Topic: XMR baghodler reporting in- the uncensored version (Read 2644 times)

The market's preference of XMR as a whole tells us nothing of the success of an emission strategy. By that logic we should abandon crypto altogether, as the market clearly prefers fiat.

Distribution is the most important thing, because Metcalfe's law.  Bitcoin and XMR are still in their distribution phases, but BTC has a 5 year head start and first mover advantage.  BTC benefited from 'near death experiences' as they fed its antifragility adversity to transmute into strength.  Enough people expect XMR ontogeny to recapitulate its BTC phylogeny sufficient for it to enjoy a Top 10 (minable) coin market cap, even at this early beta point of development.


Securing the network is only one problem, the other key issue is building services which facilitate that secure network providing value.

All of us hloding cheap early distribution phase XMR/BTC have incentive to flesh out those platforms, in order to increase the price of our stacks.

Experiments with faster and slower Cryptonote emission are being conducted by Darknote and Boolberry; we clearly see the market prefers XMR's middle path.

Thank you!
Very analytical and smart writing.
I couldn't more agree with you in every point you made.

Yeah, the 'Bitcoin is deflationary' meme that's been around since the start has really bugged me and I think it's mislead a lot of people.

Bitcoin's money supply is inflationary. Bitcoin is price deflationary if and only if demand outstrips supply. Nothing about those two true statements imply that Bitcoin is inherently a deflationary currency.

People talk about distribution as if it's the most important thing. Personally I think people just want to know that the money that they buy is not going to lose value. Whether that's the rationally correct move in the long run I don' t know, but show people a pretty chart and some math showing that demand is increasing and money supply is not and I bet the vast majority of people couldn't care less if a few people hold the majority of the money supply. They'll just rationalize it by coming to the conclusion that since the money itself is price deflationary, it wouldn't be rational for big holders to divest anything more than the bare minimum they need to to support themselves. Similar to how it's not rational for an organization like Ghash to double spend, or attack the network in someway.

From the start I thought the Monero emission was insane. Especially when considering that to reach even the short term prices that some of the true believers were talking about you would be looking at close to six figures USD of XMR being mined daily. Even Bitcoin can't support it's relatively low inflation(to XMR, 10% is still huge) most of the time.

Monero could end up getting some big adoption, but I don't see any point in actually buying some until there's clearly enough demand to outstrip the massive amount of supply being produced. But it's also a chicken and egg thing, people want an anonymous currency, but they also want one that's going to hold value and have what they perceive as the best economic arrangement. XMR has like 3-4 years until this could actually happen from what I can tell. During that time a competitor could easily swoop in and capture the market. Another CN coin, or even one with inferior tech. It just has to be 'good enough'. If I see real Monero adoption I'll be the first one in line to buy some, the optimal strategy from my point of view is to put your money towards high demand, low to zero inflationary instruments until the time is right.

Inflation sucks, the only problem that needs to be solved is incentivizing people to secure the network. Both in PoW and PoS. Hard problem to solve, no one really knows if transaction fees is ever going to be sufficient. If they are then if some non-inflationary currency ends up getting some adoption it's going to look like a pretty attractive investment.

What else did you guys expect of Monero, most PoW cryptos are inflationary.

Whatever coin is able to curb inflation sooner than others, especially in a bear market we're in now which is to go on another 12 months, can ensure the demand stays equal to or above supply, providing support to the price.

The other PoW coins will keep sinking, and by next November many that had prospects in 2014 will be forgotten.

Out of all PoW coins the only one that curbs its inflation rate sooner than others is Dogecoin (in 2 months to be exact), but don't believe me, check the inflation figures.

I could understand if you guys started to invest in Monero 7-8 months ago when the bear market hadn't been confirmed yet, and optimism was high, but how can anyone still not see what's coming is truely beyond my understanding.

I know cryptos are hard to predict, but when the trend is confirmed, your common sense should prevail or you risk losing your shirt.

Oh goody, the last one was a lot of funz!   

Realize, this is the new monero-free-for-all thread...

I'm "straw manning?"  Oh rly?


How could you possibly miss the palpable self-aggrandizement in the above quote?

I trust you sent a PM to RP in which you scolded him for indulging in ad hom attacks by accusing me of 1) not having a stake and 2) shorting XMR, despite all indications to the contrary... 

/yah right; as if   

You are straw manning.

It is explicitly stated that that MEW has the authority to proclaim only the opinion of the organization. I know this because I insisted that the scope of this authority be made explicit when the group was formed. If some greater authority were claimed, I would not have joined.


Well no. The (real) MEW is an organization and if you don't join you aren't a participant in that organization. That doesn't disqualify you from stating an opinion of course.


The MEW has not expressed any opinion yet. The matter was simply brought up for discussion. No vote has been taken as yet.


PHEPH dude.

I know what/who the MEW is/are and how it was formed.

By "self-appointed" I  mean its presumed authority to proclaim what is best for Monero.

