What I have always found best is not to assume someone else is going to make a coin or token useful or successful but, rather, to focus on ones that one can actually "adopt", ones of a scale where one's own resources can carry them even if no-one else does, it doesn't take a huge community of long term serious people really to build up a coin over the decades, it just might take decades but so what, if one is building generational wealth?

I look at things like how poorly IXCoin and I0Coin are still doing on FreiExchange and just wish I was making more bitcoin elsewhere to be able to buy up all those insanely cheap IXC and I0C because the Galactic Milieu has its calculated values of those coins and so far quantum computing is still not here yet so there is still a decent chance it will render them valuable enough in time enough to get them updated to post-quantum mode in time for them to weather that projected crisis too and keep on keeping on.

Those to me are still "new" crypto projects, over a decade old sure but still new because still they are in the initial phase, the phase of building strong buy-side order-books supporting on spot markets the calculated values calculated from their "treasuries".

The whole "treasuries" idea is still new really, still in prototype phase, not yet "proven" enough to bother trying to make them deterministic using smart contracts or suchlike.

If you lot haven't yet managed to stabilise and build strong buy-sides for new projects that are already over one decade old it seems silly to wonder why ridiculously new ones not even one single decade old yet so often fail, heck it is because you haven't yet spent even one single decade working on them yet duh! Put in the time!

If you want something only months old check out DMD Diamond, its new few months old version 4 is awesome, seven years in the making, tokenomics still the same since way back in 2013 or so but now up to version four, now that is a new version but of an "oldie but goodie" chain!


-MarkM-

I do not know the details of how that specific game is played, but in general maybe the idea of "investing" in a game, especially if not actually playing the game yourself, could be a weak idea.

One of the major risks whenever players can earn anything is of their earning more of it than there is a market for, more even than the players themselves by enthusing others can create a market for, resulting in the prices of whatever players sell more and more of going down and down.

That is a formula that discourages outside investment of course but which internally to the game - that is to say, to the actual players of the game - merely means they as producers of products to sell are on a "treadmill", needing to keep increasing their own production as compared to how much other players are producing, in order that despite the prices they can get per unit of product going down they can be selling in larger and larger quantities thus keeping up in total income.

Players who succeed in manufacturing 100 times as much product can maybe continue to thrive even when prices per unit go down to 1/100th of what they had been.

A lot depends too of course upon what percent of the game's total income goes to its players rather than to bandwidth, server capacity, maintenance, art and music assets, coding and so on. (Which is why the Galactic Milieu uses existing free open-source games: a heck of a lot less overhead costs thus a much larger percent of income able to go to the players rather than development administration and hosting costs.)

In the Milieu's case if you want to earn by playing it becomes very much an economics game, including arranging alliances that build trade, allies trying not to compete in driving prices forever downward but, rather, co-operating to maximally supply all demand and even create more demand, branching out into more different products to open new markets rather than destroying all markets by over-supplying them...

Over the years the game becomes more and more like universities and such that grow more and more income from capital built up over the long term, but if number of players grows faster than the profit-centres such income is drawn from the income per player is obviously going to drift downward, so that it unfortunately is not necessarily good for the players to draw in more players; there is quite a tendency, rather, for players to want to just quietly keep on increasing their share of the total income of the system rather than bring in more players with whom to share it all...


-MarkM-

That supposed list of top gaming tokens is silly, for one thing CoinMarketCap doesn't even list most game tokens since it is mostly the actual players of a game that even care about all the various tokens currencies coins assets and so on used in any particular game so there really isn't much point in even looking much into how one would go about getting one's tokens listed there.

I notice for example even the top one listed has less than one billion USD "market cap", most of them are pretty much in a range of which the Galactic Milieu has several tokens on the HORIZON platform that would be top listings on that list. But since they are game tokens and the point is for the players not for outside investors to suck wealth out of the players would listing them on such lists even be a good thing at all for the actual players?

Compare the values it lists against the tables and plots at https://galaxies.mygamesonline.org/digitalisassets.html


-MarkM-

If it was really old there might be a possibility it is not really using seed phrases at all in the more-modern sense;

In HORIZON for example, and thus possibly in the NXT from which it was cloned/derived, a phrase was generated as sort of a suggested pass-phrase but really the system simply uses the entire string as a private key so that you can add words, change words, not use words at all, even just use a single space character as passphrase or whatever.


-MarkM-

It would just be nicer for me I think if each such option had its own separate "can never change thiss setting" toggle rather than having to turn off ability to change any of them as only means of preventing changing particular ones I do not want to be able to change.


-MarkM-

I think Stellar has a way to prevent the freeze/clawback, as I have noticed that my own tokens issued there do have the potential for me to use those features.

I did not look into it deeply but I had the impression that if I wanted to totally prevent myself from ever using such features I could do so by disabling my issuing account's ability to do pretty much anything.

I have not done so because I use the same issuing account to issue all my tokens so disabling it would prevent me issuing more tokens from that account and also prevent me minting more of any of the tokens it already issued.

Stellar is to me a secondary platform, my initial issuing takes place on HORIZON, then from time to time I move some tokens on HORIZON into a "Stellar Holdings" account on HORIZON to keep track of how many of them I have moved over to Stellar, and in principle I could also move some back if I needed to.

So basically for me it would be inconvenient, maybe quite a bit inconvenient, to curtail my ability to issue more of a token on Stellar when I need more there.

Basically it is not for me Stellar that limits how many of a token I mint but HORIZON, and even on HORIZON for tokens that correspond to coins that have their own blockchain I only issue half as many of the token as I have actual coins on the coin's own native blockchain.

So thus far I have not felt forced by peer pressure or anything else to disable my issuing account's ability to issue simply in order to also turn off clawback and so on options that seemed to me (with only rather cursory inspection) to be an all or nothing thing, that is, that either I have to turn off everything or nothing, no toggling of each little option separately. Do please someone correct me if my impression is incorrect.


-MarkM-

Get yourself a Crossfire-RPG client.

Tell it to connect to Server1.Knotwork.net

If you find the "permadeath" feature a problem at first you can of course practice on any "normal" Crossfire-RPG server to get aquainted with the general mechanics of the game on a server where dying simply puts you back at your "savebed" usually with all your gear, but do be aware that the Galactic Milieu's Crossfire-RPG servers operate in "permadeath" mode, partly because we aim toward roleplaying more than being a simple "twitch style" videogame.

You likely will not see Knotwork.net nor Knotwork.com servers listed by the "metaserver" your client uses to show a list of servers to connect to but you should be able nonetheless to go ahead and connect to one of our servers by specfically telling it to by name e.g. Server1.Knotwork.net


-MarkM-

I do not know whether for Axie Infinity it is too late for this approach to work, but the Galactic Milieu anticipated this kind of problem well over a decade ago.

From the time of the very earliest "altcoins" such as DeVCoin, we saw a big reason why having multiple coins could be a good thing and that it could become very important to have a way of moving onward despite the possibility of the kind of "griefers" known as "dumpers" setting out to destroy the value of one or more of one's game-currencies.

At an extreme, one might even go so far as to have each and every player issue their own currency, so that any players who chose to "dump" its value downward would mostly be harming themselves.

But even doing that could end up with almost all players "dumping" their currency, which lo and behold seems to be something we see a lot of nowadays: issuers of coins and tokens "dumping" their own coin or token way down in value.

The "treasuries" system is useful for a number of reasons, but a big reason is they way it can be used to sidestep "dumpers" and even, potentially, to profit from them.

In the Galactic Milieu's "treasuries" system Civilisations, Corps and so on can implement their currency as a "treasuries based" asset, an asset with a dedicated "treasury" from which a value per unit can be calculated simply by dividing the total value of the "treasury" by the number of units issued.

If someone "dumps" a treasury-based asset at a price lower than its calculated value, it is clear that they are offering a bargain, since the price they are asking is less than the value of what they are selling.

Once an asset has been implemented as a "treasury based" asset, it can further be implemented as a "reserve asset", an asset that other "treasury based" assets can use in their own "treasuries".

This means that once your own currency has been implemented as a "treasury based" asset you can make use of the calculated value of "dumped" reserve assets by placing them in your own asset's "treasury", from which your own asset's calculated value is computed, thus effectively ignoring and working-around the "dumper" by transferring the value over to your own asset, which of course you have much more control over the chance of its ever becoming vulnerable to "dumpers".

That last is of course an important point: players will doubtless be watching to see which other players are the best at avoiding "dumpers" and working-around them, which civilisations and Corps' currencies still have one or more "dumpers" in possession of significant numbers of its coin or token.

The proliferation of more and more new coins and tokens need not even be a nasty problem anymore provided each new coin or token is implemented as a "treasuries based" asset, and thus is able to move on to become a "reserve asset", because the more such assets there are the more overall stability they all gain.

You can see tables and plots dating back to 2012 of how this idea has been working out so far at https://galaxies.mygamesonline.org/digitalisassets.html

Periodically the calculated value of all the "treasuries based" assets is recursively calculated from the "treasuries" and uploaded as the Latest Rates include-file, which also lists BTC, LTC and NMC, which are not themselves "treasuries based" assets yet, for comparison to help readers put the values in context.

Of course this system as so far implemented, being basically a prototype or proof of concept, has a long way to go yet in order for real civilisations to apply it in the real world as a method of calculating relative values of real world currencies, not the least of which is working out some kind of distributed-custodianship for the contents of the "treasuries", but if it works well enough for games maybe someday it can be scaled up to be used beyond games.

In principle, Axie Infinity, or any collection combination or permutation of fans players or users of Axie Infinity, could implement within the Galactic Milieu such a "treasury" for one or more of Axie Infinity's currencies coins tokens or assets and proceed by successful play to increase the value of that "treasury" over time until some day the total value of the "treasury" divided by the total number of their asset they mint computes a value per unit of any arbitrary size their skill and success can accomplish.

They would be far from the first old crypto-asset perceived by some observers as "failing" to set out upon such a path toward rebuilding, but possibly they might have more players and/or more-dedicated players than various other groups within the Milieu and thus prove faster than some others of such groups at re-invigorating their assets...

The basic idea when using the "treasuries" system to sidestep any "dumpers" your asset might have fallen prey to is to simply pile all of your asset you can get access to into "treasuries" instead of trying to trade it itself directly on "spot markets". Try of course to pick, or to outright create, treasuries-based assets that are not themselves already contaminated / infected with "dumpers".

Then as you see "dumpers" in action, "dumping" various assets for less than their computed-from-treasuries values, snap up those bargains to put into other "treasuries", bolstering the value of other assets not yet or not as badly infected or contaminated with "dumpers".

Over time this strategy should go a long way toward turning "dumpers" from a scourge of "griefers" into profits for those who buy up the "bargains" the "dumpers" are in effect creating...


-MarkM-

No NFTs required.

It can be as simple as having markets where in-game items and/or currencies can be traded for crypto assets.

In fact since most games cannot totally be relied upon not to have glitches or bugs or whatever that could result in duplication or disintegration of items, currencies, assets, characters or whatever it makes sense to either make the game cumbersome by trying to do all its inventory and currency manipulation directly on blockchains (yikes, horrible overhead) or to simply have all such things go through markets on their ways into and out of the game so that if the game suffers inflation or deflation of anything the markets can simply reflect that with changes in market-price.

So if for instance it turns out that in some particular game it is possible to drop your loot "in a room" or "on a map" then crash the server before both your inventory and the room or map's inventory are both correctly updated to long term storage, resulting in duplicating of items, and even if someone does that over and over and over again resulting in a flood of certain items, having those items go through markets upon export from the game allows the markets to adjust the market-price of over-produced items.

Much more robust than trying to have in-game things attempt to be one-for-one representatives of on-blockchain things in the absence of actual live use of blockchain transactions within the game itself (which can be a ridiculously cumbersome overhead seriously bogging games down).

Someday maybe things like "the internet computer" will let any existing game compile to be totally blockchain-based, and maybe by then computers will be so fast that today's games that push current computing speed to its limits will be able to operate at today's speeds despite being compiled to run in a completely blockchain-based manner, but for now it is just so much simpler and more efficient to let games run at full normal speed in their own accustomed manner while providing markets for various in-game assets to be traded against blockchain-based crypto-assets, so that any glitches in the game's internal accounting can be adapted to by the markets that interface them to crypto-in-general.


-MarkM-

I thought ICOs weren't invented until much later too?

SYScoin goes back a long way...


-MarkM-

I had the impression this is exactly the combination SYScoin long long ago implemented?

Is that not the case or is it simply that SYScoin somehow fell through the cracks of your research into what has already been done?


-MarkM-

You should get your quantum resistance in place before launch, otherwise it looks like umpteen other vapourware projects pretending to be about quantum or about A.I. or whatever catchphrases but really just about a cash grab from the initial launch.

If you are far from actually having realistic quantum resistance it might be far better to simply join whatever team already doing that is closest to launch and working with them than trying for yet another me-too "quantum resistant coin" while not actually even having a specific design let alone code for it.

Maybe even look into haircomb which bootstraps from bitcoin's already existing strong security, proof of work and userbase.


-MarkM-

You could try the Galactic Milieu's free-as-in-beer interface, which uses Crossfire-RPG servers.

The Milieu uses existing free open-source online multiplayer games, so the part about being an actual game is already built in, Crossfire-RPG for example is an enduring classic, it has been around for decades and likely will be around for decades to come; it has players who have been avid players for decades and developers who still work on it.

Thus it is a proven game for gaming's sake, not some newfangled made-up thing invented purely to find an excuse for minting billions of tokens to pump and dump.

Fire up a Crossfire-RPG server and tell it to connect to Server1.Knotwork.net

Free-as-in-beer means no cost to play; so far that has been sustainable despite giving out free of charge a character and some gear for it and even a bit of currency to get started with, though of course if people start taking advantage by creating a character, dropping its gear, deleting the character, starting another drop its gear with the previous one's and so on all day just to pile up oodles of free gear to sell to shops eventually even this rabbithole into the Milieu could someday end up having to involve a startup cost just to prevent such character-spamming.

The main interface to crypto in the Crossfire-RPG servers is AMBerium, the value on spot markets of which you can look up on Stellar as the asset CCAMB (CrossCiv AMBerium) or on HORIZON as the asset MGOLD (MUD Gold) since we equate Crossfire-RPG's goldpieces to CoffeeMUD's goldpieces so one AMBerium is fifty thousand MGOLD.

Of course the value is ultimately up to the players, if we get oodles of "griefers" who trash the spot market prices by selling ridiculously cheaply feuds and such could end up arising as players interested in building up the value of the currencies try to suppress the ability of "griefers" to accumulate currency to "dump"...


-MarkM-

Not familiar with FRC but IXC, I0C and DVC (IXCoin, I0Coin and DeVCoin) are all "reserve assets" in the Galactic Milieu meaning not only do they each have a "treasury" from which the Milieu can calculate a value per coin by dividing the total value of the "treasury" by the number of coins minted but also other "treasuries" can include them, and quite few have.

Periodically the calculation of relative values based on the "treasuries" is done and the result, the "Latest Rates include-file" is uploaded to https://galaxies.mygamesonline.org/latestrates.inc

From those results a whole bunch of tables and plots are generated, see https://galaxies.mygamesonline.org/digitalisassets.html

Those show results going back to 2012, there have been some glitch times but overall everything has done not too badly.

A big problem though early on was the constant flying by night of "exchanges", it didn't take long to realise one cannot count bitcoin that one has out on exchanges as buy-offers for the other things as being part of any "treasury" since bitcoin - or anything else - in the custody of some third-party exchange too often just vanishes.

So for the last few years and probably also for the next few years going forward re-building strong buy-side order-books for everything is one of the main challenges; now that we are using the HORIZON and Stellar platforms we can build buy-sides out of HZ (on HORIZON) and XLM (on Stellar) without worry that the platform aka exchange is going to fly by night taking our HZ and XLM with it, so hopefully our days of constantly being undermined by fly-by-night exchanges are behind us.

