In terms of byteball airdrops and effect on price I would expect that skipping the airdrop for a particular month, equating to less supply that month, should tend to boost the price, just by normal supply versus demand dynamic, although that didn't seem noticeable in the last skipped air drop month.
I can imagine that 'slow' dripping of byteball into the market by these airdrops though, is prolonging uncertainty and aggravated by the fact that Tony has ultimate control over when to airdrop and when not to and to change the rules at his whim. This airdropping is the equivalent of central banks tinkering with money supply and no different here really.
Part of me, in a very gung ho way, would like to just dump all the byteball onto the market in one huge load to byteball holders according to the amount of bytes they hold (not bitcoin holders), without pre-announcing it. This unexpected windfall would cause huge waves. But at the same time, in one quick shot remove all the prolonged uncertainties about distribution. Like ripping a plaster off quick is better than peeling off slowly.
Thats what I'd like, then we can get on with using byteball.
I had already put forward similar proposals (distribution in the direction of Ethereum for better spread effect and / or faster drop the remaining bytes to take the uncertainty).
The whole thread is full of alternative suggestions – it’s ok.
In fact, there are very strong concerns about fundamentally changing the rules(distribution exclusively to BTC & Byteball, distribution to 98%).
In fact, the negative, the positive effects could surpass or in other words:
If you are not sure if a solution is better, you better stick to the old one or “never change a running system”
So Tony adjusts the rules only gradually (according to the given framework) to the market situation or the requirements.
He changes the interest rate and possibly also the number of distributions per year.
In effect, he only controls the speed of distribution (and the amount of inflation in the Byteball ecosystem).
Monetarily it does not matter to owners whether Tony performs a distribution of 20% per annum or monthly distributions of 1.53% (or every 2 months with 3.05%) because of the compounding effect.
He must be careful with the liquidity. The effect is like carbon dioxide (CO2) in nature:
*too little CO2 -> no growth in plants in the ecosystem .. no animals etc.
*too much CO2 -> Toxic effect occurs -> mass extinction
Liquidity (CO2) is pumped into the ecosystem through the distributions and must first be stored by the holders until it can be meaningfully utilized by business.
The system must find it's balance. The more plants (business) there are in the ecosystem, the more CO2 (liquidity) the system can handle.
The function of the holders is therefore to tie up capital at an early stage so that the liquidity does not become toxic.
The real harvest season has come when the system demands more than Tony provides.
Yes, Tony is currently God and central bank in the Byteball ecosystem.
That's not nice. However, one can assume that this is not fun for him:
*He originally wanted to dump all 98% in four rounds onto the market.(..which was not possible because the participation was too low. )
*The central bank role violates his motto "simplicy is beauty"
*The distribution takes time, which he does not have and one usually reaps criticism
So I'm assuming that he will end this state as soon as possible.
Long story short: Things are currently complicated, but will become easier. There is no patent solution
I think Tony had thought of his role quite differently (more passive in background like SN).
But things are as they are … and they are not bad.
When the distribution started Christmas, I never imagined we having an ICO on Byteball in November.
