[Update] Root (4-Week Altcoin Announcement)

[Vorksholk]

Yes Nolo, it's another innovative coin. Even 15y old kid can do better. I'm tirred of 5 new coins every day. Just make something inovative or keep it for yourself.
Someone change 3lines of code and call it a new coin.

Can that same 15 year old child use proper grammar and spelling?

If you don't like the coin, don't mine it.  Vorksholk has been a long time member of this community and I'm anxious to see what he's able to produce.  

The fact that is IS an old time member is what makes this especially embarrassing. Another coin that brings nothing new to the table purely for profit with an arbitrary block reward and gimmicky name. No thx.

The point of the currency is to introduce two new economic ideas (balancing supply and demand, and buffering against sharp changes in relation to fiat), and aims to not provide quick pump-and-dump profits. The block reward is well-thought-out, and early adopter profit is lower than every other coin around today.

I understand the hostility towards new currencies that threaten the "status-quo," but it's not an attempt at quick profits, rather at trying new economic ideas based on what we have learned from the others. And the name is gonna change

Also, the coin is far pre-announced (6 weeks is the record so far), has zero premine, and the starting blocks give very small rewards, in an attempt to make the coin not pump-n-dumpable.

However, the beauty of the free market is that if you don't like an idea, concept, product, currency, etc. you have every right in the world to yell about it at the top of your lungs, or ignore it, whichever is most fun.

[Vorksholk]

The post two posts above mine (by crymo), is why you have to make self-moderated threads these days.  You can delete the complete troll posts yourself that add absolutely nothing to the discussion.

On topic, I'm looking forward to it. Looks really well thought out.  

Self moderated post can delete even messages warning about a trojan on the client. If I see a coin launches as "self moderate" I don't trust it.

Yeah, I decided self-moderating looked bad on my part, and people have the right to troll of discredit the idea if they wish, that is essentially the definition of free speech.

[mercSuey]

Am I missing something. Is the block reward glued to the square root of the difficulty indefinately? That would create a situation where at difficulty 1M the block reward will be 1000, this is hyperinflationary to anyone who mined @ br 100, will likely cause everybody to sell mined coins immediately and very few people to want the devaluing coins. Please correct me.

Currently, yes the block reward would be glued to the square root forever. While at difficulty 1,000,000 the reward would be 1,000, each coin would be much harder to mine (10x harder, as 1000 would be produced for each 1M block, and each 1M block is 100x harder to mine than a 10K block) and so the coins would enjoy a gain in value over time, without the hard explosion (and subsequent crashes) that other Cryptocurrencies have had to deal with.

Essentially, it is playing supply and demand economics with a twist. The more demand, the more supply, but supply doesn't scale in a linear fashion.

The non-linear scaling makes faster hardware not cause hyperinflation (as a 1:1 reward would, as more coins per $ would be made in the future), however the scaling does mean that early adopters won't be the only people to make a profit, and large market swings will be reduced.


It would take a 100x increase in the total mining hardware on the network to boost up the block reward by x10, and therefore the coins do become more valuable over time. However, people aren't as likely to dump them quickly (mined 1000 roots in 6 months, now that 6 months of time with the same hardware would only get 100 coins, let's say) as it would not be as sharp of an inflation that a fixed-difficulty coin (such as has been seen with Bitcoin) experiences.

Hopefully that clears it up? It's a bit hard to explain.

Everything you said about requiring more hardware with respect to difficulty increase can be said of any coin.  But almost all other coins have a constant block reward.  Root block rewards increase proportional to difficulty.  Hence, it is hyperinflationary.  Moreover, there is too much 'hand-waving' in your argument.  You assume demand will be there when and if difficulty reaches 1 million, but it's quite possible for miners to mine and raise difficulty strictly out of profitability relative to all other coins.  If I drew the graph of Root's price versus time, it will tend to zero rather quickly, whether you like it or not...

[Vorksholk]

Am I missing something. Is the block reward glued to the square root of the difficulty indefinately? That would create a situation where at difficulty 1M the block reward will be 1000, this is hyperinflationary to anyone who mined @ br 100, will likely cause everybody to sell mined coins immediately and very few people to want the devaluing coins. Please correct me.

Currently, yes the block reward would be glued to the square root forever. While at difficulty 1,000,000 the reward would be 1,000, each coin would be much harder to mine (10x harder, as 1000 would be produced for each 1M block, and each 1M block is 100x harder to mine than a 10K block) and so the coins would enjoy a gain in value over time, without the hard explosion (and subsequent crashes) that other Cryptocurrencies have had to deal with.

Essentially, it is playing supply and demand economics with a twist. The more demand, the more supply, but supply doesn't scale in a linear fashion.

The non-linear scaling makes faster hardware not cause hyperinflation (as a 1:1 reward would, as more coins per $ would be made in the future), however the scaling does mean that early adopters won't be the only people to make a profit, and large market swings will be reduced.


It would take a 100x increase in the total mining hardware on the network to boost up the block reward by x10, and therefore the coins do become more valuable over time. However, people aren't as likely to dump them quickly (mined 1000 roots in 6 months, now that 6 months of time with the same hardware would only get 100 coins, let's say) as it would not be as sharp of an inflation that a fixed-difficulty coin (such as has been seen with Bitcoin) experiences.

Hopefully that clears it up? It's a bit hard to explain.

Everything you said about requiring more hardware with respect to difficulty increase can be said of any coin.  But almost all other coins have a constant block reward.  Root block rewards increase proportional to difficulty.  Hence, it is hyperinflationary.  Moreover, there is too much 'hand-waving' in your argument.  You assume demand will be there when and if difficulty reaches 1 million, but it's quite possible for miners to mine and raise difficulty strictly out of profitability relative to all other coins.  If I drew the graph of Root's price versus time, it will tend to zero rather quickly, whether you like it or not...

Yes, the difference with the increased hardware is that that increase in hardware is now pinned to the block reward as well.

Inflation of a currency is when a currency's buying power is reduced. With fixed-reward currencies, the buying power increases at ridiculous rates as difficulty increases. For example, one Bitcoin back in January was worth around $20-$30, and had that much buying power. Since the supply of Bitcoin doesn't increase with increasing demand, we end up with one Bitcoin at one point being worth over $250, a 10x jump in a matter of months! With 'root', however, the block reward would increase with increased demand, so while the value would still go up and down, it would correct faster (buffer), as with less profitability, less people mine, so less coins are produced an hour, and vice-versa.

It's true we don't know what it will really do once it hits the market, but seeing the economic patterns Bitcoin has taken, it makes sense for root to work.

The main force that would cause its price to drop to ridiculous lows would be a general lack of interest in the coin. The coin's economic ideas itself would not run it into the ground, as it adjusts to supply/demand.

It wouldn't be hyperinflationary, but instead would be anti-deflationary. Compared to Bitcoin, it would be inflating, but when pinned to fiat it would simply resist movement in both directions. Our view of currency has been slightly skewed by Bitcoin. A currency usually does not deviate as much as Bitcoin has, and when a coin makes less profit for initial investors it could be considered inflationary relative to Bitcoin, but the currency would not lose buying power, but instead would not gain as much, increasing its stability.

[Mhash pipe]

This is a terrible idea, and I don't think there is anyone stupid enough to buy it. Exponential dumping = hyperinflation

[Vorksholk]

This is a terrible idea, and I don't think there is anyone stupid enough to buy it. Exponential dumping = hyperinflation

Why would exponential dumping occur in a system that buffers within a profitability range?

[BBQKorv]

0.XXX starting diff once again? What does it take to have it way past 1 right from the start?

[mercSuey]

Am I missing something. Is the block reward glued to the square root of the difficulty indefinately? That would create a situation where at difficulty 1M the block reward will be 1000, this is hyperinflationary to anyone who mined @ br 100, will likely cause everybody to sell mined coins immediately and very few people to want the devaluing coins. Please correct me.

Currently, yes the block reward would be glued to the square root forever. While at difficulty 1,000,000 the reward would be 1,000, each coin would be much harder to mine (10x harder, as 1000 would be produced for each 1M block, and each 1M block is 100x harder to mine than a 10K block) and so the coins would enjoy a gain in value over time, without the hard explosion (and subsequent crashes) that other Cryptocurrencies have had to deal with.

Essentially, it is playing supply and demand economics with a twist. The more demand, the more supply, but supply doesn't scale in a linear fashion.

