Since when did we have a 2% burn of coins added into the token o nomics of the network?
Why on earth would we want to destroy out tokens ?
6 Likes
News to me, source?
1 Like
And what is worse, it is 2% of token paid for storage.
So when the world is using Autonomi and spending 500 million tokens a month for uploads then we see 10 million token burned per month.
As people increase uploads from there we could be seeing upwards of 120 to 200 million token burned a year.
I wonder if the supporters of this think its 2% of current total token supply, which takes decades to get too much smaller. BUT no, its the spent amount
White paper. The link is in discord. I donât have it on hand sorry
2 Likes
Either way burning sucks. There will be natural burning from people losing coins, dying, etc. Burning only serves to push line up for token price speculators.
4 Likes
Yep, its there for the bag holders to become insanely wealthy in 20 years when there are a small fraction of the current total supply. I suspect it was suggested by some bag holders wanting huge profits
And I call BS on the claim it balances emissions. LOL it will only kick in a number of years when emissions is in its last couple of years. But the burn effect massively increases in about 10 years, until then itâll be minor.
And @JimCollinson keeps saying the value is in the data. This burn is a scam crypto way to manipulate the coin and works against the great narrative of value is in the data. Once the network takes off then the true value of data will be all that is need to up the price for the foundation and everyone else. Itâll take 15 years for the burn to affect the price much since it doesnât really happen for 10 years as the network grows and the 10% fund is built up.
2 Likes
There are enough missteps with this network and how itâs been rolled out that the future doesnât look as bright as I had hoped.
1 Like
Well, itâs another thing that was simply thrown in. I also donât really understand why. If the demand for storage stalls, nothing gets burned anyway, if it grows, the price increases even without it. And if I incentivize hoarding, less gets spent on storage anyway. Sounds a lot like Catch-22, but again, the whole tokenomics of the network is in the âmaybe it works, maybe notâ realm.
EDIT: Forks will likely come to live that will test different approaches.
4 Likes
Funny - sometimes this born guy really is spot on =D
2 Likes
My perspective is that burning is a very good feature to have. It encourages holding, which in practice means that people who hold virtual borrow the value of their tokens to everyone who holds them liquidly, which encourages the price to go up and raises the number of nodes.
For me, money is also data, yes in a separate category, but in itself very valuable - this type of data allows society to function effectively, and in this case, Autonomi to function effectively. The good news is that even if it is not the perfect option, some of the copies will be without this feature and we will be able to compare.
Check out the Impossible Futures!
2 Likes
if this works and all of humanity starts to use the network it wont take very long to run out of coins if 2% of every upload goes up in smoke ?
3 Likes
This assumes that usage will increase faster than adding space, which we have no way of knowing if it will happen. It also assumes that the token cannot be divided by more than 18 digits, which is unlikely.
Check out the Impossible Futures!
2 Likes
10^18 is really stupid divisibility⌠I donât think this is a danger tbh⌠But it doesnât make native easier/create additional options for native if this idiotic divisibility is needed by the system to surviveâŚ
1 Like
No
You are wrong here, that has zero to do with this. The 2% is on the payments for upload, so usage increasing makes the problem worse faster
2 Likes
Yeah why canât one fork test out this node reserve nonsense and mainnet adopts it if there really is a reason for it?..
You donât add unnecessary complexity to a systemâŚ
This looks like a cheap plot to add scarcityâŚ
1 Like
Because it has little effect early on. Also near zero effect since uploads are real minimal, especially while payments for data are absolutely tiny at the moment
Yep, and probably suggested by someone being promoted as a way the foundation can get more runway from what they hold. And of course the one suggesting it is holding a nice large bag of token.
Image that 1 million token with 1.2 billion total, and now imagine that 1 million when in 15 years the total supply is 500 million
1 Like
Correct me if Iâm wrong, but if the free space on the network grows faster than the usage, could we have a constantly decreasing ANT daily turnover even though the network usage is growing?
Check out the Impossible Futures!
Yes, but that will still have lesser effect then the burn. Human nature is to have an amount they are willing to spend and usually find things to use it on. If data is cheap to upload then people upload their data faster to get it up there. Think companies doing backups decide to include more systems to backup to the network. Also people will upload more of the video library, and so on.
Also when the earnings per node decrease then overall the number of nodes will decrease, as weâve seen as the token price dropped
1 Like
if and when the data upload rate falls below the average upload rate - causing a risk of capacity volatility or disruption on the network. Should such an event occur then the âNetwork Node Reserveâ will release tokens in order to provide ongoing incentives for network nodes to stay online.
If we assume a more or less constant growth because this is how created data amounts have developed the last decades this is a 18% additional tax on uploads that creates a huge reserve honey pot with burn built in to stop it from increasing endlesslyâŚ
So a 18% burn on all uploadsâŚ
Just to note that in the scenario with all of humanity using 1 network (a chance close to 0 in my opinion), this network will be of key importance for the national security of all countries and the probability that countries will build and maintain node centers is huge, in this hypothesis the chance of having an ever-decreasing upload price is huge.
Of course, it is much more likely that we will have hundreds of competing networks and in this scenario, burning will be a function that will keep node runners in our network.
Check out the Impossible Futures!
So why buy ANT instead of buying FORK for ForkNet, at 1/100 the price, which runs a fork of the Autonomi code and does the same thing?
Only speaking for myself but as a node runner I disagree. I care more about long term viability than quick money. Bad decisions make the network less desirable for anyone who isnât a short timeframe parasite.