Are you saying that as long as there is someone with more coins than the me the amount should be uncapped e.g. you'd be comfortable investing in a coin if, say, one other person owned 12% and the dev owned 10%?

I say this believing that in cryptocurrencies the primary mechanism for value appreciation is the network effect, and I see large holders impeding this. Very interested to hear contrasting views!

It's fair for the dev to hold as many coins as he can buy or mine but he sholdn't be his own largest investor. The poll is useless.

It seems that so far despite the nothing at all camp in the lead there are more votes in the top two categories combined so 1.5% and over.

Leaving voting open

Great engagement and feedback so far

I think Carboncoin have hit the nail on the head with regard to distribution and incentive - an awesome model, well done Axis

Would you mind telling me what the above might be worth to you in terms of market capitalisation as an estimate?

If you were going to do an ICO what proportion would you sell and for how much?

Would an incorporated development company behind the protocol be of interest to you over and above an ICO?

It is how the coins are used by the dev that counts far more than the % retained.
With a full ledger with detailed costings then there is no issue with the development team having 50% in theory.
I mean if you know exactly to the cent how the coins were liquidated and used for the development then it is still fair.
There should be milestones and detailed costing plans put forth before release. Measures put in place to ensure those are met.
In this case the coins are simply distributed via exchanges and development costs are covered as you go. The more development the more it costs and hopefully the more advanced and desirable the currency becomes.
The original dev team should put forth a detailed costing plan with milestones the large development pot is then released over time to them as is set forth in the plan.



What is more important is where the coins that are not kept by the dev team go . Mining with a fair release protocol is the best way to ensure they are disbursed equally. Or a fully transparent ICO with board user names listed. There is no real 100% fair way to ensure non dev pot coins are distributed fairly but with a bit of analysis you can either puppet accounts have to work harder or some accounts are struck off from having the right to buy in. With a largely advertised pow launch with pools at the start and fast increasing diff it is hard for single entities to grab up vastly unfair swathes of gpu mined coins. Even if they do they are having to expend energy at the same rate as everyone else albeit at different energy costs. Then again they have had to buy the hardware at similar rates to everyone else. That's about as fair as you can ensure.

Huge % grabbed that are not accounted for and monitored can be used for market manipulation. This is what you do not want.

The currency should be valued upon its merits and desirability/functionality.

Development costs time and money. There is no problem paying for that at a reasonable rate.
The development pot is there to reward reasonably the devs for producing something very useful. If they do then they should be paid very well but it should not be a guarantee to making a fortune even when producing nothing or something of low value.

The problem with it at the moment is that devs are in a win win position. They need to be put in a win if they produce something of worth and risk of not getting paid out if milestones are not reached position.

It depends?

1. What are the developer's credentials? (education, experience, past projects, etc.)
1a. Is the developer anonymous?
2. How long and how hard will you dedicate yourself to the project? (6 months means nothing. You need to specify whether it is 5 hours per week for 6 months or 40+ hours per week for 6 months)
2a. You need to provide some way for shareholders to audit that you are spending that much time on the project, and give shareholders the ability to approve coin distribution in portions (for example- 1 portion per month worked.)
3. Is your idea/vision for the cryptocurrency valuable? Will it fill a niche, solve a problem, have competition, be the 2nd (or 3rd, or 4th, etc) to market, be valuable if developed as planned, be possible to develop?

Some people will adamantly say 0%.

Others (me including) will judge cryptocurrencies on a case-by-case scenario using some arbitrary combination of the parameters I listed above (and others, as that list is incomplete).

Thank you for taking the time on this. I think you are spot on, have messaged hoping for a further discussion

(Please click the links, as they are essential to understanding this post.)

This is a very important question.

This is a difficult question to answer, because developers need to be funded if we expect any realistic chance of actually fixing our F.U.B.A.R. crypto ecosystem within any rapid timeframe.

Also we'd like the developers to have a vested interest in improving the ecosystem. Ideally every token hodler would be a developer also, but that isn't realistic so we rely on developers.

Yet when the insiders control a significant portion of the tokens (and/or the tokens trade on a corrupt exchange), the price and market cap can be manipulated in a way that transfers all the gains to the insiders and leaves most of the speculators holding an empty bag at the end.

Ideally we'd prefer not to rely on trust, because trust is a honeypot that attracts those who will break the trust. And thus trust replaces "the code is the law" with "politics is the law".

There will exist no perfected solution. For example, Monero claims they launched what I define to be a "fair", competitively mined, free market distribution, but this just handed all their funding to utility companies because paying for electricity for mining is financially equivalent to paying for tokens and/or to those who amassed economies-of-scale cost advantages such as mining farms (even stolen cloud cloud computing accounts) with cheap (even stolen) electricity. Thus proof-of-work launches are not trustless either, and they throw all the funding into the garbage can.

I plan to offer a fair, competitively priced, free market alternative to aforementioned disadvantages of an ICO or proof-of-work launch, which can fund the developer while mathematically placing an upper bound of the percent of the launch tokens the developer can possibly own. While this can't guarantee that the percentage is less than 2% (more realistic guarantees are 10 - 20%) of the launch money supply, it can guarantee (under reasonable assumptions) that the percentage is less than 2% of the long-term money supply (assuming there is an ongoing tail distribution block reward). So while this can't entirely eliminate the possibility of the insiders owning enough coins to do some short-term manipulation to drive the price and market cap higher, it does at least provide some reasonable bounds. And the advantage is the developers are funded. So my conceptual innovation, will offer the speculator a choice to have a mathematically bounded balance between trust and trustless, with the advantage being the developers are funded. Note again, proof-of-work launches are not trustless either, and they throw all the funding into the garbage can.

I plan to use this new conceptual way to launch, to offer speculators to invest some small portion of their net worth in a project and developer(s) they feel will be good for the long-term development of our crypto ecosystem. A long-term holding for ideological reasons, not just monetary return on investment but also ideological accomplishment return on investment. Note again, proof-of-work launches are not trustless either, and they throw all the funding into the garbage can.

If you read my threads, you will know I am against trust and politics of trust (being I am a minanarchist leaning full blown anarchist). I would prefer a launch that has no trust, but I can't think of a way to fund development without any trust whatsoever. But at least the produced token software will be a trustless protocol. So some trust and some leadership is necessary to produce the trustless end. The end justifies the means.

Perfection is for incapable dreamers who handicapped themselves with their perfectionist delusion. The real world requires a balancing act. Let's get the balance right.

---

bump. 

Well, it can actually work. I know the real identity of pretty much everybody (except the dev and three other guys, but I respect their choices, because everything they did so far was good). Everyone else I have on Facebook for example. 6 of us exposed ourselves here and tbh, it's easy thing to do once you have nothing to hide. Truth is that you just can't succeed without real "investors" (people outside your community who follow your work and "invest" in it). No matter how good are your intentions.

P.S. Btw the % of a currency you hold does not matter if you don't measure it in Bitcoin or fiat (i.e. you are looking at your coin only) and you are using it properly.

Pleasure to meet you too.

Cheers,
Spartak

The lesson I learnt is if a system relies to much on honesty then it's probably not really suitable for humans

There's a really good documentary on netflix about it called "(dis)honesty" which I would very much recommend


At the heart of the Carboncoin are 8 who help regularly and many many more on stand by.

We've grown a community of about 500 people who have bought coins to hold on to since we started.

We've done our best to ensure that no one individual owns more than 2% apart from the charity which has just over 4%. That said, many have come and gone seeking short term gains to throw at the next pump. They don't do anyone any good.

A pleasure to make your acquaintance.