A premine is a little different for these coins. Assuming they're keeping the emission curve similar to the other coins using this . . even a 1% premine will be a massive overhang to this.
MRO has been around for about two weeks now, and 1% of the currency is 184k. Of the roughly 300k or so in circulation . . I hope you can see the major difference here.
Generally with bitcoin protocol, your premine is offset with a corresponding instamine, so within a week or two the people using the coin have around as much as the premine.
That's not the case here, because even taking a 5% premine would mean that it would take about a month and a half before people hold as much as that premine.
I still think it's an interesting idea to keep the devs with long term income because it sets the precedent that people can work for the coin and make a legitimate living, but don't really see a great way to make it happen.
The tx donation idea is probably your best possibility, so as to not centralize all the miners into a 0% donation pool.
Topic: [HP] Monetization discussion - page 2. (Read 1784 times)
There are 2 options:
1. Just do a premine. Bonus - you can use some of the premine for bounties and giveaways which can help coin to succeed.
2. If you really, really believe in your coin just invest some $$$ in mining early on.
I personally would go with premine, there is no infrastructure for BCN/Cryptonote based coins right now so having some incentive for people to work on it would be good idea...
1. Just do a premine. Bonus - you can use some of the premine for bounties and giveaways which can help coin to succeed.
2. If you really, really believe in your coin just invest some $$$ in mining early on.
I personally would go with premine, there is no infrastructure for BCN/Cryptonote based coins right now so having some incentive for people to work on it would be good idea...
My suggestion:
+ The fee that is paid by transactions (as in Bitcoin) can be broken into 2 parts:
= Amount that is paid to the miner who solves the block
= Amount that is paid to certain addresses that devs own
However, to make people happy, the transaction fee that is paid to devs can be limited in time. E.x: for the first 12 months only
What are your thoughts?
+ The fee that is paid by transactions (as in Bitcoin) can be broken into 2 parts:
= Amount that is paid to the miner who solves the block
= Amount that is paid to certain addresses that devs own
However, to make people happy, the transaction fee that is paid to devs can be limited in time. E.x: for the first 12 months only
What are your thoughts?
Hello friends.
We'we decided to move monetization discussion of our project to this separate topic.
Befor talk about subject i let to myself a little intruduction.
As i could see here, at this forum, profit of developers is very sensitive point. And to get success with some another new currency it is very important to find good approach to be received by community.
With all this chaos of bitcoin forks creating a new cryptocurrency is not associated with some real work. It's even more associated with a joke now
CryptoNote is not a final product yet, it's just a bright technology in which we believe, and want to improve, but there a lot of work ahead (UI, services integration, cloud wallet etc).
Now take a look to altcoins: there are no success projects where the founders does not have a stake. Or you just don't know about stake yet, don't be a naive.
If project starts without earning model - it started to be abandoned.
So, finally, our monetization model will be transparent and clear for all, but to be "fair" doesn't mean to be "moneyless".
In other words: we going to earn with this project.
Now let's back to subject.
Our announcement says that this is a donations-based project, but we met some arguments from community and it puts us on the thought to make it better.
As it pointed by SlyWax miners already have big power in PoW coins, on the other hand using announced approach make theoretically possible for developers to build own pools that have more profit unlike others, it is unfair and leads to centralization.
We've tried to move focus from miners to common users of network, whith actually use it currency.
Each transaction is vote for donation of size equals to a fee of this transaction.
For each block, we calculate the summary value of donations (summing only those transaction's fees in which the donation flag is voted for donation).
Every 720th block we take the median of the average values of prev 720 blocks, and use this as a size/2 for donation amount to transfer the developers.
This means that developers will get their earning only if net will be success(will have transaction flow), you know that most abandoned forks had no significant transaction flow.
And it seems to impossible to manipulate with this votes - to make vote for some amount you have to spend this amount - no profit. Even mining own tx with huge fee will not move median until devs don't have about 50%.
Long term monetization for long term project.
Please comment if you agree or not.
We'we decided to move monetization discussion of our project to this separate topic.
Befor talk about subject i let to myself a little intruduction.
As i could see here, at this forum, profit of developers is very sensitive point. And to get success with some another new currency it is very important to find good approach to be received by community.
With all this chaos of bitcoin forks creating a new cryptocurrency is not associated with some real work. It's even more associated with a joke now
CryptoNote is not a final product yet, it's just a bright technology in which we believe, and want to improve, but there a lot of work ahead (UI, services integration, cloud wallet etc).
Now take a look to altcoins: there are no success projects where the founders does not have a stake. Or you just don't know about stake yet, don't be a naive.
If project starts without earning model - it started to be abandoned.
So, finally, our monetization model will be transparent and clear for all, but to be "fair" doesn't mean to be "moneyless".
In other words: we going to earn with this project.
Now let's back to subject.
Our announcement says that this is a donations-based project, but we met some arguments from community and it puts us on the thought to make it better.
As it pointed by SlyWax miners already have big power in PoW coins, on the other hand using announced approach make theoretically possible for developers to build own pools that have more profit unlike others, it is unfair and leads to centralization.
We've tried to move focus from miners to common users of network, whith actually use it currency.
Each transaction is vote for donation of size equals to a fee of this transaction.
For each block, we calculate the summary value of donations (summing only those transaction's fees in which the donation flag is voted for donation).
Every 720th block we take the median of the average values of prev 720 blocks, and use this as a size/2 for donation amount to transfer the developers.
This means that developers will get their earning only if net will be success(will have transaction flow), you know that most abandoned forks had no significant transaction flow.
And it seems to impossible to manipulate with this votes - to make vote for some amount you have to spend this amount - no profit. Even mining own tx with huge fee will not move median until devs don't have about 50%.
Long term monetization for long term project.
Please comment if you agree or not.
Jump to: