[ANN] [MINT] Mintcoin (POS / 5%) [NO ICO] [Fair distro, community maintained]

[cryptomommy]

What do you think about this:

42,000,000,000 targeted coins, new PoS rates go one full year as 12% and then move onward as suggested:

~12% first year, ~10% second year, ~8% third year, and ~6% all subsequent years until we hit the total coin goal at which we trickle down to 1.5% in order to replace lost and destroyed coins?

That BIG NUMBER 70,000,000,000 BILLION is what has been scaring real investors away from this coin since the very beginning.

Am I to understand that we're only shuffling interest rates (POS) around but that the eventual total distribution would still be this legitimately scary number?

I tend to agree that the overall number of coins should be chopped down to 1/2 or 1/3 of this number. 

[1713950548]

1713950548

[1713950548]

1713950548

[1713950548]

1713950548

[acceptance2]

What do you think about this:

42,000,000,000 targeted coins, new PoS rates go one full year as 12% and then move onward as suggested:

~12% first year, ~10% second year, ~8% third year, and ~6% all subsequent years until we hit the total coin goal at which we trickle down to 1.5% in order to replace lost and destroyed coins?

That BIG NUMBER 70,000,000,000 BILLION is what has been scaring real investors away from this coin since the very beginning.

Am I to understand that we're only shuffling interest rates (POS) around but that the eventual total distribution would still be this legitimately scary number?

I tend to agree that the overall number of coins should be chopped down to 1/2 or 1/3 of this number. 

Does "targeted" mean the eventual FINAL number? So 42,000,000,000 not 70,000,000,000?

My preference would be under 10% or maximum 10%. Western banks are giving under 2.5% for 72 month CDs. Paying 4 x that doesn't seem unreasonable at this stage.

[cryptomommy]

When I say "target" I am referencing the number of coins generated before the PoS rate drops down 1.5% indefinitely to replace lost and destroyed coins.

[acceptance2]

When I say "target" I am referencing the number of coins generated before the PoS rate drops down 1.5% indefinitely to replace lost and destroyed coins.

Okay, I read that as the final number being 42,000,000,000 (approximately) before the 1.5% kicks in.

Sorry to be picky about this.

So when marketing the coin, it would not be unreasonable to say the coin would have an eventual coin market cap of 42,000,000,000 with an additional 1.5% interest carried on in perpetuity to sustain lost and destroyed coins.

Would that be a fair/factual statement?

42,000,000,000 sure looks a lot better than 70,000,000,000

[cryptomommy]

When I say "target" I am referencing the number of coins generated before the PoS rate drops down 1.5% indefinitely to replace lost and destroyed coins.

Okay, I read that as the final number being 42,000,000,000 (approximately) before the 1.5% kicks in.

Sorry to be picky about this.

So when marketing the coin, it would not be unreasonable to say the coin would have an eventual coin market cap of 42,000,000,000 with an additional 1.5% interest carried on in perpetuity to sustain lost and destroyed coins.

Would that be a fair/factual statement?

42,000,000,000 sure looks a lot better than 70,000,000,000

This is exactly what I am suggesting - Don't worry about being "picky" this conversation is exactly what we need

[zzuum]

This would be helpful to bring to the reddit page. That said, two things to discuss: one is about the 70bil coins. I don't think at all that the total number of coins is a big deal. It's not the total but the stability that investors looks for. Stocks of companies trade and sell at all values regardless of price, so I don't see how that would affect anything capping the coins lower, besides maybe an initial shock jump in value.

Second, I see the 6% jump down to 1.5% to be quite large, as well as the 20% to 12%, at least if there is going to be a 4% drop in the sequential years that follow. What about a exponential curve starting from 20%, and maybe decreasing more often? For instance,  just as a mockup, here is 20/exp(0.2*Time):

1    16.37462
2    13.4064
3    10.97623
4    8.986579
5    7.357589
6    6.023884
7    4.931939
8    4.03793
9    3.305978
10    2.706706
11    2.216063
12    1.814359
13    1.485472

As you can see, after 13 time periods, the inflation rate is at the target 1.5%, as previously suggested. Or, another thought is to change the rate when the total coins reaches a certain amount. For instance, at 20bil coins, change to 16.4%, at 27bil change to 13.4%, etc until at 70bil coins change to 1.5%. Just an idea.

[cryptomommy]

This would be helpful to bring to the reddit page. That said, two things to discuss: one is about the 70bil coins. I don't think at all that the total number of coins is a big deal. It's not the total but the stability that investors looks for. Stocks of companies trade and sell at all values regardless of price, so I don't see how that would affect anything capping the coins lower, besides maybe an initial shock jump in value.

Second, I see the 6% jump down to 1.5% to be quite large, as well as the 20% to 12%, at least if there is going to be a 4% drop in the sequential years that follow. What about a exponential curve starting from 20%, and maybe decreasing more often? For instance,  just as a mockup, here is 20/exp(0.2*Time):

1    16.37462
2    13.4064
3    10.97623
4    8.986579
5    7.357589
6    6.023884
7    4.931939
8    4.03793
9    3.305978
10    2.706706
11    2.216063
12    1.814359
13    1.485472

As you can see, after 13 time periods, the inflation rate is at the target 1.5%, as previously suggested. Or, another thought is to change the rate when the total coins reaches a certain amount. For instance, at 20bil coins, change to 16.4%, at 27bil change to 13.4%, etc until at 70bil coins change to 1.5%. Just an idea.

Thanks for bringing this over here - I never know where the conversation is going to get momentum
Once we have a few more people involved in the conversation I will summarize current status and bring it back into reddit to try to get more people involved.

[MarSas]

Can someone tell me why an increasing total number of coins would be not acceptible for an investor whose coins stake new coins at the same rate?

[presstab]

When I say "target" I am referencing the number of coins generated before the PoS rate drops down 1.5% indefinitely to replace lost and destroyed coins.

Okay, I read that as the final number being 42,000,000,000 (approximately) before the 1.5% kicks in.

Sorry to be picky about this.

So when marketing the coin, it would not be unreasonable to say the coin would have an eventual coin market cap of 42,000,000,000 with an additional 1.5% interest carried on in perpetuity to sustain lost and destroyed coins.

Would that be a fair/factual statement?

42,000,000,000 sure looks a lot better than 70,000,000,000

This is exactly what I am suggesting - Don't worry about being "picky" this conversation is exactly what we need

If we want to be picky, then we need to all understand that the current 70b cap, is not a cap at all, just a poorly coded number that is the maximum transaction size. If you were to adjust the PoS rate approaching a certain money supply, as cryptomommy suggested, then that would be an effective fork to add a maximum coin supply.

[cryptomommy]

http://faculty.washington.edu/danby/bls324/surplus.html

This hopefully offers a solid explanation.

edit:
http://www.investopedia.com/university/economics/economics3.asp
This is a better source.

[acceptance2]

When I say "target" I am referencing the number of coins generated before the PoS rate drops down 1.5% indefinitely to replace lost and destroyed coins.

Okay, I read that as the final number being 42,000,000,000 (approximately) before the 1.5% kicks in.

Sorry to be picky about this.

So when marketing the coin, it would not be unreasonable to say the coin would have an eventual coin market cap of 42,000,000,000 with an additional 1.5% interest carried on in perpetuity to sustain lost and destroyed coins.

Would that be a fair/factual statement?

42,000,000,000 sure looks a lot better than 70,000,000,000

This is exactly what I am suggesting - Don't worry about being "picky" this conversation is exactly what we need

Okay, well, I think it's a good start.

Having an Android Wallet to facilitate easy sharing to help increase exposure/adoption AND a reduced overall coin cap should both be attractive features to investors sitting on the sidelines. I would prefer an even lower overall coin cap with a lower POS rate because I think it would help move things along quicker. Just my opinion.

