trying to make it fair:
Premine - fantastically given for free within hours
within days:
- faircoin, coin2, informationcoin
within weeks:
- community coin
within months:
NEM
- these have kinda same stakes
- all of them can suffer from sockpuppets
simple IPO:
Simcoin - distribution is then more realistic: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6313337
- "unfair" distribution in Nxt style, but it copies real world and real world actually is a good example
- no sockpuppeting
Proof of Bounty and Node - NHZ
- this system is very good, because you get reward only if you really help to the coin - proof of bounty is a good way for online projects / Magazines, like Coinsource coin..
Some people already acknowledged, that if there are stakeholders with big stakes, they can actually protect the coin from dumping made by massive number of users that are uncontrolled
Topic: How to make a fairer 100% PoS distribution scheme ? (Read 556 times)
POS distribution needs proof of person. Not impossible to do but it does require effort, time (and costs).
-identity documents (social security, tax id, drivers license, passport)
-mobile phone verification (hard to create sockpuppets that have have unique phone number)
-reply to an old fashioned letter sent to an address (not a PO box)
etc etc
There are plenty of ways to achieve proof of person, but they involve time and money.
Have a look at InformationCoin & CommunityCoin IPOs - they're using FaceBook accounts with minimum activity requirements.
It's actually easy for serious coin developers if they plan it out. Sockpuppets are easy to eliminate, and combined with free coins (and a reasonable dev %), there should be numerous good POS coins soon.
-identity documents (social security, tax id, drivers license, passport)
-mobile phone verification (hard to create sockpuppets that have have unique phone number)
-reply to an old fashioned letter sent to an address (not a PO box)
etc etc
There are plenty of ways to achieve proof of person, but they involve time and money.
Have a look at InformationCoin & CommunityCoin IPOs - they're using FaceBook accounts with minimum activity requirements.
It's actually easy for serious coin developers if they plan it out. Sockpuppets are easy to eliminate, and combined with free coins (and a reasonable dev %), there should be numerous good POS coins soon.
Look at mintcoins distribution model, i think it is alot fairer.
Only 27% distributed in the initial distribution stage (pow) and the remaining 73% will be generated through pure pos minting.
20% will be minted the first year, 15% the second year, 10% third year and then 5% per year until max coins is reach.
With this high pos reward price will be kept low and stable the first years meaning people can buy in cheap for a long time.
And everybody will get the pos reward no matter how many coins you have.
Only 27% distributed in the initial distribution stage (pow) and the remaining 73% will be generated through pure pos minting.
20% will be minted the first year, 15% the second year, 10% third year and then 5% per year until max coins is reach.
With this high pos reward price will be kept low and stable the first years meaning people can buy in cheap for a long time.
And everybody will get the pos reward no matter how many coins you have.
But this occurs at the expense of market position?
Mintcoins price will stay low and allow for the cheap acquisition of coins but it kills the market cap of the coin for the same period of time.
Won't this mean that during the 2-3 years it is seen as a less valuable coin to invest in / develop / easily manipulated prices etc?
G.
Look at mintcoins distribution model, i think it is alot fairer.
Only 27% distributed in the initial distribution stage (pow) and the remaining 73% will be generated through pure pos minting.
20% will be minted the first year, 15% the second year, 10% third year and then 5% per year until max coins is reach.
With this high pos reward price will be kept low and stable the first years meaning people can buy in cheap for a long time.
And everybody will get the pos reward no matter how many coins you have.
Only 27% distributed in the initial distribution stage (pow) and the remaining 73% will be generated through pure pos minting.
20% will be minted the first year, 15% the second year, 10% third year and then 5% per year until max coins is reach.
With this high pos reward price will be kept low and stable the first years meaning people can buy in cheap for a long time.
And everybody will get the pos reward no matter how many coins you have.
I think for a crypto '2.0' coin to enjoy a wide adoption
Well, there is Coin2.0 already
You are missing NHZ, a good one too.
I like NXT but I don't like its horribly skewed distribution of coins to the initial investors -- with the 71 of them holding most of the coins that would ever exist. I've checked out the so-called NXT alternatives, and they don't seem any better to me:
Network Asset System (NAS) is a blatant rip-off of NXT, but with a slightly prettier website. They don't bother to offer anything new, the source code is completely identical to NXT except with some constants altered here and there. The whole codebase, including even the package names and jar file names, are identical to NXT -- just repackaged under a new name and logo. NAS suffers from the same problem a NXT, namely having a shit distribution of the coin. In fact, it's even worse with NAS since most of its coins are concentrated among 36 initial investors.
