BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: nomoreheroes7 on September 30, 2014, 04:00:01 pm
-
The way I understand it, a portion of BTSX are burned by delegates as a form of dividend to BTSX holders by decreasing supply, correct? Is there any way to determine how fast this burn rate will be? For example, coinmarketcap has us at 1,999,883,512 BTSX right now, meaning 116,488 BTSX have been burnt to date. Is this accurate? Is there any way to guesstimate how many BTSX will be in existence after say 1 year? 3 years? 10 years?
-
The way I understand it, a portion of BTSX are burned by delegates as a form of dividend to BTSX holders by decreasing supply, correct? Is there any way to determine how fast this burn rate will be? For example, coinmarketcap has us at 1,999,883,512 BTSX right now, meaning 116,488 BTSX have been burnt to date. Is this accurate? Is there any way to guesstimate how many BTSX will be in existence after say 1 year? 3 years? 10 years?
Burn rate is entirely dependent on transaction volume; burn increases as transactions increase.
I don't think there's any way to guesstimate - you will end up with the same type of charts that are circulated to predict future price movements for Bitcoin.
-
I would say that the max burn rate is 5 BTSX per second until we exceed Bitcoin transaction volume.
-
So if my math's correct, the theoretical max could be as many as 157,680,000 in a year? 7.884% of the BTSX supply burned? Sounds significant...of course it's all variable, but still. Interesting...
-
So if my math's correct, the theoretical max could be as many as 157,680,000 in a year? 7.884% of the BTSX supply burned? Sounds significant...of course it's all variable, but still. Interesting...
Put burn toward building a user base.
Advertising -> User base -> BTSX price
-
I suspect the burn rate will be significant, which if marketed properly can make BTSX a very desirable asset for investors.
However, at some point the burn will necessarily reduce the supply of BTSX to zero.
It was established the burn-to-zero problem can be managed by resetting the supply to 2B at any future point in time.
But is was not established exactly how this would be accomplished.
My vote would be for some type of hard-coded automatic reset once BTSX supply reaches 1B.
Folks basically see a deposit that doubles the number of BTSX shares held with a transaction note that says 'Share supply reset' or similar.
That, or an annual reset.
Can the devs address this issue?
It should be something well explained prior to a marketing push.
-
Burn rate assumes current valuations... if BTSX were to double in value, trx fees would be halved and the burn rate would slow.
-
I suspect the burn rate will be significant, which if marketed properly can make BTSX a very desirable asset for investors.
However, at some point the burn will necessarily reduce the supply of BTSX to zero.
It was established the burn-to-zero problem can be managed by resetting the supply to 2B at any future point in time.
But is was not established exactly how this would be accomplished.
My vote would be for some type of hard-coded automatic reset once BTSX supply reaches 1B.
Folks basically see a deposit that doubles the number of BTSX shares held with a transaction note that says 'Share supply reset' or similar.
That, or an annual reset.
Can the devs address this issue?
It should be something well explained prior to a marketing push.
I for one prefer this brave new world where people reason in terms of % instead of share count
-
Burn rate assumes current valuations... if BTSX were to double in value, trx fees would be halved and the burn rate would slow.
Cool so aggressive burning when btsx value is lower.. is there a set schedule for trx fees based on valuations. or some algo(ie: double btx value according to which base level)? It's using price feed for this im guessing?
-
I for one prefer this brave new world where people reason in terms of % instead of share count
The burn is an elegant solution but has one very important drawback - fungible returns.
This is a perception issue, but an important one. Investors can't realize gains without reducing the number of shares held.
Sure, they have to sell less shares to achieve a given amount of value... but they still end up with less shares.
The current system is essentially a baked-in DRIP mechanism, which is excellent and achieves the same goal with higher efficiency.
But look at the subscription rates of DRIP programs. Folks like to get paid.
If BTSX were to reset to 2B shares on a monthly basis investors would receive a nice deposit of BTSX shares each month.
As a long time dividend investor I can't convey the magnitude of the importance of this monthly payment.
Investors can watch their share 'count' grow, or cash out without watching their stake 'shrink'.
A reset will be required at some point and I think there are huge advantages to resetting automatically on a monthly basis.
-
I for one prefer this brave new world where people reason in terms of % instead of share count
The burn is an elegant solution but has one very important drawback - fungible returns.
This is a perception issue, but an important one. Investors can't realize gains without reducing the number of shares held.
Sure, they have to sell less shares to achieve a given amount of value... but they still end up with less shares.
The current system is essentially a baked-in DRIP mechanism, which is excellent and achieves the same goal with higher efficiency.
But look at the subscription rates of DRIP programs. Folks like to get paid.
If BTSX were to reset to 2B shares on a monthly basis investors would receive a nice deposit of BTSX shares each month.
As a long time dividend investor I can't convey the magnitude of the importance of this monthly payment.
Investors can watch their share 'count' grow, or cash out without watching their stake 'shrink'.
A reset will be required at some point and I think there are huge advantages to resetting automatically on a monthly basis.
Good psychological point. This must be traded off against tax implications because in many jurisdictions it might change the accounting from capital gains to ordinary income.
(This is not intended as tax advice - I am merely a humble and lovable engineer.)