This question is on many people's minds. However, with widespread adoption the total number of coins is not that big a thing. At some point in future (perhaps when widely adopted) and if it does become a huge problem for some reason, it can be sorted then with an adjustment to the staking parameters.

You can ask a similar question - how many fiat dollars are there in total out there in the money supply?

And it flies through the confirmations as well.

Price = supply vs demand, all else being equal and actions being rational. The high staking is reducing supply becuase people dont want to sell which is good for the equation. The high staking might also increase demand to form the base for more staking which is even better for the equation. At some point other factors might also increase demand which will be excellent. If things work out over the long run, base holdings can generate nice income supplementing holders' main income.

A big plus for 10K is its super fast confirmations which is important for application in day to day retail at the till and widespread adoption.

@iGotSpots I think you are doing a terrific job. I have my concerns that I am watching closely to see how it unfolds, but overall great job so far.

I am looking forward to the future plans and what is in store for 10K.

So what is next? POW is almost finished and coins are out there. What are the plans to take over the world?

I am just concerned about the total money supply over time. After pure POS it will be possible to plot total money supply on a daily basis and attempt a projection for the next week, month, 6 months, 1 year and 5 years.

One positive thing is the potential loss in stake income is keeping the coins off the exchanges.

So it is linear then and not compounding?

At this point after the impact of fast splits the stake generated is around 27% per day?

What is preventing the max coin supply getting out of hand big? Assuming 27% on avg stake per day : Coin supply*1.27*1.27*1.27*1.27 etc.

Don't be so hard on the devs. Maybe they don't have the ICO funds (yet/anymore)? Maybe they bought what they can afford? Having said this I do get your point that a website is important. They did promise that 25% of ICO will go towards marketing, and a website is your marketing portal to the world and probably the most important tool to portray your image to the world. It brings me to my point of earlier that with 320BTC the community is entitled to expect a rolls-royce racing car and the devs can splash to play the part. Else what is the point in asking 320BTC for the ICO?

Where will you be getting the money for the 5% dividend per month?

This

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=807557.msg9112658#msg9112658

Then also make sure you open your wallet correctly - the 9s are just the number of seconds to keep it open:
walletpassphrase [yourpassword] 99999999 true

Yet again, thanks for the excellent work.

You sound new in the business. If I can give you advice, go for one of the following options as it will spread your risk:

1. For your e-shop consider www.coinpayments.net or www.bitpay.com
2. For your physical shop consider getting www.coinkite.com and then you can use terminals and people can use cards or scan a QR code and pay with their digital wallets.

There are a few others payment platforms as well. Any coin worth their salt will get on the existing major e-platforms. If Swift is worth its salt it will also get onto those platforms eventually. This way you can spread your risk and do not have to worry about putting your eggs all in one basket and in the process you will address the list of concerns you mentioned.

Because even shill accounts will eventually get Hero status and a Hero status shill account is much more valuable than a newbie one  

The sales of coins in this ICO was transparent in the sense that everyone can track the sales happening on the exchange.  It is therefore possible to say beyond reasonable doubt, with the value placed on Bittrex integrity as an exchange that 100% of the ICO was sold out and paid for with BTC @ 8000 per coin. In that sense the process cannot be bypassed to only sell 10% of the ICO as per your example and making as if 100% was sold. The full ICO coins was transferred to the Bittrex wallet otherwise the number of coins in the ICO would have showed less on the sell side. It is therefore not necessary to have a "proof of ICO" of some sorts. Having said this, it is impossible to determine exactly who paid the BTC. This information is confidential to Bittrex. All that the public will know is that someone paid BTC for the coins. The "someone" can be the broad community in the one extreme or just one person on the other extreme. If the dev put in BTC in the exchange it is possible to have bought coins in the ICO. In short, in all scenarios real BTC has to flow into the exchange for the ICO - how the BTC is obtained or structured outside of the exchange can be done in many ways to achieve the same result.

I forgot to add this earlier: In the case of Swift it is fair to expect the dev to maintain a fast pace in line with the large amount of BTC the "community" entrusted the devs with. 320 BTC is a lot of money that should be enough to fund the fast paced road ahead. That is of course if the ICO funds will be used for development and marketing work and if the dev team is sincere and honest. A hypothetical situation in the case of an unscrupulous dev team and pump group would be as follows: Pump leader and dev makes a deal that pump group will buy most of ICO in return for guarantee that dev hands over ICO funds to pump group as well as for assurances that dev would add lots of bling and hype to improve sentiment to add to the pump group's own hype. Once price is high enough due to the increased sentiment due to promises and with large enough buy orders for pump group to exit profitably, ICO funds are paid over again by the pump group to the dev for future work or for whatever the dev wanted the ICO funds for.

Of course we all believe that such an atrocious situation is not applicable here and that everything with this ICO was above board. Proof will be in the fundamentals when features work properly, increases utility of the public and gets widely adopted. Earnings is a bonus and anything based on just future promises are fake and empty. It is up to the dev to prove this to the community that gave him 320BTC.