The non-linear scaling makes faster hardware not cause hyperinflation (as a 1:1 reward would, as more coins per $ would be made in the future), however the scaling does mean that early adopters won't be the only people to make a profit, and large market swings will be reduced.


It would take a 100x increase in the total mining hardware on the network to boost up the block reward by x10, and therefore the coins do become more valuable over time. However, people aren't as likely to dump them quickly (mined 1000 roots in 6 months, now that 6 months of time with the same hardware would only get 100 coins, let's say) as it would not be as sharp of an inflation that a fixed-difficulty coin (such as has been seen with Bitcoin) experiences.

Hopefully that clears it up? It's a bit hard to explain.

Everything you said about requiring more hardware with respect to difficulty increase can be said of any coin.  But almost all other coins have a constant block reward.  Root block rewards increase proportional to difficulty.  Hence, it is hyperinflationary.  Moreover, there is too much 'hand-waving' in your argument.  You assume demand will be there when and if difficulty reaches 1 million, but it's quite possible for miners to mine and raise difficulty strictly out of profitability relative to all other coins.  If I drew the graph of Root's price versus time, it will tend to zero rather quickly, whether you like it or not...

Yes, the difference with the increased hardware is that that increase in hardware is now pinned to the block reward as well.

Inflation of a currency is when a currency's buying power is reduced. With fixed-reward currencies, the buying power increases at ridiculous rates as difficulty increases. For example, one Bitcoin back in January was worth around $20-$30, and had that much buying power. Since the supply of Bitcoin doesn't increase with increasing demand, we end up with one Bitcoin at one point being worth over $250, a 10x jump in a matter of months! With 'root', however, the block reward would increase with increased demand, so while the value would still go up and down, it would correct faster (buffer), as with less profitability, less people mine, so less coins are produced an hour, and vice-versa.

It's true we don't know what it will really do once it hits the market, but seeing the economic patterns Bitcoin has taken, it makes sense for root to work.

The main force that would cause its price to drop to ridiculous lows would be a general lack of interest in the coin. The coin's economic ideas itself would not run it into the ground, as it adjusts to supply/demand.

It wouldn't be hyperinflationary, but instead would be anti-deflationary. Compared to Bitcoin, it would be inflating, but when pinned to fiat it would simply resist movement in both directions. Our view of currency has been slightly skewed by Bitcoin. A currency usually does not deviate as much as Bitcoin has, and when a coin makes less profit for initial investors it could be considered inflationary relative to Bitcoin, but the currency would not lose buying power, but instead would not gain as much, increasing its stability.

Here is the scenario in my mind.  The coin is released to decent fan fair and eventually makes it onto an exchange.  Lets assume it's very profitable to mine.  This adds relatively more supply than a constant block reward coin.  Consequently this supply hits the exchange.  After some time, whatever it may be, this supply will depress Root's price.  Depressed enough and it will no longer be profitable to mine.  So miners pursue another coin.  Thus the network hash rate decreases, and likewise, so does the block reward.  Consequently it's not going to be profitable ever again unless Root's price rises.  And here is where your crucial assumptions take place.  You assume because incoming supply will be cut off so that demand will easily prop up the price.  But even if it does, the cycle is too visible!  Traders can wait until the block rewards was back to one, then slowly accumulate Root, eventually pushing up the price.  And if the price elevates to such an extent that it actually become profitable to mine, well then you will have not only the supply of traders taking profits but of this next batch of miners aiming to make some profit.  Hence the price of Root will be depressed again and the cycle continues, but with more supply on each cycle.  Over time Root's price will have a sequence of lower highs and lower lows, tending to zero.  This scheme leads to an unstable equilibrium.  Root may start off how you planned, but the moment it is no longer profitable to mine, the sequence of lower highs and lower lows will begin.

[Vorksholk]

Am I missing something. Is the block reward glued to the square root of the difficulty indefinately? That would create a situation where at difficulty 1M the block reward will be 1000, this is hyperinflationary to anyone who mined @ br 100, will likely cause everybody to sell mined coins immediately and very few people to want the devaluing coins. Please correct me.

Currently, yes the block reward would be glued to the square root forever. While at difficulty 1,000,000 the reward would be 1,000, each coin would be much harder to mine (10x harder, as 1000 would be produced for each 1M block, and each 1M block is 100x harder to mine than a 10K block) and so the coins would enjoy a gain in value over time, without the hard explosion (and subsequent crashes) that other Cryptocurrencies have had to deal with.

