Why would you want to drop 50%? As long as this discussion has been going on the price has been on a steady incline. This shows that it is nothing but a non-disussion. But for the sake of harmony within the community it might be good to change the numbers.

the most frequent proposal that comes up is:
BLOCK VALUE: 1.00
MN REWARD: 0.80

Let's consider
20% reduction on total coin supply. With the balance shifting more toward mn. This means that mn will be even more profitable. Good for all mn investors, especially the ones that have acquired quite a bit right now... which is ok.

The remedy on top of an already steady price incline could proof to be an accelerator, while an even greater portion of distribution goes to mn holders. We will still have high inflation during the coming months because of the linear solution to a non-linear problem. 20% reduction imo is not the end of the world when considering total coin supply & the shift in balance, 50% is a hard cut though.

MN COST: 888.00
BLOCK VALUE: 1.208
MN REWARD: 0.888

Please go through my post history.

short story:

Every year the supply increases with about 490k 8Bit, with an initial base of 101k. There was lots of hype, first dev bailed, disillusionment followed.

Ending    - Inflation - Total Supply
year 0     -   488%  -   0.1 MLN
1st year   -   82%   -   0.6 MLN
2nd year   -   45%   -   1.0 MLN
3rd year   -   31%   -   1.5 MLN
5th year   -   19%   -   2.5 MLN
10th year   -   10%   -   5.0 MLN
25th year   -   4%   -   12.4 MLN

We are now at roughly 200k coins which means there is still 300% to go for this year. This seems much, but we have a very low marketcap, we just need to hang on and get through this stage...

Masternode currently pays out 1188/1350 per day divided over all nodes. This is a linear(fixed) amount, in an exponentially(S-curve) growing market. More nodes get added and the less profitable mn will be, this in favor for 8Bit distribution.

Cutting payout means cutting total supply. Cutting significantly means cutting supply significantly. You'll end up with a very, very rare coin... Also when we are cutting we will cut it in a linear setting, but we are already decreasing exponentially. Cutting inflation will also cut the rate of its drop, lol.

Burning coins is also an unnecessary measure, it widens the gap between now and low inflation. It has a postponing effect but creates short term gains. I can see it being useful in a saturated market where the user base is on the decline.

IMO the solution for now is intrinsic value: [development, marketing].

What is high? As I've shown that the current setting are capable of storing value. We have a rare & undervalued coin, as market grows let supply grow accordingly. Cutting supply makes the coin extraordinarily rare, if it is too rare it won't be of any use.

The high inflation rhetoric does not fit with fixed increment as it does with regular compound interest rates.

Like i consented before, increase cost to 888 (by popular demand, for marketing reasons, and practicality).
Let the pay-out system be as it is, its high profitability is one of the key aspects of 8Bit. Its the reason why many dared to venture into this coin. The system is stable enough, the future is modest enough, let it be.

Have others for consult but decide for yourself who speaks truth, then carry on.  

If you need time, take it. If i'm wrong price should naturally destabilize significantly, if i'm right it should remain stable. Set a period aside to see what the market does, then decide.

I actually agree with this. A dictator in the spirit of Cincinnatus is the best we can hope for at this moment.
For those interested in history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Quinctius_Cincinnatus 

When a community as small as this one goes through a voting process the outcome can just as easily be manipulated as the market price, i.e. Dictatorship of the Majority(bagholders).

What is popular is not always best!

Thats the difference between a price-oriented and goal-oriented approach. The leak will fix itself given enough time. Actually its already fixing itself by stabilizing. Why would anyone want to disrupt the present state?

I can not stress this enough: The inflationary symptom is the result of the disillusionment after the initial hype. By "fixing" the pay-out you are treating the symptom but not the cause.

If someone bought-in high then let him buy some more low, it lowers the average buyer price and uplift the market-price, thus he will be able to get out sooner. But don't try to spike the price to 200k just to dump some bags... No the effects of lowering the pay-out could be detrimental on many levels.

Agreed normally there are a 100 million divisions, but we have been given a starting point. Roughly 200k supply and a 30k satoshi pricepoint.

We can totally change the coin/math, which would be very disruptive and make it prone to p&d. Or work with the stability that we have right now, which is not all too bad if I say so myself.

Few million coin supply over a few years gives room to think about what to do with it. It's a normal amount of supply, nothing extraordinary which is good. When this is what we want and you run the numbers the result will be what we have right now.

Also, let's say we have a 5 MLN supply. 20% stuck in nodes and another 20% in wallet on exchanges or stake. That leaves 3 MLN for "use", how many users could we attract in 10 years time? <100,1000,10000>? that leaves <30000,3000,300> per user. Again these figures to me are alright!