As can be seen from the tables and plots the calculated values pretty much always rise relative to fiat, but of course some of that is due to fiat constantly losing value.

You can estimate how much of it is simply the forever-falling of fiat by looking at the table showing DEUterium prices, since DEUterium very successfully mimics fiat's loss of value over time, so that if you pick some random fiat that is not notably worse or better than "typical" fiats you should see that DEUterium's value in terms of any such fiat has stayed pretty "stable" all these years.

Again though, whether that means all the assets seen to be growing in value compared to DEUterium aka compared to fiat are really going up rather than merely remaining stable while fiat falls is open to question and probably varies from asset to asset.

So hey, take a good look at the numbers and analyse them and let us know your opinion...


-MarkM-

I do not think bitcoin should be the only one, because it needs buy-offers in place, a strong buy-side order-book, and those have to be built out of something.

To look good to fiat-users you need buy-with-fiat offers of course, but long term and realistically fiat is a really crappy "asset" to build with.

There is a need for things that at least store value, heck even just losing value but losing it slower than fiat does would be better than fiat.

The buy-side order-books are a store of value, a big part of how value is stored.

So having to build them "upon sand" so to speak is pathetic.

We need more things other than bitcoin if only so we can build buy-sides for bitcoin that aren't falling apart moment by moment from being built of inferior materials as it were.


-MarkM-

Again with the exchanges as gatekeepers being a problem.

To my mind that problem was solved by the advent of Ripple...

...Until Ripple screwed us by reneging on the open-ness to all...

...Whereupon Stellar took up the mantle.

Ever since, what is with this whole "thing" about exchanges being a problem?

Once trading is part of the platform/blockchain, that whole "monopoly/gatekeeper" thing should have been over.

It was over, for real, but somehow the masses keep trying to perpetuate it? Why?

I had naturally thought that a problem once solved is solved?

I have not really looked at all the further generations of shitcoins coming out since Ripple and Stellar (and, I perhaps-naively thought, umpteen more forever after since once a problem is solved why would any hoped to be competetive project deliberately fail to incorporate already-invented solutions) already solved that problem.

But now I am more and more strongly each day it seems getting an impression that everything ever since somehow keeps failing to include trrading as part of its native functionality, no gatekeepers required, anyone can trade anything against anyone else?

Heck just there now I didn't even mention the NXT family of platforms, because in their "solution" all pairs are versus the native currency rather than implementing anything against anything trading directly.

As is clear you have to trust the project itself anyway, so what for does any project need some gatekeeper "exchange" anymore?

They can directly issue their own tradeable tokens and their users can trade them, "listing" can be purely grass-roots.

"Listing" thus just comes down to advertising, you can "list" anywhere, just publish your token details in classified ads or press releases or whatever you want and folks can trade directly even from their own home clients.

This is all so weird to me, its like a decade or more now since the whole exchanges as gatekeepers problem was solved.

Is it really the case that the swarms of new platforms coming out do not include trading natively?

They are all by-design perpetuating a "need" for gatekeepers?


-MarkM-

I'd probably have to go for some kind of brain-wallet or hardcopy key system really, so I can have nothing visibly valuable to steal.

Bars of gold are probably more likely to be stolen or mugged-for but the same applies to other things likely to have barter value like bullets or guns or booze or chocolate or drugs or pharmaceuticals etc.

Or like you said laptops phones etc.


-MarkM-

That looks to be the newfangled scam-fork of FairBriX not the real thing.

I will try to find the recent (last year or so) posts about the scammers who have been running around forking classic old coins from some time far far far back in time to basically enable double-spending coins from far far back in the past by making a newflangled fork from some ancient block and trying to pretend it is somehow suddenly the "real" coin ignoring all the years the coin has actually continued moving, even continued trading (for example on HORIZON and Stellar platforms) all these years...


-MarkM-

I wouldn't want to try carrying bars of gold around a war-contested territory, and even if hiding it to come back for later I suspect I'd be better equipped to hide bitcoin than bars of gold plus of course my corner-store doesn't carry bars of gold but my corner-internet-access does carry bitcoin...