Essentially, it is playing supply and demand economics with a twist. The more demand, the more supply, but supply doesn't scale in a linear fashion.

The non-linear scaling makes faster hardware not cause hyperinflation (as a 1:1 reward would, as more coins per $ would be made in the future), however the scaling does mean that early adopters won't be the only people to make a profit, and large market swings will be reduced.


It would take a 100x increase in the total mining hardware on the network to boost up the block reward by x10, and therefore the coins do become more valuable over time. However, people aren't as likely to dump them quickly (mined 1000 roots in 6 months, now that 6 months of time with the same hardware would only get 100 coins, let's say) as it would not be as sharp of an inflation that a fixed-difficulty coin (such as has been seen with Bitcoin) experiences.

Hopefully that clears it up? It's a bit hard to explain.

Everything you said about requiring more hardware with respect to difficulty increase can be said of any coin.  But almost all other coins have a constant block reward.  Root block rewards increase proportional to difficulty.  Hence, it is hyperinflationary.  Moreover, there is too much 'hand-waving' in your argument.  You assume demand will be there when and if difficulty reaches 1 million, but it's quite possible for miners to mine and raise difficulty strictly out of profitability relative to all other coins.  If I drew the graph of Root's price versus time, it will tend to zero rather quickly, whether you like it or not...

Yes, the difference with the increased hardware is that that increase in hardware is now pinned to the block reward as well.

Inflation of a currency is when a currency's buying power is reduced. With fixed-reward currencies, the buying power increases at ridiculous rates as difficulty increases. For example, one Bitcoin back in January was worth around $20-$30, and had that much buying power. Since the supply of Bitcoin doesn't increase with increasing demand, we end up with one Bitcoin at one point being worth over $250, a 10x jump in a matter of months! With 'root', however, the block reward would increase with increased demand, so while the value would still go up and down, it would correct faster (buffer), as with less profitability, less people mine, so less coins are produced an hour, and vice-versa.

It's true we don't know what it will really do once it hits the market, but seeing the economic patterns Bitcoin has taken, it makes sense for root to work.

The main force that would cause its price to drop to ridiculous lows would be a general lack of interest in the coin. The coin's economic ideas itself would not run it into the ground, as it adjusts to supply/demand.

It wouldn't be hyperinflationary, but instead would be anti-deflationary. Compared to Bitcoin, it would be inflating, but when pinned to fiat it would simply resist movement in both directions. Our view of currency has been slightly skewed by Bitcoin. A currency usually does not deviate as much as Bitcoin has, and when a coin makes less profit for initial investors it could be considered inflationary relative to Bitcoin, but the currency would not lose buying power, but instead would not gain as much, increasing its stability.

Here is the scenario in my mind.  The coin is released to decent fan fair and eventually makes it onto an exchange.  Lets assume it's very profitable to mine.  This adds relatively more supply than a constant block reward coin.  Consequently this supply hits the exchange.  After some time, whatever it may be, this supply will depress Root's price.  Depressed enough and it will no longer be profitable to mine.  So miners pursue another coin.  Thus the network hash rate decreases, and likewise, so does the block reward.  Consequently it's not going to be profitable ever again unless Root's price rises.  And here is where your crucial assumptions take place.  You assume because incoming supply will be cut off so that demand will easily prop up the price.  But even if it does, the cycle is too visible!  Traders can wait until the block rewards was back to one, then slowly accumulate Root, eventually pushing up the price.  And if the price elevates to such an extent that it actually become profitable to mine, well then you will have not only the supply of traders taking profits but of this next batch of miners aiming to make some profit.  Hence the price of Root will be depressed again and the cycle continues, but with more supply on each cycle.  Over time Root's price will have a sequence of lower highs and lower lows, tending to zero.  This scheme leads to an unstable equilibrium.  Root may start off how you planned, but the moment it is no longer profitable to mine, the sequence of lower highs and lower lows will begin.

That is possible, and does bring an interesting point to the table.

[BitFred]

0.XXX starting diff once again? What does it take to have it way past 1 right from the start?

Apparently it is too hard to mine the genesis block at the higher difficulty or so I read in some other post.

[LittleDigger]

One problem is that the word Root is a swear word in at least one english speaking country. I as far as I know anyway. Maybe it's route that's the swear. An Australian will be able to correct me if I'm wrong. But from what I've been told it's worse than f*ck.

I can confirm that calling this coin "Root" would be the same as calling it "Fuck" from an Australian perspective.

You might want to try some social expermentation with the name.. I did.. before Bitcoins went mainstream

When I explained to people that I was "mining" "bitcoins", I was an eccentric involved in a madcap scheme, but at least it kept me occupied and off the streets.

When I explained to people I was recieving a small reward in "Binary Trading Credits" for "securing the BTC decentralised network by cross-checking and generating SHA256 encryption" I was a highly intelligent individual involved in the cutting edge of technology ....

Don't take my world for it.. Try it for yourself and see what the results are..

P.S Good work on the retarget rate.. we used to hop pools.. now we hop currencies..

[Vorksholk]

One problem is that the word Root is a swear word in at least one english speaking country. I as far as I know anyway. Maybe it's route that's the swear. An Australian will be able to correct me if I'm wrong. But from what I've been told it's worse than f*ck.

I can confirm that calling this coin "Root" would be the same as calling it "Fuck" from an Australian perspective.

You might want to try some social expermentation with the name.. I did.. before Bitcoins went mainstream

When I explained to people that I was "mining" "bitcoins", I was an eccentric involved in a madcap scheme, but at least it kept me occupied and off the streets.

When I explained to people I was recieving a small reward in "Binary Trading Credits" for "securing the BTC decentralised network by cross-checking and generating SHA256 encryption" I was a highly intelligent individual involved in the cutting edge of technology ....

Don't take my world for it.. Try it for yourself and see what the results are..

P.S Good work on the retarget rate.. we used to hop pools.. now we hop currencies..

Wow, I learn something every day. . . no idea 'Root' was a curse word in Australia!

Name will change, it's just a place holder, I'm going to do a community vote soon. Had some name suggestions in the 6-week announcement thread from May 3rd.

[Tobius]

I can confirm that calling this coin "Root" would be the same as calling it "Fuck" from an Australian perspective.

Might I ask what they call the roots of plants then @_@

[Mhash pipe]

Am I missing something. Is the block reward glued to the square root of the difficulty indefinately? That would create a situation where at difficulty 1M the block reward will be 1000, this is hyperinflationary to anyone who mined @ br 100, will likely cause everybody to sell mined coins immediately and very few people to want the devaluing coins. Please correct me.

Currently, yes the block reward would be glued to the square root forever. While at difficulty 1,000,000 the reward would be 1,000, each coin would be much harder to mine (10x harder, as 1000 would be produced for each 1M block, and each 1M block is 100x harder to mine than a 10K block) and so the coins would enjoy a gain in value over time, without the hard explosion (and subsequent crashes) that other Cryptocurrencies have had to deal with.

Essentially, it is playing supply and demand economics with a twist. The more demand, the more supply, but supply doesn't scale in a linear fashion.

The non-linear scaling makes faster hardware not cause hyperinflation (as a 1:1 reward would, as more coins per $ would be made in the future), however the scaling does mean that early adopters won't be the only people to make a profit, and large market swings will be reduced.


It would take a 100x increase in the total mining hardware on the network to boost up the block reward by x10, and therefore the coins do become more valuable over time. However, people aren't as likely to dump them quickly (mined 1000 roots in 6 months, now that 6 months of time with the same hardware would only get 100 coins, let's say) as it would not be as sharp of an inflation that a fixed-difficulty coin (such as has been seen with Bitcoin) experiences.

Hopefully that clears it up? It's a bit hard to explain.

Everything you said about requiring more hardware with respect to difficulty increase can be said of any coin.  But almost all other coins have a constant block reward.  Root block rewards increase proportional to difficulty.  Hence, it is hyperinflationary.  Moreover, there is too much 'hand-waving' in your argument.  You assume demand will be there when and if difficulty reaches 1 million, but it's quite possible for miners to mine and raise difficulty strictly out of profitability relative to all other coins.  If I drew the graph of Root's price versus time, it will tend to zero rather quickly, whether you like it or not...

Yes, the difference with the increased hardware is that that increase in hardware is now pinned to the block reward as well.

Inflation of a currency is when a currency's buying power is reduced. With fixed-reward currencies, the buying power increases at ridiculous rates as difficulty increases. For example, one Bitcoin back in January was worth around $20-$30, and had that much buying power. Since the supply of Bitcoin doesn't increase with increasing demand, we end up with one Bitcoin at one point being worth over $250, a 10x jump in a matter of months! With 'root', however, the block reward would increase with increased demand, so while the value would still go up and down, it would correct faster (buffer), as with less profitability, less people mine, so less coins are produced an hour, and vice-versa.

It's true we don't know what it will really do once it hits the market, but seeing the economic patterns Bitcoin has taken, it makes sense for root to work.

The main force that would cause its price to drop to ridiculous lows would be a general lack of interest in the coin. The coin's economic ideas itself would not run it into the ground, as it adjusts to supply/demand.

It wouldn't be hyperinflationary, but instead would be anti-deflationary. Compared to Bitcoin, it would be inflating, but when pinned to fiat it would simply resist movement in both directions. Our view of currency has been slightly skewed by Bitcoin. A currency usually does not deviate as much as Bitcoin has, and when a coin makes less profit for initial investors it could be considered inflationary relative to Bitcoin, but the currency would not lose buying power, but instead would not gain as much, increasing its stability.

Here is the scenario in my mind.  The coin is released to decent fan fair and eventually makes it onto an exchange.  Lets assume it's very profitable to mine.  This adds relatively more supply than a constant block reward coin.  Consequently this supply hits the exchange.  After some time, whatever it may be, this supply will depress Root's price. Depressed enough and it will no longer be profitable to mine.  So miners pursue another coin.  Thus the network hash rate decreases, and likewise, so does the block reward.  Consequently it's not going to be profitable ever again unless Root's price rises.  And here is where your crucial assumptions take place.  You assume because incoming supply will be cut off so that demand will easily prop up the price.  But even if it does, the cycle is too visible!  Traders can wait until the block rewards was back to one, then slowly accumulate Root, eventually pushing up the price.  And if the price elevates to such an extent that it actually become profitable to mine, well then you will have not only the supply of traders taking profits but of this next batch of miners aiming to make some profit.  Hence the price of Root will be depressed again and the cycle continues, but with more supply on each cycle.  Over time Root's price will have a sequence of lower highs and lower lows, tending to zero.  This scheme leads to an unstable equilibrium.  Root may start off how you planned, but the moment it is no longer profitable to mine, the sequence of lower highs and lower lows will begin.

I don't think it will make it past that first iteration. Look at CNC and FTC right now... Now imagine if those coins cut the rewards as the hashrates dropped. There would be zero incentive to return unless there was some miraculous rise in demand, which probably wouldn't happen because no one would be mining and so the transactions would be frozen in time.

[Cazz0r]

Australian here.

I'm going to say that its only a rude word when used in slang and still depends on the context, I wouldn't classify it as a swear word. Root can mean f*ck, depending how its used. But you don't tell somebody to get rooted, like you would say get f*cked (actually, I guess people do say get rooted when they want to avoid saying get f*cked, it kind of tones it down). However, it's more widely used to refer to the act of sex, it would be synonymous with "shag", "bang", "screw" and f*ck, in that regard. The word is still used commonly for its other purposes, like plant roots, square roots, etc without the giggles. I wouldn't say its a swear word here, I'd say that you'd maybe hear it used to refer to sex if you're talking to somebody who speaks with a fair amount of Aussie slang.

The best way I can think to use it in context, would be the situation of waking up after a night clubbing and my roommate asks me if I "pulled any roots", referring to having sex with anybody, rather than doing the gardening, and with that, queue the jokes.

I like the general principles that Root brings to the table, I look forward to seeing more updates soon with progress towards the launch, and the discussions that follow.

[MrWizard]

Personally, I thing that the reward should be based on natural log  - ln(x).  As in reward = ln(1+difficulty)*n
where n is some multiplier to bring the rewards per block up a bit.  Why a log function?  Well, its curve decelerates faster than square root.  Thus much less inflationary.
Example:

n                sqrt()         ln()
1                 1              0
10               3.16          2.31
100             10             4.61
1000            31.62        6.91
10000          100           9.21


Build your coins with natural logs.^TM


Edit:  Lots more naming possibilities with "natural" in the name.
Edit2: Notice its 1 + difficulty, so rewards would not be 0, or negative, at launch.