BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: BTSdac on November 04, 2014, 10:20:50 am
-
Excuse me everybody ,my English is poor,but I try to express my views in international , so I hope my words can been understood
thank you.
why many people in the world praise BTC, I think one reason is that BTC is a low cost payment system. because of this reason partly, BTC become popular with people. actually the translation fee of BTC is expensive ,let me analyse , pay 25 btc to block producer (miner) per block. it is cost of this block. the average of translation per block of btc is about 500 now. so you can calculate cost of per translation . now price of BTC is 323 usd. 323*25/500=16 usd, cost is expensive, but why translation fee is cheap ,I think the reason is translation cost is paid by dilution not by sender of BTC.
if we change the rule of btc, there is no dilution of btc, all 25 btc is collected from translation fee, it mean the translation fee is 16 usd ,each sender of btc have pay 16 usd for this translation. I think only few people think translation fee of btc is cheap and few people use it .
so we should create a system encourage people to translation . let translation fee is cheap even close to zero. because DPOS does`'t need to find lucky no. so we are much much better than btc about cost.
in the future, why people like pay using bitusd, translation fee is cheap. stable value , etc. so if we set high translation fee, it will reduce attraction to end user. but more people use bitusd and more value of BTS.
So I think we should set translation fee close to zero to attract more end-user using bitusd . and gentle dilute BTS to pay delegate and developing
so I think gentle inflation is benefit to BTS
but there is only a hard-coded limit of 50 BTS per block (~6.3% annually), so in theory supply of BTS can increase infinitely , though BM said the only 20 delegate can get 100% pay rate. but there is`t a hard code to control the total supply of BTS.
as BM said we should consider 10 years developing of BTS. if consider the average pay rate of delegate is 25%. the dilution of BTS is same as now model in 8.8 years
this have enough bts to using developing and marketing. and there is a max supply of bts is 3.2 b forever .
I think people hate to invest something uncertainty. it is so difficult to introduce BTS without max supply limited to new investor . though fact is the real dilution is lower to 3% per year. the max is
~8% per year. so no one know the max supply of bts. I don`t know why not set a top ceiling.
how about this model
the max supply of BTS is 3.9 billion , max pay rate is 50 BTS per block to delegate till the supply of BTX is up to 3.2 billion , max pay rate reduce to 25 bts per block if supply of bts between 3.2 billion to 3.55 billion,so:
supply of bts max pay per block how many year it will take if 100% pay how many year it will take if 25% pay
2.5 billion to 3.2 billion 50 ~4.5 years ~18 years
3.2 billion to 3.55 billion 25 ~4.5 years ~18 years
3.55 billion to 3.725 billion 12.5 ~4.5 years ~18 years
3.725 billion to 3.8125 billion 6.25 ~4.5 years ~18 years=
+++ 6.25/2
...............................
so the max supply of bts is limited to 3.9 billion
compare with BTC , max supply is 21M, and current supply is 13.4M, the totally dilution =21/13.45-1=56% ,the max supply of bts is 3.9 B, and current supply is 2.5 B , the totally dilution=3.9/2.5-1=56% , some dilution .
the figure show if the pay rate is 25% , situation of 50 bts per block can keep 18 years.
so there are much space to reduce the max dilution , if set the max supply of BTS is 3.2 billion ,the totally dilution =3.2/2.5-1=28% , it is half than BTC
if we set the max supply of BTS is 3.2 billion
then dilution model as follow:
supply of bts max pay per block how many year it will take if 100% pay how many year it will take if 25% pay
2.5 billion to 2.85 billion 50 ~2.2 years ~8.8 years
2.85 billion to 3.025 billion 25 ~2.2 years ~8.8 years
3.025 billion to 3.1125 billion 12.5 ~2.2 years ~8.8 years
3.1125 billion to 3.15625 billion 6.25 ~2.2 years ~8.8 years
the total dilution only is half of BTC. but also have enough BTS to attract and encourage join us
-
A hard cap would be meaningless because it could be changed at any time. If stakeholders find it more profitable to continue paying employees they will just hard fork the cap away.