-MarkM-

I have been working on actually-stable coins all along, so I shall not assume that by stablecoin you mean a coin pegged to fiat, or for that matter even one pegged to gold or some other peg.

One thing to observe as prices fluctuate is that it need not be the case that price is the same thing as value.

Price is value modified by local factors and convenience, we see this for example in "convenience stores" thriving on charging higher markups on the same goods their customers could get cheaper at some momentarily or persistently less convenient location.

Price is more volatile than value, in effect, even if over a longer term persistently lower or higher price can shift a population's perception of value.

You can see this in things like the price of an outfit of clothing suitable for worktime wear by professionals; a nice toga belt and sandals outfit cost much same same supposedly back in the Roman Empire as a comparably nice "suit" with belt and tie and shoes does today, if measured in some similarly stable commodity such as gold.

The value of being dressed in accordance with the norm expected of a professional hasn't changed a whole lot in thousands of years it seems.

So I have initially been focussed on retaining value rather than on the much more volatile "price".

Price tends to be dependent upon the specific marketplace, maybe partly because holding a market in a expensive neighborhood has higher overhead costs than holding it in a slum; even the standards of dress of retailers in such markets can be different, slum-marketplace dress possibly seeming out of place at rich-neighborhood markets for example.

So price is not something one can as readily make more stable as value is. The exact same ("fungible") commodity can easily, and often does, fetch different prices at different marketplaces.

Stabilising actual price is a marketplace-by-marketplace problem, basically the problem of providing at each marketplace enough "liquidity" to enable that marketplace to continue to operate at the same prices as other marketplaces.

One of the first moves I made was to reverse the usual "market cap" idea, since that tries to come up with value based on price instead of coming up with a price based on value.

Instead of taking a momentary price and multiplying that by the number existing of the fungible commodity bought for that price, I build a "treasury" for each fungible commodity and divide the total value of that "treasury" by the number of units of the commodity in existence to compute a price.

Think of it as like a "recommended retail price"; to "peg" the commodity to that price in any specific marketplace or shop or store or CEX or DEX or whatever is a whole different problem, but any pegging requires something to peg to so it is at least a step on the way.

There is also of course the fun factor, the fun of running around from marketplace to marketplace looking for "bargains"; something you might have noticed about "recommended retail price" is that you can almost always get things cheaper than that somewhere, even if the more of a bargain-price you find the more seedy or dubious the market you find it at might seem...

At some point on the more and more of a bargain curve you likely start to wonder if the bargain might be "too good to be true" as it were; that maybe that marketplace is not a good place to buy and so on.

One can maybe approach the pegging problem a little at a time... that is where the "treasuries" idea begins.

Ultimately the price computed by dividing the total value of the treasury by the number of units in existence provides a mathematical certainty that there actually is enough value reserved specifically for the redeeming of that asset or commodity to redeem each and every unit of it at the computed price, as measured in that same measure of value.

So the problem is pushed back to whatever unit of value you use as unit of account to come up with the total value of the "treasury".

This becomes a circular problem, a constant-feedback problem such as "spreadsheets" were presumably built to handle:

A loop is implied, in which for each asset you calculate the value of its "treasury" based on your most-recent calculations of those assets' own values per unit, round and round and round until your entire table of "Latest Rates" does not change from one iteration of the loop to another.

The more assets used in the "treasuries" and the more evenly they are distributed among those "treasuries" the more stable the over-all results become against any changes made to what any particular "treasury" contains.

The calculated price per unit for each thing can be regarded even as a "liquidation value", not necessarily in the sense that liquidating it at any particular venue will yield that much but, rather, that liquidating - dissolving - the entire asset, breaking its "treasury" open and distributing the contents proportionately to holders of the asset, will yield approximately that much.

I say approximately there because of course dissolving one of the assets used in the "treasuries" will change the contents of the "treasuries" as each "treasury" ceases to contain any of the dissolved asset and contains instead its proportionate part of the contents of the "treasury" of the dissolved asset.

Thus changes will ripple and resonate throughout all the remaining assets, but hopefully the more assets there are in total in the system the less change dissolving one of them will make to the calculated values of all the others.

Is your idea something along these same lines?


-MarkM-