While performing the daily check on the ANT farm, I noticed that arbiscan.io reports the number of holder addresses has dropped from a steady ~100,000 to ~70,000 — a ~30% decline in just a few days.
Anyone else seeing this or have thoughts on what might be causing it?
Yes, player/players are consolidating wallets with small amounts of ANT. There was a scheme at the beginning of the year where it was profitable to have multiple wallets, this is no longer the case and players are consolidating small amounts in one place. Real token holders are around 200 people - based on the number of subscribers in the Discord channel before the referral program schemes in the beta and those participating in running nodes.
Check out the Impossible Futures!
i believe this is vastly underestimated for a coin that’s been live for 11 years, its more like a few 1000 at least
I’m commenting on the ANT holders. For MAID holders, there could be as many as 4-5 thousand people, with 80+% having completely forgotten and not knowing that the network has launched and losing them if they don’t convert by 2028…
Check out the Impossible Futures!
Interesting where can i find this info? Seems unfair, people should be able to convert as long as MAID network is live.
And if there is a true deadline, equivalent tokens in ANT should be burned and shouldn’t be claimed by foundation (aka stealing) or redistributed, that be unfair to investors as lost coins are part of the investing equation
The final deadline is February 3rd, 2028.
A few months ago, I asked if there could be a report on the foundation tokens. At the time, several people asked what exactly I was interested in. Now it seems that the same people have been told not to discuss emissions — and probably soon the same will apply to the deadline as well.
It feels like there isn’t much built-in community oversight in the network at the moment. If the goal is to have a say or to help shape what happens, we may need to wait for a system (or a copy network) that allows for that kind of transparency and participation. For now, it seems we can mostly observe and listen…
Check out the Impossible Futures!
2028 is 3 years away, is that not more then enough time for anyone to convert? From a admin perspective we don’t want to have to support the burn process forever, we want to be able to sunset it at X date, in this case 2028. Any unclaimed MAID tokens will not be redistributed elsewhere to the foundation or anyone else as ANT.
community governance is non existent, as there is no voting mechanism.
Maybe the community should work on one?
Of course their votes wouldn’t bind the team to anything, but as the team have been saying; they don’t want to be the big central authority.
What methods could be used to create a community voting system that can help focus energy and resources, with the least chance of being gamed?
I like the idea of something decentralised, but without verifying users etc, is it possible tenho prevent gaming?
Other methods could be based on tokens (AUTONOMI) ‘staked’ or used to vote somehow, but that’s not very equitable.
Maybe just having more community polls on the forum for now could be a first step?
As you point out, It’s tricky in the case of Autonomi Network , not your typical ‘DAO Friendly Beast’ 
in this regard, to get a voting mechanism in place that cannot be gamed.
What we know is this, there are generally two types of engagements in place now:
A. Node Operators = Run one or more systems hosting several antnodes
B. File Managers = Use the Network (Via Dave, dWeb, SAfe-FS or Similar) to pay once and upload files, retrieve and view, listen to, copy both private and public data placed on the network
with others coming:
C. dApp Operators = For Free and Pay For Operators of Distributed Apps/Services running on the network
D. Gateway Operators = gateways to other External Sevices/Dapps ‘ into the Network (Arbitrum Gateway)
These are each voting stakeholder categories, so if they want to vote they have to anonymously register using zkproofs?
That means the zkproof process to validate , ‘you are who you say you are, without telling all the details
would be in code automated zkproofs doing different tasks to validate each category of stakeholder.
Node Operator Issue Voting:
Building the automated zkproofs in to the Node Operator Software and Client Software is initially a Maidsafe dev/test challenge for A and B stakeholders with some form of Community oversight to get the ball rolling on that part.
with the Caveat me thinks,
for Node Operators only, in that there needs to imo also be an automated (in secure code) anonymous inventory of the # of wallet holders, # of systems and # node counts behind the Node Operator electing to vote on a particular issue (everytime) Where the right to vote is gated by code asking these few questions to determine the “Scope of the Node Operator” , For instance the automated inventory would determine match:
one operator, one system, one wallet
vs,
one operator, many systems, one or many wallets
vs.
one system, multiple operators (parents and kids) and many wallets.
And then once the validation of the voting stakeholder is automatically questioned with code,
then such inventory code , goes out and does a check, based on the answers to the questions, a
validation process that then
places a ‘weighted’ number of vote tokens for the issue submitted based on the count findings by the code,
based on some fair weighted mechanism, that yes sizes the bigger stakeholders to some degree (populist mob democracy approach like Switzerland at the Kanton Level) to get more vote tokens, the amount balanced/reduced by a weight to balance the collective # of stakeholders of that size (= Don’t leave the little operator out of the equation,), by code accurately and anonymously determining the total collectively of small, medium, big operators, before being allowed to registeri for the vote on the issue at the time, and applying the weights to respectively balance the three shareholders, S, M L, over time as voters place their vote.
For instance, Some issues might be Small Node Operator Centric, so issue categorization is important.
Something like the above weighted distribution method may work for issues directly related to just the Node Operators, with time to vote guardrails (start of vote, end of vote period)
which can be handled with existing FOSS voting systems that are out there, mounted as a Gateway App into the Autonomi Network.
For C and D stakeholders, more thought/research is required.
n.b- I have some experience in what works/doesn’t work from closely observing first Cosmos Network voting processes, which in the end really don’t work all that well and favour the big operators/contributors leading to effective centralized control over that ATM , IBC protocol Connected Cosmos Network Eco-system to some extent, although it is really a constellation of interacting blockchains, with knobs for nerds deciding what level of interaction is appropriate for their own blockchain.
So the Cosmos Community of Blockchains sort of lumbers along and sort of works as a mostly Feudalistic system , really per issue, its the gang with the biggest stake at the time system which rules, sort of like bullies in a public school playground. The end result is Cosmos has seen developer flight to other projects and the Market Cap has shrunk as has interest. They had a good thing going for a couple of years, until voter dissatisfaction kicked in… imo Cosmos price today, ATOM to USD live price, marketcap and chart | CoinMarketCap
