who decides who gets the credits?
2 Likes
and not access for everyone but just for the ones that are considered worthy
which religions do we include here? ethnical preferences?
subsidizing certain data storage preferences would drive up storage prices and therefore make it even more expensive for the “unworthy” ones to use the network for their purposes; is that really fair and what we want?
what if projects “loose” the coin they had - will they get a second batch of ANT because they’re so worthy?
1 Like
sorry … it’s just very hard to create this without side effects … when it’s as simple as filling out a form to get an ANT drop from a faucet to get your project started … well … maybe you’ve seen how long it took someone to start exploiting it (even for that little value per drop …)
1 Like
I’d suggest that any community awards are separate and in addition to emissions. I believe that is exactly the case too.
3 Likes
Also the more complex you make anything, incl emissions, the longer it takes to implement and the greater chance of unintended consequences.
What we have may not be perfect, and the changes hinted at are most likely to do with the node choosing process and probably not too dissimilar to simple requesting quotes.
Once people start uploading then the node running picture will change into more of what we expect. Still not perfect, but if the network is becoming distributed then thats the right direction.
Also emissions given are not static but reducing over time so at some point anyhow the gamers will not be able to game so much. (not reflecting on good/bad of gaming)
2 Likes
The current way emissions work
Saving some of my time, by asking Gemini:
Summary
You’ve hit on a core misunderstanding of how market liquidity works, particularly in the context of cryptocurrencies. Let’s break down why your argument is correct and address the fallacies in the counterargument.
The Fundamental Flaw: Confusing Supply with Liquidity
The core mistake is equating an increase in supply with an increase in liquidity. While adding more tokens can increase the sheer volume of tokens available, it doesn’t automatically translate to a healthy, efficient market. Here’s why:
- Liquidity is More Than Just Volume:
- True liquidity means there are willing buyers and sellers at stable prices. It’s the ease with which an asset can be bought or sold without causing a significant price change.
- Simply flooding the market with new tokens can lead to a “glut,” where there’s an oversupply and not enough demand to absorb it.
- The Law of Supply and Demand:
- When supply increases without a corresponding increase in demand, prices fall. This is basic economics.
- Dumping new tokens dilutes the value of existing tokens, potentially triggering a sell-off as holders try to minimize their losses.
- This downward pressure can actually decrease liquidity, as buyers become hesitant to enter a falling market.
Addressing the Counterargument:
Let’s dissect the specific points made:
- “When there’s no new coins coming into the market, you have only the current holders liquidity to sell.”
- This is partially true, but it ignores the role of demand. A healthy market needs both supply and demand.
- Scarcity can actually drive demand and increase the value of existing tokens.
- “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?”
- This highlights a common problem: if the underlying asset lacks perceived value, people will hold onto it, hoping for a recovery. This is not a liquidity problem, but a value problem.
- People do sell at a loss when they lose faith in a project, or need the funds for other things. This is a natural part of any market.
- “I don’t think there’s any doubt that it will result in more volume, what makes you think it will not?”
- Yes, it will increase volume, but not necessarily healthy, sustainable volume. It could lead to:
- Panic selling: A surge in sell orders as holders try to exit a falling market.
- A “race to the bottom”: Where sellers continuously lower their prices to find buyers.
- Increased volume from these actions is not a sign of a healthy market, but rather a sign of instability.
- Yes, it will increase volume, but not necessarily healthy, sustainable volume. It could lead to:
A Better Approach to Liquidity:
Instead of simply flooding the market with new tokens, projects should focus on:
- Building genuine demand: This means creating a valuable product or service that people want to use.
- Encouraging market makers: These are entities that provide liquidity by consistently buying and selling assets.
- Creating a healthy trading environment: This includes fair fees, robust infrastructure, and transparent information.
In summary:
Increasing the supply of tokens does not automatically create liquidity. It can, and often does, have the opposite effect by diluting value and triggering sell-offs. True liquidity comes from a balance of supply and demand, driven by genuine value and a healthy trading environment.
2 Likes
I’ll let chatgpt read that thank you for that valuable content and taking part in the discussion
6 Likes
Grok says play nice guys. 
6 Likes
I didn’t think it was worth my time, as no matter how effective and rational my explanation might have been, it wouldn’t be taken seriously by those who believe that you can make better markets by printing new money. Gemini provided a more wordy, but somewhat reasonable response.
2 Likes
-
Fairness is highly subjective. I for one do not understand why it’s ‘fair’ for those who did not risk their capital, time, & energy for years and years to just get handed some of that value. That is certainly not fair to my mind. Now if it has some other real purpose, then I’d be keen to hear it, but ‘fairness’ isn’t, in any way, an objective rational.
-
If you did want to do this however (assuming there is some legit reason), then simply trade tokens for burned ETH at a market rate. Then you can get the tokens out there, but at a market price to those who want them and nobody gains from it – i.e. it can’t be gamed.
1 Like
Cool, tomorrow ANT listing on MEXC
https://x.com/WithAutonomi/status/1894026990522364199
14 Likes
This is shown in the graph below showing volume on BitMart since ANT was launched
You can see in the first couple of days when the market was almost all us long-term hodlers and then the datacentre whales started to come in.
If that graph could get extended into the past to show eMAID volume, it would be even lower to the left where some days it would struggle to get above 1k volume daily.
We are already at 10-50x the volume we were getting last month.
And as for the price itself and trend I’ll leave that to those who better understand the tech analysis but at least its it seems to keep recovering each time a whale takes his daily dump
6 Likes
Yup, MEXC listing coming tomorrow!
12 Likes
9 out of 10 don’t see an issue with bullying
Did you buy the majority of your coin at 2 or 3 cents? that really makes a difference now since you might only be up 8x or possibly 12x 
if you have that little trust in utility of the coin just sell 10% of your holdings and the rest is a risk free remaining investment 
you bought part of 10% (now 38% !) of all existing coin … the plan was to distribute the rest of it through farming rewards, developer rewards and core rewards. (oh well and shareholder coin because of super early investments in the idea)
- farming rewards to subsidise storage cost to make it a bit cheaper in the beginning
- developer rewards to attract developers
- core rewards for financing core development
- … and as return for early investors those investor rewards
all parts of the reward system have been scaled up
- 10% coin → 38% coin
- 10% shareholder → 18% shareholder
- 10% foundation → 24%
just the emission over time has been decreased from 70% → 20%
this basically just increases the coin amount … no added incentive just increased scarcity of ETH and added coin to ANT … people need to buy ETH for it so it’s basically a subsidy for ETH and no added value for autonomi … I don’t see the point of this
I think the element of subsidizing storage cost in the beginning (where trust in the network is lacking and on top of the running costs for farmers those who store data must pay for the TX cost of the blockchain …) which is now more important than it ever was (because of the TX fees adding friction and increasing storage prices) doesn’t sound to me like a balanced approach …
back in the days this subsidies sounded reasonable to be accounting for 70% (!) of all coin ever created … and today people think that 20% are already too much and risking the whole investment of people over the last 10 years … did we really became that much smarter or is it greed that took over within the last 10 years …?
We should stop speculating. I could say, 1300 members on discord, less than half of current membership, could be running 13 million nodes if each one ran 10k.
The network is still tiny, when the potential is so much larger by many magnitudes more.
If we are loosing our poop now, what will happen when Autonomi hits the mainstream, and like anything of significant success, armies of haters suddenly appear, and start the serious attacks.
We must stand together in solidarity. Cheers
7 Likes
someone started printing MAID - right?
but I’m sure we generally agree that high inflation can be an issue 
don’t expect everybody around you to be slow
Some whales will soon be sorry for selling too early…
Some whales are selling now to rent extra servers to cash in later.
5 Likes