-
A hard cap would be meaningless because it could be changed at any time. If stakeholders find it more profitable to continue paying employees they will just hard fork the cap away.
Well if bitUSD stays a dollar because everyone thinks it a dollar then I say a hard cap defined by social consensus would not be meaningless. It could mark a tipping point of sorts between when people get really upset and start freaking out. It could be made small, or made with some growing room for bts in mind, depending what the people think.
-
I think 9 years are too long, 5 years are enough.
May be 2 years are good , then 2 years after ,we can change it again.
May be 1 year is good,then 1 years after,we can change it by voting.
-
I've been silently freaking out about the whole dilution thing.
I'm still hodling because hey, maybe I don't know everything, but I think the community/it's leaders should clearly define a supply cap and stick to it.
-
I've been silently freaking out about the whole dilution thing.
I'm still hodling because hey, maybe I don't know everything, but I think the community/it's leaders should clearly define a supply cap and stick to it.
Same boat here, but as long as thorough transparency and excellent voting control can be implemented, the pulsing feeling that dilution could be a beast is legit too. Just have not seen much transparency, if any, from delegates nor has voting control proved itself in the slightest. It would be nice to know more of the plan for these issues.
-
the calculation show we can not only have enough bts using to developing ,but can give a supply cap also .
-
I might be naive, but my understanding is that as a community, we will only vote delegates with 100% pay that give more than they take from the community. As soon as the system matures and the valuation increases significantly, 100% pay will be a lot of money, and except superstars delegates that bring a lot of value, there won't be a lot of delegates with 100% pay.
Assuming all voted delegates are at 100% pay all the time is highly improbable. Even from the beginning, there won't be 101 delegates providing enough value to the ecosystem for them to be all voted in with 100% pay (if this happens, then we're going to have a hell of a product).
Putting in a hard cap won't bring much to the table IMO. Large stakeholders won't be willing to dilute their holdings indefinitely. What needs to be taken care of, I think, is to make sure there's a mechanism in place to make sure that no stakeholder big enough can vote himself in indefinitely with max pay without giving back to the community.
With that in place, we won't need a definite hard cap (except for the 50bts per block hard cap). The dilution rate will take care of itself as the ecosystem matures.
-
Chinese community consensus：use vote to manage dilution
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10990.0
-
I propose that the hard cap be 2^32 - 1, or 4294967295.
There is almost no chance that this amount would ever actually be reached. (It would require max dilution for about a decade).
However, I think this might be misleading, because it would indicate that there would 'eventually' be over 4 billion BTS. I find it unlikely that we ever go much over 3 billion.
I agree that a max supply is useful, and helps to give confidence to investors.
-
A hard cap would be meaningless because it could be changed at any time. If stakeholders find it more profitable to continue paying employees they will just hard fork the cap away.
Its not meaningless if it requires a lot of effort to change (getting people on board with a hard cap).
Sure, it wouldnt be impossible to change, but it would require effort, and that would give some confidence to investors.
-
I've been silently freaking out about the whole dilution thing.
I'm still hodling because hey, maybe I don't know everything, but I think the community/it's leaders should clearly define a supply cap and stick to it.
I was also silently freaking out until I understood the process and did the math, and realized that actually the dilution rate is not going to be very high.
While the max amount is 6.3% a year, this is reduced by:
* We wont actually be electing 101 paid delegates all the time. In general, it will be way less. And if we ARE electing 101 paid delegates, we are probably growing very fast.
* Burn from transaction fees will help offset the inflation.
I figured out that dilution will probably be under 2% a year, and then I stopped worrying about it.
-
This polling is absolutely misleading!!!
We should first ask if it is necessary to enhance btsx ecosystem by way of dilution! right?