Topic: What is the best distribution strategy for a Proof Of Stake currency? (Read 179 times)
April 07, 2018, 08:18:03 AM
It is also would be interesting to know what is the general perception of PoS based cryptocurrencies. I've heard the term "premine" and got an impression it has negative color, so to speak.
April 05, 2018, 06:06:34 AM
I'm trying to learn and understand everything related to Proof of State cryptocurrencies and something is not summing up...
One of the challenging questions is - how to distribute a PoS cryptocurrency. By distributing i mean not how to technically give it out - ICO, airdrop, captcha solving etc, it doesn't matter. But instead, what are the valid proportions of tokens which is safe to give out. By "valid" and "safe" I mean in the cryptocurrency security measures.
From my understanding, after reading some papers, there are the options:
1. Take to yourself (not necessarily cash out) 34% of total supply. It will mean, if someone would want to vote you out of the consensus, they won't be able to continue the process without your vote.
2. Take to yourself 64%. You take the full control on the voting process in this case. The drawbacks is that you will be probably misjudged by the community, the trust could not be established if that big stake is controlled by single entity. In short - there is no decentralization in this case at all.
3. Give out everything. Well, this could work, in theory, but how do you make sure that on the early stages of development, when tokens are cheap, someone won't buy big amounts and dominate the network? Or, in other words, how to address the Sybil Attack?
4. Proof of Stake should be forgotten and die in hell because it is centralized and makes riches richer. Probably a valid from someone points of view option, but I don't consider it.
I did some related research on how stakes are distributed in the existing PoS cryptocurrencies.
- NXT.
Max supply: 1,000,000,000 NXT
Top accounts: https://mynxt.info/accounts/
Top 10 accounts own 68% of NXT.
- Peercoin
Circulating supply: 24,693,024 PPC
Top accounts: https://chainz.cryptoid.info/ppc/#!rich
Top 10 accounts own 33% of PPC
- Nano (Raiblocks)
Max Supply: 133,248,290 NANO
Top accounts: https://nano.org/en/explore/frontiers
Top 10 accounts own 24% of NANO
- Ardor
Max Supply: 998,999,495 ARDR
Top accounts: https://ardor.tools/topAccounts
Top 10 accounts own 43% of ARDR
- ReddCoin
Circulating Supply: 28,808,713,174 RDD
Top accounts: https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-reddcoin-addresses.html
Top 10 accounts own ~ 30% of RDD
According to the information I was able to gather, it is indeed looks very much like ~34% is the minimum a PoS based cryptocurrency issuer should keep in order to ensure network security. And in case you need full control, you keep 67%.
Am I missing something, what can more experienced in crypto folk say here?
One of the challenging questions is - how to distribute a PoS cryptocurrency. By distributing i mean not how to technically give it out - ICO, airdrop, captcha solving etc, it doesn't matter. But instead, what are the valid proportions of tokens which is safe to give out. By "valid" and "safe" I mean in the cryptocurrency security measures.
From my understanding, after reading some papers, there are the options:
1. Take to yourself (not necessarily cash out) 34% of total supply. It will mean, if someone would want to vote you out of the consensus, they won't be able to continue the process without your vote.
2. Take to yourself 64%. You take the full control on the voting process in this case. The drawbacks is that you will be probably misjudged by the community, the trust could not be established if that big stake is controlled by single entity. In short - there is no decentralization in this case at all.
3. Give out everything. Well, this could work, in theory, but how do you make sure that on the early stages of development, when tokens are cheap, someone won't buy big amounts and dominate the network? Or, in other words, how to address the Sybil Attack?
4. Proof of Stake should be forgotten and die in hell because it is centralized and makes riches richer. Probably a valid from someone points of view option, but I don't consider it.
I did some related research on how stakes are distributed in the existing PoS cryptocurrencies.
- NXT.
Max supply: 1,000,000,000 NXT
Top accounts: https://mynxt.info/accounts/
Top 10 accounts own 68% of NXT.
- Peercoin
Circulating supply: 24,693,024 PPC
Top accounts: https://chainz.cryptoid.info/ppc/#!rich
Top 10 accounts own 33% of PPC
- Nano (Raiblocks)
Max Supply: 133,248,290 NANO
Top accounts: https://nano.org/en/explore/frontiers
Top 10 accounts own 24% of NANO
- Ardor
Max Supply: 998,999,495 ARDR
Top accounts: https://ardor.tools/topAccounts
Top 10 accounts own 43% of ARDR
- ReddCoin
Circulating Supply: 28,808,713,174 RDD
Top accounts: https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-reddcoin-addresses.html
Top 10 accounts own ~ 30% of RDD
According to the information I was able to gather, it is indeed looks very much like ~34% is the minimum a PoS based cryptocurrency issuer should keep in order to ensure network security. And in case you need full control, you keep 67%.
Am I missing something, what can more experienced in crypto folk say here?
Jump to: