Show Posts
Quote
tl;dr I'm suggesting that AMPs should be converted into two separate coins, one for the attention economy social network and one for the blockchain.
Hi everyone!
I watched the Synereo governance meeting a couple of nights ago, and was surprised to learn just how large the difference in vision between Dor and Greg really is, in terms of governance and in terms of technology.
It is clear that Dor wants to focus on delivering Synereo and that Greg wants to focus on delivering RChain. AMP holders are therefore now in a position where they don’t know whether AMPs represent access to features in a distributed social network or access to a blockchain.
So I want to make the following humble suggestion to the Synereo community. This is a proposal you are welcome to reject:
Synereo should conduct the first-ever* “coin split”.
Description:
1 AMP would henceforth be convertible to 1 new AMP and 1 RCoin.**
New AMPs and RCoins would trade completely independently.
The Synereo project would have to commit use new AMPs as a native token, and RChain would have to commit to use RCoin as a native token. This is a critical requirement.
Token holders would now have the ability to expose themselves to the success of Synereo and to the success of Rchain at whatever ratio they personally prefer.
Analysis:
Pros:
It helps Synereo and RChain to be independently managed. I would bet that the probability of either project being successful is higher if they are independent projects (win-win!).
It would make it clear that AMPs very concretely represent both a stake in Synereo and a stake in RChain. This would replace the current uncertainty about whether an AMP represents stake in Synereo or RChain.
The AMP treasury would be split into two treasuries, one of new AMPs and one of Rcoins. These could be governed separately.
It could resolve existing uncertainty about RChain’s native blockchain token.***
It would provide a simple, clear way to observe token holder’s relative appetite for Synereo and RChain.
AMP holders who do not convert their tokens in new AMPs and RCoins are not penalized for inactivity.
Does not require anything unusual from exchanges.
Cons:
Requires commitment by the respective development teams to natively adopt new AMPs and RCoin.
New AMPs and RCoins each have to be listed separately on exchanges (requiring that the community convince the exchanges to list them, and earning the exchanges more fees).****
The price of AMPs has to (almost) precisely be the sum of the price of new AMPs and the price of Rcoins in order to not provide arbitrage opportunities.****
The technical details of the coin split will need to be worked out. This is not necessarily trivial and might require hiring a consultant.
There may be “black swan” risks to giving the open market more power to independently influence the funding available (from the treasuries) to the two distinct portions of the current Synereo vision.
The admittedly difficult follow-up suggestion:
In order to respect the intentions of investors who purchased AMPs in the recent sale, the funds raised in the sale should be split between Synereo and RCoin in the proportion to the average ratio of prices of new AMPs and RCoins, taken over a sufficiently long period of time to make gaming the ratio prohibitively expensive. (but there's lots of room in this design space!)
I don’t necessarily think this is going to be politically possible given the current state of things (and it’s completely not my right to be a part of the discussion!), however I think the general idea is elegant because the market will reveal whether these investors purchased AMPs in order to support Synereo or in order to support RChain if there is a coin split, so I wanted to put it out there for you to digest.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
* It’s the “first ever” as far as I know!
** These are token names I made up, I don’t necessarily want them to stick! Do think of better ones!
*** Abstracting tokens from blockchain architectures is still an unsolved problem – I suspect that there is no sensible way to make a proof-of-stake blockchain with no (or multiple) native tokens.
**** I count these as “cons” because the purpose of the token split is not to benefit exchanges, market makers or arbitrageurs.
Disclosures:
I have two sources of possible conflict of interest: 1) I hold a substantial amount of AMPs and 2) I expect to do consulting for RChain, in my capacity as one of the principle architects working on the Casper protocol.
Also btw, I did share this idea with Greg when I had it, <48 hours ago, I did not ask his permission to make this proposal public, nor has he told me whether he supports the proposal.
Hi everyone!
I watched the Synereo governance meeting a couple of nights ago, and was surprised to learn just how large the difference in vision between Dor and Greg really is, in terms of governance and in terms of technology.
It is clear that Dor wants to focus on delivering Synereo and that Greg wants to focus on delivering RChain. AMP holders are therefore now in a position where they don’t know whether AMPs represent access to features in a distributed social network or access to a blockchain.
So I want to make the following humble suggestion to the Synereo community. This is a proposal you are welcome to reject:
Synereo should conduct the first-ever* “coin split”.
Description:
1 AMP would henceforth be convertible to 1 new AMP and 1 RCoin.**
New AMPs and RCoins would trade completely independently.
The Synereo project would have to commit use new AMPs as a native token, and RChain would have to commit to use RCoin as a native token. This is a critical requirement.
Token holders would now have the ability to expose themselves to the success of Synereo and to the success of Rchain at whatever ratio they personally prefer.
Analysis:
Pros:
It helps Synereo and RChain to be independently managed. I would bet that the probability of either project being successful is higher if they are independent projects (win-win!).
It would make it clear that AMPs very concretely represent both a stake in Synereo and a stake in RChain. This would replace the current uncertainty about whether an AMP represents stake in Synereo or RChain.
The AMP treasury would be split into two treasuries, one of new AMPs and one of Rcoins. These could be governed separately.
It could resolve existing uncertainty about RChain’s native blockchain token.***
It would provide a simple, clear way to observe token holder’s relative appetite for Synereo and RChain.
AMP holders who do not convert their tokens in new AMPs and RCoins are not penalized for inactivity.
Does not require anything unusual from exchanges.
Cons:
Requires commitment by the respective development teams to natively adopt new AMPs and RCoin.
New AMPs and RCoins each have to be listed separately on exchanges (requiring that the community convince the exchanges to list them, and earning the exchanges more fees).****
The price of AMPs has to (almost) precisely be the sum of the price of new AMPs and the price of Rcoins in order to not provide arbitrage opportunities.****
The technical details of the coin split will need to be worked out. This is not necessarily trivial and might require hiring a consultant.
There may be “black swan” risks to giving the open market more power to independently influence the funding available (from the treasuries) to the two distinct portions of the current Synereo vision.
The admittedly difficult follow-up suggestion:
In order to respect the intentions of investors who purchased AMPs in the recent sale, the funds raised in the sale should be split between Synereo and RCoin in the proportion to the average ratio of prices of new AMPs and RCoins, taken over a sufficiently long period of time to make gaming the ratio prohibitively expensive. (but there's lots of room in this design space!)
I don’t necessarily think this is going to be politically possible given the current state of things (and it’s completely not my right to be a part of the discussion!), however I think the general idea is elegant because the market will reveal whether these investors purchased AMPs in order to support Synereo or in order to support RChain if there is a coin split, so I wanted to put it out there for you to digest.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
* It’s the “first ever” as far as I know!
** These are token names I made up, I don’t necessarily want them to stick! Do think of better ones!
*** Abstracting tokens from blockchain architectures is still an unsolved problem – I suspect that there is no sensible way to make a proof-of-stake blockchain with no (or multiple) native tokens.
**** I count these as “cons” because the purpose of the token split is not to benefit exchanges, market makers or arbitrageurs.
Disclosures:
I have two sources of possible conflict of interest: 1) I hold a substantial amount of AMPs and 2) I expect to do consulting for RChain, in my capacity as one of the principle architects working on the Casper protocol.
Also btw, I did share this idea with Greg when I had it, <48 hours ago, I did not ask his permission to make this proposal public, nor has he told me whether he supports the proposal.
