Really bad idea, ICO, low supply and besides destroy this, I dont see how it can work. I need read again. I must have missing something.
Yes, there were a few people that couldn't understand how a decreasing supply could have a positive effect on a currency, I'll make a clear explanation now, similar to the one I made on reddit for a few people.
To many people, a coin that has a decreasing supply seemingly does not have a use. However, from an investor's perspective, a growing scarcity in an asset results in an increased value. Of course this isn't definite, but it is a prediction based off of one of the prime laws of a free market.
Most cryptos gauge their values from sheer speculation, and a lot of those currencies are highly inflationary. Currencies that multiply in supply over the course of a few months tend to devalue at a similar rate, if there is no market force "playing the price".
What DeltaCredits does is the opposite- coins are bought off the market using funds from cloud mining contracts, and are in turn sent to a burn address (essentially, the coins are destroyed). This will occur on a daily, transparent basis. As less and less coins become available, and as the sell order book thins out, the currency will appreciate in value, naturally. It is a hard concept to grasp, and this tactic hasn't been employed by other currencies as of yet. DeltaCredits is the first, and if all goes well and as expected, it will be no surprise if other coins adopt DCR's game plan.
From an investing perspective, some people are going to loose what the others will earn as usual.
From an economic perspective this is really fucked up.
I am going to insist on the later. When you play and create new currencies and systems you have to ask yourself, what is the purpose ? and ultimately what is money for ?
There are different use of money, the most important is being a medium of exchange. For example, I could have 99% of the money in the world but ultimately it is worth nothing if I cannot spend it. Money have to be exchanged with other people for goods or services.
You have the guts to make it clear "a coin that has a decreasing supply seemingly does not have a use".
That the problem here, there is no use.
You could have done something much more interesting by incentivizing/motivating people to use and burn their money.
There was a very interesting example with Chancecoin. This crypto included a betting system : if the player win, more money is created but if he loses, the money is destroyed. As the odds are in favor of the house (destroying) (a house edge of 1.0%), the coins are more likely to decrease.
Even with this genius idea, the coin did not succeed because of technical limitations. The betting system was secured but way too slow, so people stopped betting, the project died.
It would be interesting though to find an effective incentive for people to burn their money.
Just my 2 cents. Don't take it bad but I think investors should be warned that it has been more or less tried before and it never worked.
EDIT : I just got an idea, why not decreasing the coin supply AND incentive people to burn coins ?
Poll
