Topic: Slimcoin | First Proof of Burn currency | Decentralized Web - page 36. (Read 137085 times)

That's true, that's why I'm not suggesting masternodes. I only meant there's nothing particular bad about it. Or ICOs. Or adding more coins on hard fork. Or whatever. Someone said ICOs are so bad after Fall 2018. And others say masternodes are bad. But I'm pretty sure there will be many more $MM ICOs and some coins will have masternodes. If some people stole money on ICO so what. It doesn't mean ICO's bad. Just don't steal money, that's all.

Well, there's also Monoeci. (rank 1100+ even with masternodes)

Imo masternodes won't change anything with respect to valuation, apart from that the masternode hype is long gone. It's also additional development work. If someone desperately wants them, then (s)he should simply develop the required extensions to the code and then we could simply try it, and if it isn't accepted by the community, (s)he can simply start a fork.

In my opinion, other things are much more important, like the switch to modern code following Peercoin's path.

(BTW: Even with its current low valuation, Peercoin has got the second best rating from an altcoin review project that seems serious and cares about things like usefulness and decentralization (BD ratings).)

Regarding a possible funding token, it's crucial that it's not considered a security, so it should not be tied to any "ownership" of the project. Myself I would favour a way to fund development without a funding token, but with a clearer development bounty policy allowing also donations in BTC and other coins. For example, I could imagine a bounty process with several "steps", where a small part of the bounty is paid in advance, a part for developing the first code, and the rest when everything is thouroughly tested.

I'm not agitating for masternodes, just saying that there shouldn't be any prejudice to any tech or measures that would help Slim to rise and shine. Masternodes, increase of supply that is held by the foundation, whatever that works. Principles and stuff is great, when it works. When it doesn't work it's not so great. When coin has 35 000 dollars market cap there's definitely something wrong with principles. A coin with ongoing development should be at least in top 200 coins. Taking into consideration that it's unique (POB) it should be it top 10.

What could made such token a promising investment? For example if there's any product/app on top of Slimcoin which has a great potential and "Funding Token" is its fuel or something like that it may drive the price of the token very high.

This is precisely the problem, the development team must think and decide where to turn the course of the development of the token. At the moment, the bank is in a very bad situation and it’s not a fact that the masternodes will give the necessary boost to price.

What's wrong with masternodes? PIVX has masternodes and its market cap is $36M, and SLIM cap is $36K, 1000 times less.

I'll reply to these points:

- I agree with the swap, as long as we aren't performing swap to "masternode coin" and we keep our principals intact without change
- IMO we should just give opportunity to everyone, if someone don't want to follow new chain, they should keep old one working - it will be needed to contact exchanges to swap their balances and update client (I can handle this, I have contact to both freiexchange and novaexchange), if somebody lost coins - then we can't do much about it but imo we should premine all coins based on snapshot, that we probably have to do to perform swap

The coin swap won't attract much interest with a lot of marketing, because there is bear market now, and we are not on the biggest exchange in crypto. Besides in the past price of the coin wasn't an issue - the real issue was the liquidity in the order books - it was always very thin, even if price of the coin wasn't so low (eg 500-1000 sats). We should encourage more liquidity, and base our action around that - not focus on the price, but real liquidity.

Besides I have submitted Slimcoin to ECI30 - https://www.eci30.com/
It can be a good way to have more exposure.

I have proposed it in 2017, but there is a possibility to set up foundation - although there have to be at least 2-3 people, who could help me handle the paper work.

Ah, sorry. My fault for rushing it and not checking. The server's been rebooted and the d/l is working now.

Cheers

Graham ("You still ain't seen me, right?")

So far it looks like slimcoin just registered on 2 exchanges, whether for future slim coin plan to register to more exchanges? I look forward to hearing good news from this project.

Thanks a lot
(server problem... will wait a bit)

K.

https://minkiz.co/noodlings/slm/slimcoin-qt-v0.5.3-win32.zip

Cheers

Graham ("You ain't seen me, right?")¹


¹ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1A4_7AVk3M

I'm back home, so I shortly will have more time for Slimcoin again. In the next days I'll update the OP and test the newest code to see if the PoS bug is fixed. Then I'll proceed to set up another Slimcoin/Slimweb node, as the current one crashes frequently.

Regarding a possible funding method, I would support measures if there is no dilution of the main Slimcoin supply. A possibility is to create a coloured coin (with OpenAssets or PeerAssets, until we have an own mechanism) and create a "Funding Token". It's however important to check if there are any legal implications that could apply in important jurisdictions like the US.

Another, more long-term path could be the following one:

- When Peercoin releases v0.8 with updated Bitcoin code (v16.x), port the Slimcoin changes to it and schedule a coin swap (this is the easiest method, a soft or hard fork would require more technical knowledge).
- Investigate which coins were not moved since 2016. This was the year when Slimcoin became "almost dead", so it's very likely that most lost coins were lost up to this year.
- The genesis block of the new chain would assign all coins to those owners of SLM that have moved the coins since 2016. An early announcement of the swap should ensure that only those that really lost their Slimcoins would get no coins in the "Slimcoin2" chain.

This coin swap could attract enough interest to boost the price of the coin so high that it becomes unnecessary to create a funding token. It would however be better to get a somewhat bigger exchange on board until then.

The third way I can think of is a whale who would secretly buy up like 80% of Slim coins supply, push the price really high, sell part of his coins and finance development of Slim. But it's also not possible because basically there's no Slim for sale. And nobody knows how much coins were lost.

But matter of time = matter of money. Unless there's no money there's no time and no future eventually.

What could be other ways? Why would someone be interested in developing Slim or investing in it?

What come to mind is some private business or investor. It's money without ICO. But again why would someone want to spend his money? What would he get in return.

We have more contributors, but it's matter of their time, ask @iguadonon and others.

So Slim has 1 dev and $0 for development. And it's been like that for years. From my point of view the project has no future without some global changes. With hard fork, adding new coins to supply and ICO it would be possible to do something great and get Slim back to the map. 

It's on coingecko and coinpaprika. CMC is providing old data anyway, it's always outdated, I know it's the most popular, but it will be phased out in a future, like poloniex and bittrex were replaced. About Slimcoin there isn't clear path, because @gjhiggins isn't active for now, and @d5000 was occupied with his work. I also work on something else, but try to provide info if there is something new.

i have the same thoughts
really, SLM disappeared from CMC, not nice surprise
but i like PoB concept and i was going to popularize SLM in my language localization
maybe it will give a push

I could understand it if Slim has at least some clear development plans, published road map. But it only has a couple of devs who do what they can, now and then. More like a small home project. Why would anyone wanted to buy Slim while everything this way? And if you don't want anyone be interested in buying Slim then why work on it at all? I mean what's the point, really? I've been following Slim for almost 2 years and nothing really happened since then, except that it disappeared from CMC, which is the only popular list of coins and the price went to zero.

I wouldn't go ICO way too.
It's a risky to have investors money on behalf, especially when there are underdelivered promises.
I think we should go Peercoin's way - they are welcoming everyone, that want to help on their board, and integrate their new fixes and released version (as long as it's possible).

Peercoin will rebase this year on newest Bitcoin codebase.