I think it’s important to note what the broader crypto community is looking for, because to me that’s the key to the network’s success. Ethereum introduced burning and it has very broad support. In this context, the team’s decision is the right one, even if it upsets 1-2 of the 20+ current node runners.
Check out the Impossible Futures!
It’s very easy to be anonymous and make such demands while the real devs are being persecuted for creating infrastructure:
https://cointelegraph.com/news/ethereum-dev-released-after-being-detained-turkey
Look at it this way - Autonomi is the version that proves the technology. Once the technology is proven the wider cryptopunk community will use it and anonymous versions will be created with all sorts of native token variations. The problem here is that it’s thought of as one network, as if we only have 1 try and it’s over if we don’t succeed with it…
Check out the Impossible Futures!
What a mess. A coin burn feature is awful. What happened to this project?
But eth has infinite supply and wants to stay with Blockchain where balances are just numbers somewhere (and does Blockchain pruning from time to time to compress the Blockchain again)
And we don’t - right? So there’s fundamental differences between the technologies (the most obvious one being finite vs infinite supply) so without inflation we already have a stronger deflation than Ethereum with their burning…
It depends on whether you believe in the story of one network for all humanity. Because if you believe in a world with multiple networks, those 2% will never be a problem.
Check out the Impossible Futures!
I want one network - yes
Many networks is a mess
And you purposely mislead with
By not mentioning that the eth inflation is still stronger than burned eth…
There can be only one.
Many AIs are a mess, many car brands are a mess, many peoples on earth with different languages are a mess. I’m sorry it’s not easy for you in reality.
There’s nothing misleading - Ethereum was deflationary while it had usability.
Check out the Impossible Futures!
There’s a big difference here… The stuff you mention isn’t an issue…
Europe introduced one currency and it was a blessing… What we see in crypto with the many different token on different layers on different networks is exactly the opposite effect - needing to be careful not to sent the same token to the same address via the wrong network to not loose it is a super annoying mess… And horrible ux that I avoid to explain anybody whom I don’t need to explain that stupidity …
I’m against the euro, I love crypto. It’s a big mess, people want different things, right?
Check out the Impossible Futures!
And that’s again a completely different topic…
Travelling and having to exchange everywhere - loosing % on every hop - being in danger of getting fake notes on every place where you exchanged… Yeah I definitely want to go back there and see what you like about it …
Yes, because there is no fake euro. We humans are willing to take risks and suffer losses in order to have free choice. There will never be just one nation on the planet, one currency and one Autonomous network.
Check out the Impossible Futures!
No person smart enough to obtain 1M is waiting 15 years for an ROI. We just saw a guy claim a 1.2M loan repayment and bounce immediately for what was an obvious huge loss.
So again why is anyone buying/hodling ANT?
Just wait for ANT suckers to fund the tech’s development through Autonomi, then when it’s forked and you can store the same data for 1/100 the price use that other network instead, no?
Oh no, the chance of a company using an anonymous copy of Autonomi is 0. Autonomi is the corporate version, it’s no coincidence that marketing is aimed at such partners.
I remind you of Storj’s partner with streaming functions. These will be the users of Autonomi in the next 20 years.
Check out the Impossible Futures!
Am I understanding this correctly that the 2% burn has been introduced into the whitepaper without any public discussion or even notification about a change?
If that would be the case this intransparency is worrysome to me. Changes in the fundamental tokenomics should not be “fluid” - a whitepaper for me is pretty much set in stone and only changed with a clear process including head-up time and open communication.
Why do you assume all copies will be anonymous?
Yea. Whitepaper + improvement proposal process, is the gold standard.
The Foundation can make whatever changes it wants and spend its tokens however it wants without publicly explaining. The community agrees, as seen in this thread:
Check out the Impossible Futures!
This is not the ideal “moda operandi” for a decentralized project in my view, but anyway it is what it is. At least this explains the disconnect between the community (or at least some members) and the dev-team because of different expectations.
Regardless: My view is that the whitepaper and fundamental economic model should not be changed quitely and “under the radar”.
Actually this 2% burn change is not the first one.
I have not disclosed this by now but the first version of the whitepaper was also replaced with a drastically changed tokenomics numbers. On release of the first version, I double checked the numbers and found errors in the tokenomics numbers. They just did not add up and in my view were apparently incorrect. After highlighting this to the team, shortly thereafter a vastly different version was released. I was (and still am) quite disappointed about this intransparent working mode.