Nextcoin Lite (NXTL has an ongoing IPO which should be closing anytime now. 60% of the coins will be distributed amongst these 1000 or so IPO investors, with the developers holding the remaining 40% for promotions (15%), development support (15%), misc (10%). The whole thing about NXTL screams amateurish to me, with the numerous spelling errors on the announcement page ('memeber', 'Adress', etc).
New Economy Movement (NEM) is actually something I can get into. The developer teams look decent, at least, and they seem to have the good intention of standing behind the coin long term, while still trying to distribute it to the public fairly. I don't like the fact that in their wordings, NEM seems to try to pass of a lot of NXT features as its own (alias system, asset exchange, etc) and not making it obvious that those are features from NXT. The initial IPO period of NEM is just about over, having gathered ~ 3000 investors from bitcointalk. Their FAQ page in Reddit claims that NEM will include a 'Proof of Importance' (PoI) coin generation that rewards people for actively using NEM as a currency, discouraging hoarding. The people most important in maintaining the network receive the highest coin rewards, not the people with the most NEM. How exactly they would do this is not clear yet.
It's clear to me that NAS and NXTL are quick schemes designed to make the developers richer while still keeping the coins at the hands of the initial investors. None of them, except NEM, also offer or plan to offer anything new to extend the NXT codebase in their 'fork', with NAS being the worst among the three. A fundamental problem with these pure 100% PoS coin is that most of the coins would inevitably be concentrated among early adopters. Since a coin announcement is often made in this forum, people who know about it (and become early investors) are only those who are already a member of the crypto community, locking out the general public.
I think for a crypto '2.0' coin to enjoy a wide adoption, we have to attempt to get the coin into as many hands as possible -- even after the initial IPO is over. This means reaching out to the wider audience beyond just this bitcointalk forum. It probably also means altering the coin's characteristic to prevent hoarding and discourage the rich-gets-richer syndrome, where only big coin holders can actually earn anything from forging, and therefore have no incentives to spend their stash. But the nature of 100% PoS coin means that inevitably developers or some initial investors would always hold most of the coins. So .. How would you propose a fairer distribution scheme of a 100% PoS coin ?
Network Asset System (NAS) is a blatant rip-off of NXT, but with a slightly prettier website. They don't bother to offer anything new, the source code is completely identical to NXT except with some constants altered here and there. The whole codebase, including even the package names and jar file names, are identical to NXT -- just repackaged under a new name and logo. NAS suffers from the same problem a NXT, namely having a shit distribution of the coin. In fact, it's even worse with NAS since most of its coins are concentrated among 36 initial investors.
Nextcoin Lite (NXTL has an ongoing IPO which should be closing anytime now. 60% of the coins will be distributed amongst these 1000 or so IPO investors, with the developers holding the remaining 40% for promotions (15%), development support (15%), misc (10%). The whole thing about NXTL screams amateurish to me, with the numerous spelling errors on the announcement page ('memeber', 'Adress', etc).
New Economy Movement (NEM) is actually something I can get into. The developer teams look decent, at least, and they seem to have the good intention of standing behind the coin long term, while still trying to distribute it to the public fairly. I don't like the fact that in their wordings, NEM seems to try to pass of a lot of NXT features as its own (alias system, asset exchange, etc) and not making it obvious that those are features from NXT. The initial IPO period of NEM is just about over, having gathered ~ 3000 investors from bitcointalk. Their FAQ page in Reddit claims that NEM will include a 'Proof of Importance' (PoI) coin generation that rewards people for actively using NEM as a currency, discouraging hoarding. The people most important in maintaining the network receive the highest coin rewards, not the people with the most NEM. How exactly they would do this is not clear yet.
It's clear to me that NAS and NXTL are quick schemes designed to make the developers richer while still keeping the coins at the hands of the initial investors. None of them, except NEM, also offer or plan to offer anything new to extend the NXT codebase in their 'fork', with NAS being the worst among the three. A fundamental problem with these pure 100% PoS coin is that most of the coins would inevitably be concentrated among early adopters. Since a coin announcement is often made in this forum, people who know about it (and become early investors) are only those who are already a member of the crypto community, locking out the general public.
I think for a crypto '2.0' coin to enjoy a wide adoption, we have to attempt to get the coin into as many hands as possible -- even after the initial IPO is over. This means reaching out to the wider audience beyond just this bitcointalk forum. It probably also means altering the coin's characteristic to prevent hoarding and discourage the rich-gets-richer syndrome, where only big coin holders can actually earn anything from forging, and therefore have no incentives to spend their stash. But the nature of 100% PoS coin means that inevitably developers or some initial investors would always hold most of the coins. So .. How would you propose a fairer distribution scheme of a 100% PoS coin ?
Jump to: