We are already discussing possibilities for every interested XMR holder regardless of size, to be part of it directly. The challenges here are technical. The idea is definitely not to draw borderlines in the middle of the community, but the necessary tech to administer the huge number of members is just yet not there.

That would allow a fluid way for vote aggregation by proxy, so that smaller holders would delegate their votepower directly to the holders they trust, and some members might set up "mini-parliaments" by being open in what they represent, and professional in their communication, in order to gather a large amount of votepower, and thus justify spending time on the things.

The current void of representative democracy is that one vote does not count. The only way to affect things is to bribe/"lobby" a career politician that speaks lies to people before the election to get elected, and then does what you have paid him for. This has been rethought in MEW.

Thank you!

I have proposed the current name Monero Economy Workgroup (MEW). As we remember from the OP, it has a twofold purpose, to be the means for determining the community opinion, and the platform for those interested in developing things.

The current name is mainly describing the latter, not the former. Your suggestions are taking this even further, which may not be good. Outsiders should, if possible, be able to see both the aspects of the group from the name already.

The MEW is an inclusive, not exclusive group. Club/Guild has a connotation of exclusiveness. MEW is bound to accept everyone to be members, because the legitimacy of our vote is dependent on the ability for every holder to join us, otherwise it would be "just a club" voting things.

The voting aspect could be conveyed by "Parliament" or similar. "Council", even "Consortium" have been proposed. "Foundation" is often used but was rejected in yesterday's meeting.

Let me know if you think it's a good idea that MEW set up a Monero Forum?

+1. But even despite of that, I'd still like to see the proof out of curiosity, because:

- Monero has no premine. If someone ever pays for pro-monero shilling, he is doing it completely out of his own pocket.
- Other coins feel threatened and they have a premine = free money to be used in "forum operations".

Not a big wonder why there is irrational hate in the forum. People do what they are paid for.

I think/hope MEW aims for maximum impact and usefulness. So if there is anything that could be useful for the general public, it will be published. The meetings are not the primary idea though. The focus is on doing things.

Can't you see how ridiculous that assertion is?? If not, please read the helpful text by another poster:


My thinking goes like this:

- Everybody has freedom of thought
- Therefore I have freedom of thought
- Someone is gay
- I think it is not good to be gay because the Bible says so and I am not in a position to change it
- But he also has freedom of thought to think it is OK
- I may retain my opinion because my freedom of thought, and he his, and everything is just fine, it's childish to fight over opinions

And in your case:

- Everybody has freedom of thought
- Therefore I have freedom of thought
- Someone is black
- I think it is OK to be black there is nothing in the Bible saying that people shouldn't be black
- everything is just fine

General:

If you infringe people's freedom of thought, you are on a heinous path, much worse than that some people might childishly despise others based on their opinions. Even discussing about the subject from an analytical standpoint (like here) is a thoughtcrime and punishable by at least fines in both where I live and you live. I know people who have been made to pay for their freedom of opinion. This is not a fantasy anymore. If the condition of your coming to Malla is that I or anyone may not freely think whatever our conscience allows to think, then perhaps you should exercise your freedom to not associate with me.

I hope we are on the same side.

If anyone was in the business of selling large amounts, he would have had plenty of opportunities yesterday, today and even as we speak.

I can only conclude that such people do not exist.

Shame. The walls are made by competing MEW members, who want to buy, and no one is selling.

Can I hear the sad sound of an empty XMR wallet willing to buy <0.004?

I think it is conceivable that we see that figure again. But before that happens, I am quite much richer

Let's not be so serious. MEW is gonna be real fun!! 

And even if they did. Cryptocurrency is just information. We are building a network here that makes this information available without even having money. Even though I often don't see it, now I see a glimpse of the future, without money. Oh - better spend less time with people who introduced Bitcoin to me, but themselves have been on the next level for long already...

send me a functioning link, please.

I cannot take responsibility for onymous or anonymous people coming to your threads. If such happens, it is bad behaviour and they should leave. I will leave if so asked.

But you can take responsibility for not opening for reading, any threads started by Monero supporters or bearing Monero, or XMR, in the title.

I agree that Monero has grown to be so big that it is threatening the balance of this forum.

There will likely be a new MEW forum soon!

As for the size of my fishness, I have never seen my fin, but sometimes when I eat, I kind of feel pain at the same time...

Hey that's their plan! Ignorance is knowledge.

I can pledge 1000 XMR if you catch me infringing someone's life, liberty or property. Because I believe in voluntary interaction.