I'm all for higher price (888)

I agree that we need to determine a real goal first. But also take into account that our market will grow with us. At present rate it will take 10 years to get to 5 mln 8BIT. At that moment inflation will be 10% per year. You might say 10% that is enormous. But also consider that the coin is very rare right now.

What could we do with a coin supply of a few million coins?

Distribution favors those that run master nodes. Once the price is back to a comfortable level they will start to release coins to a wider audience. This means that it will be very profitable for early investors, nothing wrong with that because they've held the hot potatoe!

Some inflation numbers after year(x)=(1350*365/(102,000+(1350*365x))

1st year   -   82%   -   0.6 MLN
2nd year   -   45%   -   1.0 MLN
3rd year   -   31%   -   1.5 MLN
5th year   -   19%   -   2.5 MLN
10th year   -   10%   -   5.0 MLN
25th year   -   4%   -   12.4 MLN

At a marketcap of around $ 17,500, I say that our market can easy quadruple in a relatively short period. With these numbers that would mean we have 2 years to break even. If we get there sooner, thats profit!
$ 70,000 = 270 BTC
270 BTC / 0.6 MLN = 45000 satoshi
270 BTC / 1.0 MLN = 27000 satoshi

Now also take into account the models/graphs I presented earlier. (Double S & Hype Curve). I can easily see 8Bit beating these numbers through market acceptance. Once 8Bit has real value besides being profitable I can easily see a marketcap of $ 500k after 1-2 years. This would mean a price of around 190,000 satoshi at the end of year 2 or 38,000 after year 10 if market growth should stagnate. How is that for price stability / steady growth? Also a $ 500k marketcap is a very conservative number.

But first we need to get out of the "Disillusionment" so that we get into our next developmental cycle.

I'm not saying killing inflation is a myth

I am saying that inflation itself is "the" myth,
a fixed rate interest will converge to 0%!  (relative to total supply)

here are some graphs/models to represent what i mean:

Supply increment. Increment/total supply converges, and in time will approximate 0%


Double S Curve. Projects and businesses can have many cycles. Imagine the legs and number of cycles 8Bit could have!


Hype curve, look what happens at every cycle... Now image what a linear supply growth could do instead of an exponential one. Every cycle inflation will get a bad reputation because of its exponential sibling. Inflation is not our problem, inflated expectations is.

imho pay-out is good as it is, 888 8BIT per mn would be cool though. Project pay-out should be considered along with project scope & lifecycle. The lower the pay-out the less time there is for early investors to build their position, and for the developer to deliver. Once investors are "leaving" the project will be like a desert walk. With leaving I do not mean the core followers, but the investors that provide the affluence with which developments will proceed more smoothly.

We need a bit of coin supply to grow the market as well!

To combat the "inflation" I refer to my earlier post:

Agreed

Unless you can keep adding nodes your share will diminish. We will find an equilibrium and know how profitable mn can be.

Right now we have no idea what services to offer, nor the prices the market is willing to pay for it. We still have a long way to go, but these are seperate things in my mind...

Demand trumps everything we can all see this. And with an interest rate in %, it needs to combat an exponential curve but having a fixed rate, inflation naturally corrects itself you'll see...
Don't forget untill we have market adoptation there is still buy on rumour/sell on news etc... Investors will come and go, some will stick. Inflation only hurts in the beginning, call em growing pains  .


Yeah thats where I'm at as well. And once we have this anchor and its target customer profile we need to size it up. How many coins do we need to satisfy this group at launch and thereafter? (that would be my answer to the inflation question)

As long as it is an open discussion I will state my position, time is on our side. If people don't want to argue, then don't bring it up.


My question to you all is this: What would be a practical number of coins? 0.5mln? 1mln? 5mln?
And when should we try to reach that number? (roadmap)

Why do I ask?

Low numbers = Low risk/reward
High numbers = High risk/reward

And because the increment/total is a logarithmic curve it tends to converge to a limit(0).
This presents a "window of profitability". So how long do you want 8Bit to be profitable for masternodes/stake? Because that's the time the developer has to create something and get enough  market adoption to eat away the supply (this will be his burdon).

Low pay-out = Less time for Dev + Quick Dump
High pay-out = More time for Dev + Investment Oppertunity.

I know this might sound counterintuitive, but because the inflation problem converges to 0 a high pay-out is not really damaging. A low pay-out on the other hand closes this "window of profitability" and will make early investors jumpy. What is important is that the project-scope is carefully chosen!

