301
General Discussion / Re: The need for change
« on: August 02, 2014, 07:18:57 pm »
All the above worries me because it actually achieves nothing as a real economic benefit (compared to inflation-less) system, other than trying to incorporate much or less, some economic fallacies, such as: by increasing the supply of ‘money’ one can actually stimulate growth, and growing economic systems depend on constant increase in such supply.
I agree with your bolded statement. Unless the guys in this thread are talking about some other inflation business model then I think you/I have misunderstood the equity release model.
For example Alice & Bob start a business. They raise funds to start the business from investors and award people shares based on how much they contribute. They use those funds to develop and grow the business. If you want to shut down the business all you have to do is get to Alice & Bob or the funds. Applying it to a DAC, you've created a decentralised system with a centralised weak spot.
If you take the same model but have that equity released via delegates, the large active shareholders would probably still release most of it to Alice & Bob & not think much else about it, but if they were targeted you would just re-direct the equity release elsewhere.
Edit: Maybe I should read your link first...
Too much added inefficiency to achieve this goal, for my liking. I will think it over,... more.
Ok I read some of the original thread. Yeah it's interesting. I think re-directing the inflation % of Bitcoin through a DPOS system should work fine. But as you say in that thread usually all the money you need to run a business and then some should come through revenue.
However some businesses take a few years to be positive so it could be useful in that period. Also occasionally a business might have to borrow for expansion or to respond to a competitor so having some form of equity release/inflation available, that is mostly being 100% burnt, (ergo no inflation) available to be directed to funding the business when needed could be good.
Another problem we'll find is that shareholders of coca cola can be concerned with investment & electing a board of directors but people who drink coca cola couldn't really give a sh... With DAC's users/customers end up being shareholders at the moment, on the one hand it's a good thing as it creates demand for the stock in addition to revenue but as you say there will be a lot of people who own stock that won't be involved in this process. Which creates new problems. Especially with a DAC that's specifically designed to be used a global crypto-currency. I will think about it more myself.