And those priorities are obviously the ICO-money because it doesn't need money to give informations and to write a Whitepaper.
(All that is correct. Obviously, our priority is to get funding for the startup company. If writing whitepaper and giving out information could be done with money, it'd be less of a problem. What they require instead, is
time, scarce commodity we don't have to do things in the order we'd prefer to.)
Now to the token, which was another excellent subject not described sufficiently earlier.
design gives the token a real value, and the market cap will reflect the value of the system, because the more the system is used the more Factoids are burned.
That's one mechanism of
attempting to provide value. And a clever one. Unfortunately, usually the best mechanisms won't win the world based on capitalism.
This doesn't make much sense. The Factom-design is capitalistic. They provide incentives to get professionals running the federated servers. And they wouldn't even need speculation for that because of a natural demand if Factom is used. You are right with "attempting" because if Factom should not be used the token won't have any value. But I think to have partnerships about Smart Cities in China and negotiations about land title registry in Honduras and even DHS-money for Internet of Things Systems Security - it's kind of impressing what they do. Also that they are still under the radar in the Crypto-World.
But back to Heat: It's weak to say it's about capitalism as if quality wouldn't count. Just an argument like that would be enough for me not to invest. It's like "give us money, it's about capitalism. Later we will find out if we can provide something that could have value."
And just by the way: Value is always about function and function is always about quality. Sometimes people prefer "Hype" over technical quality, but for them exactly that has function - a Hype-product for example, while there are better ones in a technical way. At least there always should be the approach to deliver quality.
Is there something similar in Heat? At the moment it seems to me as if it will be possible to use Heat as Crypto-exchange for let's say a "BTC - ETH - pair" without a need for the token?
Yes there will be. To exchange crypto pairs directly, you need to fund the trading fees in HEAT tokens. That will happen invisibly through at either of the 2 ways:
- system charges eg. BTC from your account and auto-converts it to HEAT (by purchasing HEAT from the built-in market, which further increases demand in real time)- gateway operator - which can be numerous as they integrate their replicated nodes communication to the HEAT middleware through approval of the central HEAT client admins - pays the fees (in HEAT) and charges your wallet account whatever they've agreed with you.Other avenues for HEAT demand are:
- asset listing and other asset operation fees (private assets, colored accounts)
- asset trading & order setting fees
- Replication binary messages that corporate node operators use, require HEAT fees with every replication message (create update, insert etc.). Thus running the replication for eg. fast trading applications in the HEAT blockchain requires constant - although low - supply of HEAT from the operator. Combined these will form a significant flow in the form of tx fees paid out in block rewards
- Distributed Services Architecture. The distributed services economy that will come alive once this mechanism is enabled will take in some of its payments in HEAT. The usage level of these services is much broader and higher than for instance smart contracts, they're meant to be used by anyone and served to users from any custom website (Thanks to Dennis for that DSA elevator pitch!)While users pay minimum tx fees to activate services, the services work in such a way that most have to answer back to the user. This will effectually work like a non-registered subscription fee based on service usage volume, again requiring service operators to purchase HEAT from the market. For small service providers the cost is negligible (for instance 0.01 HEAT fee for 1st time activation). For large providers keeping the service running requires consistent replenishing of HEAT tokens on their service accounts.
Burning of HEAT is something we haven't decided yet. Probably no, but maybe something when finalizing system design comes up in the last minute that warrants burning.
We're fully aware that providing token for just "crypto payments", shopping and even asset exchange won't cut it these days. So the mechanism for HEAT token demand distribution has been, and while work in progress, will be designed accordingly.
A fee-system is good. Nothing wrong about it and I already believed that it's about fees. But in combination with pure PoS and a high inflation for the first 4 years and a hard cut after that - rich get richer very fast and it will lead into economically centralization which means technical centralization if it's pure PoS. And you want to be a company...
Imagine this: It's about a limited number of servers, like it is in Factom for example, but also could be more (like Lisk maybe). And it's not PoS, it's more DPoS with an election mechanism for those servers - the best will be elected and bad players will be thrown out. Honest professionals will win and the result would be a stable system - if the system/the code has quality of course. They will be paid with the token for their service. But what is a fee now would be a burning rate - consumption. That would give intrinsic value to the token if the system would be used and the price would rise naturally if that usage increases.
That's kind of a translation of the Factom-economy into a system like this. It would be much more elegant in my opinion and a higher incentive to run the base-protocol and a higher incentive to buy the token while it wouldn't even be needed to buy the token from the exchange to use the system - because of what you say: there would be an internal conversion.
What I see here is kind of missed chances. Because if it would be like that (or even better, I'm not a specialist) and if there would be a white-paper that points out the details of all what's planned - it could be a strong buy. And if you would start an ICO in that way you could answer on questions about that and the more people would understand that it's really thoughtful - funding would be safe and Investors would feel safe. Instead of that you give incentives like
"*multisig fiat*" and claims like
"If you want to be invest in a crypto startup, the odds are you won't find a better setup anywhere in the Western world." and kind of weird things like
"Unfortunately, usually the best mechanisms won't win the world based on capitalism."Not enough for capitalists. But most likely enough for Crypto-gamblers.
