I guess i best reply to this, then, so not to clog the thread disproportionally, I'll try to just watch a day or two.
There is no fundermental misunderstanding. I do not believe dcred an attack on bitcoin as such, more an attack on decentralisation/equality due to massive % of "total" dcreds held by c0 in 1 year. I don't think everything new is a threat, but then there is nothing new in (a company) trying to take such vast (potential)future profit/power. I appreciate any contribution to Bitcoin made by c0, past and future, thankyou. I understand no claim of perfect has been made, but (imo) the stake held by c0 will prevent any real, long term, growth (perfect). c0 will hold all the real mass profit.
I would not suggest anyone follow Bitcoin blindly, I always recommend research, as I would here. Funny how $82 can warp ones' oppinion though.
Who said Decred was worth anything?
I understand the value will be set by the market, not ones' opinion
If decred is "not worth anything", how will the devs earn a living?
(devs paid in decred will need to sell to eat I presume)
p14 (270) beyondtext
While I understand that you may feel 10% is too high a rate, as someone who has funded a lot of development work over the past 5 years, I disagree with your assessment. At a 10% subsidy rate, the dev organization will accumulate approximately 302,000 decred during its first year. If we assume the value of 1 decred averages to USD 1.00 over the first year, this means we'll have USD 302K to spend on development work. This is a small amount of funding and can pay for 3-4 full time developers for 1 year, so if we went below 10% dev subsidy it would mean the project cannot fund itself unless its exchange rate is well over USD 1.00 per decred.
So, as we see, Beyondtext assumes $1 average in year 1.
(presumably starting at $0.49, finishing the year at $1.50?)
That presumption allows Beyondtext to pay 3-4 devs.
If in fact the price remains at, or lower, than $0.49, that only pays maybe 2 devs or less.
p25 488 ingsoc
This begs the question though, and it's a serious one, what's the alternative for a new dev in the future? Work on Bitcoin and get paid nothing? Or work in a system where you get compensated for innovation and contributions that feed back into Bitcoin as well? I know that's biased, but
So when ingsoc says "new dev work BTC for free or work here for pay...."
maybe only 1 dev need apply! Not so ground breaking.
Edit, just noticed ingsoc does say "A new dev in future" - singular
(Also worth considering on this subject is that work will need doing, submitting, voting, implementing ect, before any payment?
My point, it will be hard for any dev to plan/live of of this. A lot of risk of project rejection? Also the DHG is not an ideal entity for payment
Edit. Also, if a lot of work is done by competing devs, but price doesn't rise, devs will go unpaid/underpaid. Equating to a massive risk dev work goes unrewarded/underrewarded when/if implemented, benefiting the "freeloader" not the dev. Same as Bitcoin?)
BTW I dont disagree with the 10% block reward to pay devs whatsoever. I quite like it.
I am just wondering the impact this will make on the project, in relation to the 4% premine c0 hold impact on the project.
The scope of the 10% dev reward block can be changed over time. The premine cannot. It gives an immediate dominance to a company/single entity.
So, if the "accepted (Beyondtext) sustainable dev/price ratio" is (ie) 3-4 dev @ $1 average yr 1,
then c0 really has 2x return on "up front invesrment cost" = 840k
or, if the "accepted sustainable dev/price ratio" is (ie) 1-2 dev @ $0.49.
then c0 really get 1x return on up front investment cost" = 420k
So (to move on below) we need a consensus on how many devs are needed/expected/required? (I read 3-4 min? maybe not such a project if only supporting 1 dev?)
Anyway, if the price does need to be higher (than 0.49) to support the expected dev numbers, this should be clearer.
So now the PoS yr1. c0 recieve ~ 450k coin, passively, for nothing other than they started this "controlled by all" project.
That is another 2% of all decred coin produced, ever. And on it goes, year after year.(at least in the "good return" early years)
c0 claim they only want their investment back, yet are rewarded, massively, thereafter.
IMO, c0 PoS reward should be diverted to the dev fund. That would be fairer, (supporting devs more ect.) that is how this coin should be structured.
This is the usual massive profit/power model here.
Wake up people, we've seen it all before.
I could really use $80 of BTC though....
Edit. And in immidiate response to my detailed, potentially productive, hard thought (though negative) analysis, two blinged up hero members step in to profit from the next p&d game..... vvv vvv vvv
decred need to average a price of $1 in year 1, in order to pay 3-4 devs. (Behindtext)
So, c0 should declare the past "work/investments" at $1.50, not $0.49, a level which will not sustain the development of this project, then c0 would receive 1/3 the coin they concider due to them, (840k decreds) = 280k decreds
And really, c0 should continue to shoulder some of the risk going on. Also show good will.
So c0 could receive maybe 240k decreds at launch, and (with PoS rewards) still be adequately rewarded/repaid.
In this scenario, at end of year 1, c0 will have receive ~ 1 million less coin than they would under current proposal.
That would probably give this coin a chance to work.
Then 600k less decreds need premining.
Also, c0's PoS awards earned on those coin will be less obscene, and create less dominance/centralisation.