How I would like that everyone did the same to me! (or at least gave 1000 XMR per count.. )


 

With all due respect, sir... your post history clearly reveals that you are a troll. But whatever. To each his own.

In a free world, people have the liberty to think whatever they want. The proliferation of the concept of "racism" is a 1984-esque thoughtcrime.

Every act of rasistic violence, etc., shall be judged as any act of non-rasistic violence, according to the law.

But when people's thoughts start to be judged, then the freedom of thought is no more.

(I don't want to sound harsh, but the indoctrination of thoughtcrime is a sneaky one, and repelling it is a priority.)

This looks like a troll post, because every sentence is a little bit wavering, and the profounding developments that Monero is going through at a breathtaking speed every week are twisted to the opposite.

So either you have no idea what's happening or you don't speak truthfully. Reader decide.

You see how little support PC actually has. It is one of the many repression techniques forced on us, completely unfounded in logic and not supported by conscience.

(Yes I understand you were being sarcastic, but never miss an opportunity to make a point )

In my example, the 1% largest owner = The One-Percent owned 19% of the coins and the 10% largest owners = 1st decile owned 55% of the coins.

The reality in real life and in coins is actually even more pronounced. The research I have made with XMR distribution have lead me to conclude that the One-Percent owns minimum 35% and up to 55% of coins, and the 1st decile naturally even more.

And guess what - I believe that in other altcoins the situation is yet more concentrated, with very few large stashes owning most of the coins. This is due to the imperfect initial distribution (IPO, for example), and insufficient time in the exchange to build the "middle class". These coins may also lack the reason to buy it in the first place.

In theory the matter could be unoptimal to the other side also. If we assumed a coin that was strictly only distributed to people in a certain area, for example, and did not have any mining or anything, then the deciles would not form properly and in the beginning there was no economy, and the coin would likely die, but if it magically stayed alive, it would likely be very concentrated. Making a DOA unpumpable coin is not in anybody's interest, however.

Even too concise...
...I'm thinking of grouping it to 3 main categories:

- Technical innovation and quality of code, first-mover legitimacy

- Legitimacy and fairness of launch, distribution, devs, lies/scam

- Actual economy and market situation, how the coin IS used in the economy

(these should include the subpoints yes...)


Currently all cryptos still want to attract more investors. This is easier if there are more coins being made. Few want to come to a crowded table, or buy into a pyramid scheme in its late stage. The absolute amount of money that the coin absorbs every day is a proof that it is wanted by the market.


Hearsay is quite enough. Without specially trying to obtain the knowledge, I have heard a lot about the situation concerning different coins/devs, and the information can be compiled.

There is a thread that tells how it is better that whales own the coins than the devs.

BUT: people can not be categorized. Rather often, the same person is both a dev and a whale. And the issue is not to alienate these interdependent groups from each other, rather point to the problem of ((il)legitimate) free money that is typically the reason for the devs' large stashes. If there is an unfair launch lied about, and the dev has coins as a result, that will not bring a blessing to the project. Even if the dev has created his stash honestly, if it is without due payment, it is a problem. Even if the dev has mined his stash in an open market, without any spot or blemish, to support the coin, over the years, just by the virtue that it is too big, it is a problem. See: Satoshi.

I believe in the right to save. So there shall be no rules that limit your buying more coins.

I believe in the right to spend. So there shall be no rules that prohibit you from dishoarding your coins.


If these rules are observed, the market tends towards the natural distribution found in my previous post. Most people find it expedient to have some money, a smaller fraction wants to have more, yet smaller yet more, and in the top are the businessmen. The cohort of needy people who would like to have more money but in practise spend it all, is also present.

Getting to such situation is, however not easy. Not at all.

There needs to be a mechanism to create money. Aside from physical mining, digital mining is now introduced. Money can also be created by fiat, out of thin air. Banking cartel uses debt money, which is only created when someone wants to be deeper indebted (typically governments, because businesses and people have for long understood the ploy, but the banksters control the governments).

Then there needs to be a mechanism for initial distribution. Mining distributes the currency to the miners. Mining is a competitive business, and economically it should be treated that miners always sell at the going price. If this does not happen, the reason is that the miner wants to keep the coins, so in this context he should be regarded as an investor and the coins as savings. Still, mining has an effect of distributing the coins much better than the alternative, IPO. IPO is in my opinion not valid for coins at all, because it forces later comers to buy from earlier investors, creating a pyramid scheme. Third possibility is to determine some criteria for people, who so become eligible to receive coins for free. This is a great idea.

