summer 2.0...
after this mon .want to summer 3.0?
why not get new coin name...
Instead of Summer why not instead call it Autumn?
After all, autumn is the time that you collect mature fruits of summer.
And now I address myself to dev and to the foundation.
If I understand then new project / proposal, with a fixed exchange transaction or
in other manner, for every Sum possessed we could get 2 of the new coins.
From this, one quickly learns the true value of the new currency, inevitably will be very very low,
half of what is now worth a SUM.
So at current price, at the time of the launch of the new currency would be worth just 100 satoshi. !!
IMHO, with a low value does not promise well for the future, in a very short time would be almost 0.
Since you want to create a new currency, IMHO it would be better to reformulate the project to try
to get immediately a value much more "relevant".
This could be achieved, greatly reducing the number of new coins and its exchange rate with the old currency.
I mean, not a large total mass of 100M coins as proposed now, but only 10M, or better yet just 1M,
an exchange transaction a bit like it was made in France in the transition from old francs to new francs (100->1).
Of course you will be adapted \ scale all other parameters, including the fixed exchange rate with the V1 Sum.
At the beginning this drastic change could create a little bad mood in the old owners, but IMHO make the currency
more rare now could lead to a more promising future, when there will inevitably be dealing with the loss
of value due to the time and the creation of new coin with the POS.
Regarding the financing of the foundation with a block tax, I basically agree, but IMHO should be discussed better.
For example the fee should not be generated in the POW period, as was done with SUM V1, but especially
during the POS, as is done in HobokenNickel with the Stake for Charity, but with the difference that it would
not be a form of voluntary donation, but a commission proportional specifically used for the support of
the foundation that has the only task is to support the currency.
So not a substantial remuneration in the short initial phase, as occurs in other currencies,
where the amount paid can not longer be controlled, and the coins are soon left to
themselves by the dev (as has happened to so many coins recently), but instead a small
constant support, active only as long as the money lives.
Given the recent past, I think this method of refinancing, make everyone more relaxed about
the lasting commitment of the team of developers.
I say this with no offense to new developers and members of the foundation, it is primarily to
make sure that everyone can perceive the difference, to make it clear right from the
conception of the project.
Of course, these are just my opinions.