When the great man/group developed and rolled out BTC it was the first of its kind and different rules applied at the time. There were no features, bling or anything - just a straight forward protocol to roll out a proof of concept digital/virtual "currency". There was no honeymoon period for BTC and it went straight to market adoption and use. A coin's price is determined by the market forces of supply and demand. Supply and demand is created by several factors including utility, sentiment and earnings. With utility in this context I mean how useful the coin is to people to make their lives easier. With sentiment in this context I mean the view of whether there is a future for the coin in the hostile environment it operates in that is impacted by factors like regulation, bans, public acceptance, potential of future improvement in utility or potential future earnings etc. With earnings in this context I mean loosely combining capital gains and then also income from holding that can be compared to "dividends" or interest. BTC has a good mix of investors/speculators/users/entrepreneurs that can provide a good mix of the factors influencing the price. BTC currently has extremely high utility as a tender instrument, ever increasing adoption, the sentiment is a bit on the low side due to the China and Russia factors as well as several warnings and wait and see government approaches. I am not aware of a virtual bank that takes BTC deposits on which you can earn interest and BTC is not a company that can pay you dividends and does not incorporate something like POS. You can however get some "earnings" from speculation on the market or depending on the sentiment make some capital gains over the longer term if you are an investor. BTC has proven utility and adoption by the public with many entrepreneurs working in the space of improving utility and adoption. Sentiment you can do nothing about directly and few entrepreneurs have worked in the space of how to create earnings with BTC. BTC does not need Satashi Nakamoto becuase his purpose has been served and BTC does not need bling. BTC has already arrived and just needs a team to make sure that the blockchain is working, stays secure, that availability is maintained at all times and perhaps handle regulatory issues.

Alt-coins needs its Satoshi Nakamotos because each coins promises to take on an established BTC by somehow providing a higher utility or provide some kind of earnings. This requires distinguishing factors that needs to be developed through innovation, rolled out and aggressively marketed. Many devs also add lots of bling that is mostly useless other than being pretty. Unscrupulous devs and pump groups focus largely on the sentiment piece by creating hype with the promise of increased utility or earnings in an attempt to positively impact the sentiment of a coin by making investors have a positive future view of the coin. Sentiment is not really fundamentals on its own when created by hype and bling whereas utility AND adoption thereof and real earnings are more fundamental imo for increasing demand and decreasing supply and therefore increasing price in a sustainable way. At this point in alt-coins there are mostly speculators, less investors out of free will, even less entrepreneurs and almost no day to day users and therefore no adoption. When speculators have done their deeds and the remaining bagholders (lets call them investors by force) realise that there is no real improvement in utility of a coin and no adoption and that there are no real earnings and that the features were just bling to pump up sentiment, the artificial demand drops, supply increases and the coin price crashes. The alt-coin that can provide the innovation to adapt Satoshi Nakamoto's work to provide something that tops BTC utility and adoption and as a bonus can provide real earnings without the necessity to artificially pump the sentiment will have a good chance to stand up against BTC and even potentially take it over as even BTC cannot last forever in its current form. The current shambles in alt-coins serves no other purpose but to be a breeding ground for innovators to fulfil the purpose of enhancing Satoshi's work to get to the future digital currency to take the world forward through the next few decades. This breeding ground is fraught with scams but even scams has a place in the bigger picture to learn about vulnerabilities in the system to add to the body of knowledge in order to build something robust.

That is imo why Satoshi Nakamoto is not needed for BTC but similar innovators are needed for alt-coins which hopefully answers your question. Unless your question was just meant to be rhetorical?

It is a fair question.

Remember that in crypto people's attention span is 2 weeks max aka "honeymoon period". The dev therefore has to maximise price during this period because after 2 weeks people start to look around to other coins and many speculators move their money to fresh coins where most of their money can be made. If the speculators feel that the devs momentum is slowing down, then the chances of volatility and high volume reduces and lower volatility and lower volume means a lower opportunity for profit. A dev therefore has to make a choice - on the one hand he can start a coin with a bang running at 100mph or he can start the coin running at 10mph. The advantage of the first option is that he is seen as a dynamic and committed dev and the price can skyrocket in the beginning. The disadvantage is that all energy is exhausted quickly and a slowdown from 100mph to 50mph is easily noticed and leads to all sorts of questions about the slowdown. The price will also start to taper down after a quick rise, since the price is linked to hype. This can be compared to running a 10 mile race but sprinting during the first 30min until you are tired. Alternatively a dev can start things slower but have good news spread it out a little bit. The second option could perhaps extend the honeymoon period a little and cause less questions about delivery.  The second option could be a race winner and have a more gradual price increase.  Pump groups would like the first option as it would skyrocket the price on hype for them to take their profit and move on. Long term investors would favour the 2nd option. In the case of Swift the dev played most? of his cards in the first day or two probably hoping for a massive quick price rise. The dev chose to start the race at 100mph and now he has to maintain the pace or face the risk of questions and inevitable FUD about a pace decrease.

In addition, real value is based on delivery and adoption. Any price increase not based on working functionality, rollout, adoption and real life use is pure speculative, fake and empty. Feature delivery is just a temporary factor to maintain investor interest and maintain a level of belief in the dev until the real life use and adoption can kick in. It is during the period after the honeymoon ends until rollout and adoption that most if not all coins fail. Also, when a POS coin is evaluated, compare apples to apples meaning compare it with other POS coins. Many people in here compare Swift to BTCD or DRK. It is completely different because those coins are POW which have different attributes affecting the price.

I don't know why but I still don't get a good gut feel. I get a chill down my spine and for some reason I think there will be an epic but hurt at some point. My advice is to rather take profit and do day trading with small amounts. You can still make profit that way - don't let greed be the end of you. There is just no way to tell who it is that bought the ICO and who is sitting with the lion's share of it. It is not natural for a 320 BTC ICO to sell out in such a short time period. My view is not meant to be FUD, just for investors to apply a risk based approach, trade with caution and look past the hype but rather at the fundamentals. In the unlikely event that the but hurt does come, it has the potential of being of a size not seen before.