The real MEW is the free market, inclusive of all participants regardless of paying membership dues.

The free market understands correlation does not imply causation, and it's pathetic that the Official MEW doesn't.  Also pathetic is their belief that goofing around speculating about ideal emission rates is real work equivalent to actual coding on important milestones like the GUI, DB, etc.

The MEW was supposed to accomplish great things for the XMR economy, but the price has tanked since it was created.

Having convinced others to hold bags of now-devalued XMR, they really need to look busy and seem effective at this point.  Hence their insistence that Somebody Do Something^TM!

Had to google "sanguine"!

What do you mean by self-appointed MEW? It is a group of XMR holders and supporters who each contributed XMR to the group (half of which goes directly to the Dev's).

I do agree the drama about the emission schedule seems to have followed from the price decline, which has happened during a general crypto bear market. Everyone needs to remember that post hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy. There is no evidence that the 'fast' emission schedule has caused the price decline since September (even as the emission rate falls).

I don't believe it is necessary but, if the emission rate were to be reduced, I think ArticMine's suggestion of gradually increasing the block time would probably be the best way.

As for bagholder, I have been buying more XMR in every month since June, and I am sanguine about holding.
Q

These are all excellent points!  Please note this latest round of inflation curve drama is solely the result of the self-appointed MEW and its wannabe King Whale, who is well known for personifying the mania of crypto's irrationally exuberant highs and its correspondingly depressive lows.

The rollercoaster of crypto drama is famous for the mania of its highs and depression of its lows.  Monero is not an exception.   

FIXED

A sudden change in the emission rate say 1/2 or 1/4 from one block to the next would break the social contract of a smooth emission curve in Monero so I would be opposed to that. One the other a gradual change in the emission rate over say a 90 day period would not and I would support it. The critical difference is that in the latter case the market is given the proper time to adjust, while in the former case it is not. I made my argument here: https://forum.monero.cc/19/voting/90/d-v-round-2-xmr-emission-and-related-issues?page=&noscroll=1#post-385

If you talk to non-crypto people about Bitcoin many describe it as a Ponzi scheme (which is their imprecise way of saying that if feels like early adopters are getting rich from later adopters) and feel they are too late to be an early adopter, or at least ask if it is too late. I started hearing that question for the first time last year and continue to hear it this year.

Also, when I mentioned people looking at it and thinking it is going to be unsound, that wasn't just early adopter status vs late adopter status but also whether the network is going to be secure. (I think that was the specific point to which I replied.) Bitcoin has a few decades at least before the rewards dwindle to nearly nothing, which is far enough away to ignore or at least not be too concerned about. Monero's much faster curve makes that prospect far more immediate.

EDIT: Also, let me add one point. We were talking about 4 years, and Monero won't by 60% mined in 4 years, it will be approximately 90% mined (16.5m/18.4m). At 60% Bitcoin has a level of maturity and scale today that makes it (somewhat) compelling and Monero is unlikely to achieve in one year (when we approximately hit 60%).

This would be empirically validated in Bitcoin by now (supposed to last until 2100+, only 5 years old, 60% mined out). Yet most new entrants into cryptocurrency stick with Bitcoin. The ones who bother with alts are mostly within two camps (1) the overwhelming majority who feel they "missed out" and are just shooting in the dark hoping to strike gold and (2) those who see scope for technological niches, a small minority.

Who are the ones who see BTC is 60% mined out and choose something else because of that? Are you sure they're not actually a subset of (1), i.e. they choose an alt because they're hoping for higher upside and not because they are bothered by BTC's fast emission? This latter group doesn't actually care about emission on some logical/moral level; they're just speculators who operate at a farther point in the risk-reward curve.

To respond to baghodler:

Yes, everyone talks about how they're going to hold for 2+ years when times are good. They promptly starts panicking on a downtrend and come up with various rationalizations for various schemes. It will pass; churn in the markets is a good thing.

I'm skeptical of most of the arguments being made for a change, but this is pretty flawed logic. The emission could very much matter to whether or not it succeeds in the next four years. Yes the 4+ year emissions will likely happen after most of the success or failure of this coin does, but that doesn't mean they can't have an effect on that success or failure. It isn't as if the low emissions in 4 years are unknown or invisible. People see what is coming and may decide to go elsewhere if it looks like it is going to be unsound.

That said, I still don't see a good argument for this curve or that curve, other than not letting rewards go to zero. But other than that, I'm unconvinced that one person's preferred curve is better than another's.  If we agree that too fast and too slow are both bad, then it follows that without actually knowing what is best, any speed up or slow down could be harmful.

in 4 years there's going to be ethereum 8.0, IBM adept (ethereum fork), many other innovations we can't predict, and 293,294 Bitcoin sidechains with myriad features. perhaps a faster distribution curve will be the one thing that ends up saving xmr, because it in theory, with adoption, will cause a more rapid increase in price than these major competing currencies.

my point is, it'll succeed or it won't in the next 4 years, and it's not going to matter what the emission is at that point.