The recent posts about NeuCoin and its staking schedule gave me an idea that could help BTS or a BTS competitor.
NeuCoin is promoting the fact that the company behind it owns 2.5 billion coins that are locked away for 5 years.
NeuCoin is promoting the fact that "staked coins" which are locked up and do not move will dramatically inflate the supply diluting the unstaked coins.
It occurred to me that these are both desirable properties because it encourages people to keep funds in the system and rewards those who hold long term relative to those who hold short term. The 2.5 billion coins that are locked away for 5 years provide a big incentive for the backing company to make it successful and enables them to raise capital. These coins are not a threat because most coins are either successful in 5 years or worthless.
What if a new chain were to share drop 100% on BTS, but only 10% of the share drop was liquid and the other 90% was locked up for 5 years. Anyone could unlock their remaining 90% for a fee based upon how long they held it. Suppose you held it for 1 year, you could unlock 20% and pay an 80% fee. If you held it for 4 years then you could get 80% and pay a 20% fee.
Under this system no stakeholder would be diluted and the chain would be a 100% share drop. If everyone held for 5 years then there would be no change in ownership. Someone looking to cash out early would face less sell pressure (because more people have incentive to hold) and the result would be they would get a better price, but they would be selling a smaller percent of the DAC than if they had waited.
The question is, should Sparkle (to be launched once BTS hits 1.0) use this approach and would it be considered a 100% share drop?
The bigger question is what if BTS did the same thing. At an appointed block issue EVERYONE 9x their current balance in a balance that they can only claim in full if they hold for 5 years. Those looking to sell BTS after the appointed block would have to ask themselves whether the value of 1% of the new shares today is worth more than 100% of the new shares in 5 years. 2 years from now they would be asking if 40% today is worth more than 100% in 3 years. Would this be considered an unfair "dilution" or would this be to the benefit of all shareholders who are "long term oriented"?
In some ways this would be like sucking 90% of the liquidity from existing stakeholders and selling it off at a profit to those who willingly gave up their liquidity.
I don't think BTS could handle such a change, but I think it is something that new chains may want to consider.