We need economy. Basically the larger economy, consisting of all financial, trading, dealing activity, plus real world contracts, settlements, retail, commerce, whatever, the faster and better the dynamic optimal distribution is obtained. Size of economy is often quantified with # of transactions per day, which is however a lacking metric, because some transactions are economically much more valid (transfer of ownership, settlement of contract, payment) than others (mixing, gambling, internal, pool payments). With proper econometric research, we could quantify the economy better.

A special case of economy is coin exchange. Having much volume there can be achieved without much economy by tricks called hype, pump, fud, dump etc., but a low volume of coin exchange is a sure sign that there is not much economy either. The market cap is determined solely by the exchange, and not by the economy, so it is a misleading indicator of a coin's success if in a midst of a pump.

*-*

The Initial distribution produces coins either constantly (mining), once-for-all (IPO) or gradually (claimable coins). The work of the Coin economy designer is to think how the economy gets towards the Dynamic optimum state from the unoptimal Initial state.

There is a natural distribution (nature/-al, found in nature, in similar phenomena eg. sizes of rocks, or population of cities under certain constraints) of money and it is observed in these projects as well. In presence of unhindered trading/liquidity, and unhindered fungibility, the distribution of any monetary coin tends to this model.

Power law + lognormal distribution

- Power law means that the nth position has approximately 1/n that many coins as the 1st position.
- Lognormal means that when we arrange the holders to logarithmically same size brackets, the distribution appears normal (ie. "bell curve").
- The point where lognormal changes to power law is approximately 3% from the top, so that power law applies to the top tail.
- Consider an example of a coin that only has 100 owners, and their ownership is distributed according to the model. I have taken the 3 whales each separately (in the purist example they own 1000, 500 and 333 coins respectively, but statistically we cannot conclude that with a high degree of confidence), and the rest form a lognormal distribution as follows (number of coins in brackets) number of owners in bold:


(256-1999) 3 <- the whales are here but there is no confidence how many coins they own, because of the small sample
(128-255) 5 <- the lognormal part begins here, with higher confidence when brackets become larger
(64-127) 11
(32-63) 20 <- average holding is 54 coins
(16-31) 23 <- this bracket forms the lognormal midpoint with highest point density (in log), and also hosts the median, 23 coins
(8-15) 20 <- the highest linear point density is here and below
(4-7) 11
(2-3) 5
(1) 2


This is the distribution that is reached when the market dynamics are lead to function. The actual scaling parameters of the normal distribution may vary.


Let's check how the coins are distributed in deciles (10%s) of people. (Total number of coins is 5404):
1st decile: 54.7%
2nd decile: 14.5%
3rd decile: 9.6%
4th decile: 6.7%
5th decile: 4.9%
6th decile: 3.7%
7th decile: 2.7%
8th decile: 1.9%
9th decile: 1.2%
10th decile: 0.6%.

I omit the details for now but I superimposed the distribution in an excel table and actually reconstructed all the 100 coins owners with their balances. Then it is easy to calculate who owns what.

Now, this is the natural distribution. Actually this is a quite nice, middle-class one, because everybody owned coins (nobody was in debt), and even the minimum coin holding was 1 coin, which is "only" 3 orders of magnitude smaller than the largest holding, 1000 coins. (In Bitcoin, a holding 3 orders of magnitude smaller than the largest one would still be considered very large).

From economic standpoint most of the wealth goes to the top holders always, and it is good, it is called "capital formation", without which there could be no initiatives except ones that require no capital. There is no coercion needed or hopefully allowed.

Almost 20% of the coins belonged to 1 person. If the economy is as small as 100 people, this is optimal economically. It is larger than 66% least-holding people combined.

If things need to get done, there needs to be different size stakeholders. One person cannot do all, and collective initiatives without stake leadership seldom succeed. If the top stake is much larger or much smaller, the economic incentives are probably not correct. (Too large a stake might discourage newcomers, too distributed holdings imply loss of leadership and invite attackers).

We could argue whether it is fairer to give money to people who, when left alone, exchange the money for something they need more. We can give money, but we cannot give wealth. If they are allowed to spend the money, they do. If they are prone to keeping the money, they are not subjects of this question at all.

This is getting long, hopefully the discussion can continue. In my next message I will try to expound the practical problems why money should not be generated out of nothing, the importance of inflation and how it should be done, and more.