As I mentioned earlier, it’s to mimic BTC (and other crypto’s) that give away free tokens to supposedly grow the network … it’s just that we have no hard evidence that it’s necessary.
So a ritual sacrifice of the community in the belief that it will be better in the long run … I now think this is all beyond silly myself, although I used to believe it too.
No its not
https://forum.autonomi.community/t/python-to-be-first-class-citizen-for-app-devs/41137/40?u=neo
That’s not entirely true. The emissions are there mainly to provide stability to node operators income while demand for network uploads is lower (like during bear cycles). Also, something they’ve never publicly mentioned but I’m sure holds some truth to it, it’s important for the liquidity/volume in the markets.
Well, filecoin, etc, seem to be giving it a good go with blockchains and are about 100x our offered storage.
It is real growth in the number of nodes.
That’s my point - data centre owners will always be able to undercut and outscale those renting resources off them. People shouldn’t expect that to be a sustainable source of ANT profit.
Is it accomplishing that? We’ve seen emissions plummet, people are shutting down nodes, is this the stability that was intended?
That assumes nodes are run from datacenters, which is not the ideal of the network. People running nodes from home can undercut even the datacenter operators.
You are merely rephrasing what I am saying - it’s a subsidy. You aren’t negating the fact that it’s not needed for the network to survive - if you can make that argument, I’d like to hear it.
That’s false and a misinterpretation of how markets work.
Did you bother to read the post as to what they are for, fulfilling the original White paper.
Mostly empty storage. There is no point in subsidizing wasted space - and in the long run it’s impossible to do so. If we can’t grow organically from the start, then the whole of it maybe a failure. Most of these other storage projects are doomed to fail.
You know what I mean.
Exactly! It is also much more decentralised this way and lets folks use old, commodity, gear to keep costs down. Throw in unmetered broadband and home solar, then overheads can be very low.
Think @dirvine and team would be willing to try the network with paid uploads working && no emissions?
It doesn’t matter. Blockchain projects have grown to 100x this size. No need for native token to make that happen (it would be nice though, ofc)
I’m using the same definition as my original post. It doesn’t need redefining.
You’re living in a different world than I am. Best of luck is all I can reasonably say to you.
A benefit of eliminating emissions would be that all emphasis would be on tuning the pricing algo. Getting that really solid would be great.
In my opinion, everything else can wait until we get the uploads working somewhat smoothly. That’s been a problem since stone age.
back in the days it was called “premine” to not distribute the token through the node runners …
… 10% of the currency was sold on the crowdsale … that has been scaled up to 1/3rd already … the farming part of the overall token supply is already very small compared to the other parts … why would you want to cut that down even further …
I’m not who you asked but just curious, shouldn’t the question be does it really add value?
it’s the fairest way to distribute token that I know of.
who should get the “other value” (even if we don’t distribute token then value is transferred to current token holders)
with distribution ANT to node runners everyone can run nodes and get a small share …
Ah, that’s another purpose of emissions. Ok I’ll think about that, thanks.
@TylerAbeoJordan Opinion?
the large whales making profit now will fight each other and max out efficiency (while only having a short time window where they really make significant money)… so storage price (in ANT - for everyone) is going down … while they add a bit of selling pressure to cover their cost (or don’t buy at market value if they use it as a way to accumulate coin) and if “home runners” where it isn’t worth the hassle to run nodes to accumulate ANT can buy them at a currently cheaper price at the exchanges than they would have to pay earning them … so not necessarily bad for small players to get involved too … even if they buy coin and don’t run nodes …
the overall value of the ANT economy will stay the same no matter how many coin there are … it’s just that not enabling small players to get involved isn’t necessarily “fairer” …
I’m not sure where we’ve seen emissions plummet? As far as I know it has been a constant emission every 12 hours. There are people that have seen drop-off in earnings due to a) network size increasing and b) people reporting nodes dropping connections after a while. There will always be fighting for running nodes as efficient as possible and what’s “most efficient” will change over time (eventually shifting in favor of home nodes I’m sure.)
It’s not necessarily my personal opinion, let me be clear about that. I do however think that the team has thought this through. And from a pure technical point of view I can imagine this being the case, the pay once store forever model does lean heavily on a steady inflow of data upload. If the nodes would run at say 50% storage capacity and uploads where to dry up, earnings would not make up for the cost anymore. Node operators will decide to shut down nodes, putting even heavier load on the ones already running, increasing upload cost for end users which may or may not dry up uploads even further. Especially in the early years I could see that be a risk.
Not sure why you think this would be a false statement. When there’s no new coins coming into the market, you have only the current holders liquidity to sell. We’ve seen that during our omni maid period and it had horrible volume and liquidity. Because why would you, as an investor, sell at a loss or at break even after 5 years of investing? So the main coins that are exchanging hands are off those who really need the money for whatever reason. Miners/farmers on the other hand have cost to cover, so the income they’re getting is at the very least partially hitting the market on a regular basis. I don’t think there’s any doubt that it will result in more volume, what makes you think it will not?