you would increase the gold supply if you could create more gold atoms, which is equvalent to increasing the total token supply.
1 Like
What is the difference between increasing the total number of coins by inflation and dividing each coin into smaller and smaller parts?
Which of the two would affect the price more? Monero introduced the tail emission upgrade at the end of May 2022 to increase inflation to infinity without causing any harm:
When it comes to determining the value of a cryptocurrency, two key factors are at play: the supply of coins and the demand for them. The relationship between these factors can be complex, and it’s important to understand that they are not mutually exclusive. For example, even if the supply of a coin increases, it does not necessarily mean that the value of that coin will decrease if the demand increases millions of times…
Privacy. Security. Freedom
1 Like
No its not. Also the comparison to the question asked is not a valid one.
The human brain generally cannot deal with metals being sold as atoms.
Other Crypto (IOTA) have tried this just using the computer base unit for the coin and not had good success with it. Simply because humans are taught that there is items and then we can subdivide most items within limits. For Gold it is generally a troy ounce or a gram. We do not increase supply by dividing the gram of gold into milligrams of gold.
A SNT is defined as a SNT and to allow humans to divide the SNT into smaller lots for use then like BTC we add divisibility.
Its all in the representation, that is what its all about. To represent the token as units that are way too small then the human brain of most people loses track and like others that try it, becomes too much for most. So the trick is to find (or use) a representation that is easily assimilated by the average person, well not just average but most levels of education.
Your argument is towards the absolutism without consideration for how people handle representations.
In the end it does not matter what units or if its base counts, as long as the MAID people hold maintains its value and people can spend smaller amounts than what represents 1 MAID.
Seeing it as representations is key. Just like people do not look at gold, apples, water, etc and use as the REAL value atoms/molecules. Shop keep can you give me 602 * 10^23 molecules of your premium potting mix please. Not one molecule over or under thankyou. Or the uneducated in scientific notation says please provide 60200000000000000000000000 of your potting mix.
6 Likes
@danda @Josh
You can look at stocks when they do “splits”. They are effectively doubling the amount of overall units, but nobody is diluted this way - everyone holds the same value going in as they do going out. They do stock splits (and reverse splits) to facilitate trade - it’s mostly subjective, but it’s believed it makes buying stock more palatable for some.
In the same manner increasing divisibility doesn’t dilute either. There are more sub-units, but everyone who owns it gains the same relative amount of value.
6 Likes
Agreed.
What is not true is that creating more gold atoms would be the same as increasing divisibility. One increases the amount of matter, the other conserves it.
It’s the same with a single hundred dollar bill or a total of one hundred $1 bills. They would be equivalent, but if you print more $1 bills then you have dilution (and inflation).
4 Likes
Agreed! I did state up above that it is not dilution.
Also agree.
Perhaps I can explain what I am on about like this.
No, increased divisibility does not increases the number of SNT.
Increasing divisibility does increase the amount than can be distributed.
I have a system with a total supply of 1 SNT that can be divided into 10 subunits.
The max supply is 10
I increase divisibility later, my max supply that can be distributed is now 20 subunits.
How is that not increasing supply?
The number of SNT stays the same yes, the supply effectively increased.
1 Like
It is … I, for one though, don’t really understand the concern here - or are we all just talking around each other?
1 Like
how many tangerines do you see here?
.
.
.
.
and now?
in my town it is still 1
5 Likes
Great we agree again.
Not sure, I think some of us disagree on the effects of increasing divisibility.
Mine is, saying that we have total supply of SNT which does not change does not mean supply is capped if you agree increasing divisibility increases supply.
All I am saying and what started this for me is until divisibility is set in stone the supply is unknown, the number of SNT is known, but that is just a word.
1 Like
Maybe if you define what you mean by supply it would resolve this.
I see supply as total quantity of SNT, you seem to mean total number of subunits.
I take that meaning because we’re talking about supply of… what? SNT
At least that’s how I see the word “supply” in this discussion, as an abbreviation for “supply of SNT”.
4 Likes
Yes, neither should be freely open to change is the point.
One is defined, the other is not.
Can you explain why you think increasing the number of subunits would be bad? It might help clarity if you can avoid using the word supply.
2 Likes
Correct … but we aren’t saying the “supply is capped” we are saying the supply of SNT is capped. I think that smart people will know the difference and dumb people won’t care.
I believe that most here when considering the supply are meaning SNT, not total divisible units.
Getting down to the crux of it finally.
Supply is to many the number of SNT, supply to me is the number of subunits.
This is convenient as the number of transactional units which are the true supply can seemingly be increased without any opposition but it does have economic consequence.
My point is that until divisibility is defined and no longer open to change (my definition of) supply is an open number.
That is no different to saying that the number of SNT is not set… yet.
Both need to be set in stone, neither is more important than the other.
2 Likes
You’ve stated this twice now. Can you point to a writeup somewhere about how this caused some problem for IOTA? genuinely curious. thx.
Would you explain that further please?
Also on a related but separate note - the total supply of SNT is going to be minted over years and maybe decades … that appears to me to have a vastly more important economic impact than the subunit supply by a huge margin (at the moment I don’t see any economic impact of subunits, so will leave you to explain that).
until you can explain the clear economic impact of subunits here then one is vastly more important than the other. The number of SNT dilutes the value people hold now. The other has no impact on it and never will.
3 Likes
Echoing this post Updated: RFC 0061 — Safe Network Token Distribution - #19 by peca
Maybe they have the source
1 Like
ah, my mistake. I was attributing that first post to you when I said you had stated it twice. anyway, I doubt that unit naming alone caused serious problems for iota. iiuc, they just called their smallest unit IOTA and the fiat pricing unit MegaIota, so it functionally works like other cryptos. A bit of a mouthful to pronounce though.
This is a logically inconsistent perspective.
This isn’t really true. He hasn’t shown why it can’t, and the real truth of the matter is that far easier, simpler, and typical solutions exist to make it work just fine and hold true to @dirvine’s original plan/vision. One frustration I have is that the correct choice between the two options should have been completely obvious to everyone. While there may be other factors at play which I am not aware of, the current proposal makes no sense given all prior discussions that have occured on the forum or publications released elsewhere.
Maybe this is deserving of a poll?
1 Like