Let me rephrase my question: What is 8Bit's aim? How big does it dare to be?

Low numbers/Low Pay-out = Nice little project on the side (short term)
Hign numbers/Low Pay-out = Walk through the desert for the developer(investors might jumpt ship)
Low numbers/High Pay-out = Inconceivable, or it must be a summer scam (our situation right now)
High numbers/High Pay-out = Daring (but it would need a lot of support from the community)

Block explorer would be nice, I think we can all agree on that.

I understand how you feel. But the price has been stable for quite some time now. And we know that the problem of inflation will naturally correct itself to a negligable amount(see my earlier post).

It is all a matter of time perspective. Quick buck or long term investment.
Those who want a quick buck would want to reduce inflation.
Those who think long term want to accumulate by running masternodes (incredible return)

Knowing all this and the fact that we will soon have a developer willing to put in some hours to create real value. Is this then not a great time to buy and accumulate instead of selling out? What more do you want? The future is bright, HODL!

That is exactly my point! If nobody wants 8Bit because of bad marketing (Likened to an illness). Then supply and demand do not apply!

You took something that everyone wants right now (more gold). Which is just as arbitrary.

First 8Bit needs the likeness of Gold(real "marketed" value). Then you can fiddle around with supply/demand.

Not the other way around.

But we have a fixed amount so lets say we increase with 1. Over a starting amount of one. Supply will increase in the following way.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | ∞
 
increment then is

0 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 | ... | +1

0(0) + 1*(1) + 1/2*(2) + 1/3*(3) + 1/4*(4) + 1/5*(5) + 1/6*(6) + | ... | + 1/∞*(∞)

Final term: 1/∞=0

so you see in time, inflation is leterally of no concern. Given enough time there will be a shortage of supply.

But I understand that right now it looks like inflation is killing. And it might even look like that for a whole year. But once there is enough wealth locked up in the coin, with a decent supply. Then inflation would be barely noticable yet remain profitable.

Now think about this one step further...

8Bit shows that it is probable that no more then 25% of all coins will be directed at MasterNodes. This ensures profitability for quite some time. But once there are a lot of nodes, lets say 25% of an ∞ supply. Then your reward will decrease to 0. Why? Too much (∞)competition.

Therefore there will come a point of equilibrium for the total amount of MasterNodes with respect to cost/return.
Fees for services then offer a solution. Because they are outside of theses restrictions. Its scalability is directly linked to market usage.

What you call simple economics is a fallacy. What if for example common illness becomes treatable and thus scarce. By your line of reasoning there would be an increased demand for this illness!

Demand and supply are two seperate dimensions. Taken together they determine price.
So when you create scarcity given certain demand* then and only then will the price go up.
But if there is no demand then scarcity will not help. You will only fade away into nothingness.
      *(not taking into account p&d schemes.)

At least with high supply you have the chance to get scattered around and be noticed. Its easy to hide 1 diamond, much easier then sahara sand. But to create demand for the diamond or for the sand, it needs to be of value to people. This is were marketing comes in. No marketing, no perceived value. No perceived value, nothing. Decreasing inflation will only temporarily increase price, after that it's bye bye. Unless of course marketing kicks in, but then we need to watch out in becoming too scarce. For neither diamond, nor sand is very usefull to be used for payment.

What would be a good practical number for 8bit coin supply? Given the to be determined goals for usage? And how to get there from where we are now? This is much more important imho!

or the loop could be closed. let mn control the inflation. and let service fees be paid be service usage.
if a user (customer) makes use of a service why should this be free?

if there is an allocated cost then this could be redistributed over the network to those rendering these services.

this way mn and price/inflation is seperated from the product. And payment directly distributed to those that carry the cost of rendering the service.

My voice has been against MasterTrader777 but i must concede with the communities decision, maybe you are the man for this stage of 8Bits development. I will not stand in your way, but i do have some concerns.

Raising the Maternode Requirement is a good idea, but to remain appealing to a large audience it might be better to consider 256 or 512 8Bit. This wil still raise demand and with it the price which is good. But because of the amount of coins in existence low MR keeps it affordable to a larger public.

With 1024 the benefit would be very much in favor of the early invester, new inverstors might be wary of this and show caution. Imagine getting this to an 8Bit/ComicCon-like community, how much would they be willing to pay?

My advice: Keep it as low as possible, but increase it enough to gain traction. Seeing people running 30+ nodes to me kind of defeats the purpose, but hacking it away to a mere 3 is just draconic. This raises the question: Qui Bono? Go for middle ground, you come off better!