It's paramount that the 70,000,000,000 number be brought down. Non crypto investors I know laugh when I tell them the eventual cap and say it sounds like a HYIP or penny stock. They won't go near Mintcoin even at 42,000,000,000. My guess is 20,000,000,000 would get some of them sniffing.

Big companies start out with SMALL share caps and then grow their float as the VALUE warrants OR their need to raise capital outstrips their growth rate. We currently have no growth or value. The coin cap MEANS EVERYTHING.

Back in 8 hours....

[acceptance2]

Can someone tell me why an increasing total number of coins would be not acceptible for an investor whose coins stake new coins at the same rate?

It's not how many coins you have that matters, it's what your coins are worth.

0 x 0 = 0

000 x 000 = 000

Having a gazillion coins with no actual worth is ... not worth anything.

[acceptance2]

http://faculty.washington.edu/danby/bls324/surplus.html

This hopefully offers a solid explanation.

edit:
http://www.investopedia.com/university/economics/economics3.asp
This is a better source.

Perfect. Clear explanation of supply and demand.

[cryptomommy]

When I say "target" I am referencing the number of coins generated before the PoS rate drops down 1.5% indefinitely to replace lost and destroyed coins.

Okay, I read that as the final number being 42,000,000,000 (approximately) before the 1.5% kicks in.

Sorry to be picky about this.

So when marketing the coin, it would not be unreasonable to say the coin would have an eventual coin market cap of 42,000,000,000 with an additional 1.5% interest carried on in perpetuity to sustain lost and destroyed coins.

Would that be a fair/factual statement?

42,000,000,000 sure looks a lot better than 70,000,000,000

This is exactly what I am suggesting - Don't worry about being "picky" this conversation is exactly what we need

If we want to be picky, then we need to all understand that the current 70b cap, is not a cap at all, just a poorly coded number that is the maximum transaction size. If you were to adjust the PoS rate approaching a certain money supply, as cryptomommy suggested, then that would be an effective fork to add a maximum coin supply.

Presstab - How do you feel about these changes?

[presstab]

When I say "target" I am referencing the number of coins generated before the PoS rate drops down 1.5% indefinitely to replace lost and destroyed coins.

Okay, I read that as the final number being 42,000,000,000 (approximately) before the 1.5% kicks in.

Sorry to be picky about this.

So when marketing the coin, it would not be unreasonable to say the coin would have an eventual coin market cap of 42,000,000,000 with an additional 1.5% interest carried on in perpetuity to sustain lost and destroyed coins.

Would that be a fair/factual statement?

42,000,000,000 sure looks a lot better than 70,000,000,000

This is exactly what I am suggesting - Don't worry about being "picky" this conversation is exactly what we need

If we want to be picky, then we need to all understand that the current 70b cap, is not a cap at all, just a poorly coded number that is the maximum transaction size. If you were to adjust the PoS rate approaching a certain money supply, as cryptomommy suggested, then that would be an effective fork to add a maximum coin supply.

Presstab - How do you feel about these changes?

I am against a hard max, which is why I think your idea of PoS to perpetuity is the ideal candidate.  The question is what would be the correct %?  1.5% might be a bit low, but it depends on the goals everyone has.

I think Mint's number one priority should be slowing down the block target.  I open my Mint wallet once every 10-20 days and it takes ages to load, I am not sure how so many blocks are being added.  Right now it is coming out at 3-5 blocks per minute. This increases inflation for obvious reasons, more interest payments added to the money supply at a quick speed.

Slowing down that block speed will allow for less inflation as well as slower block chain bloat. I think this is something that should be kept in the conversation.

[cryptomommy]

In regards to slowing down the block chain - could we do something like an "estimated monthly stakes" and then make a deposit once a month in one single transaction? Do you have any possible solutions to this you would like to recommend?

[presstab]

In regards to slowing down the block chain - could we do something like an "estimated monthly stakes" and then make a deposit once a month in one single transaction? Do you have any possible solutions to this you would like to recommend?

Well mint has a 30 second block target right now, it would be changing that target to be more like 60 seconds or more.  But it is easier said than done, so far I have had trouble changing targets on the fly.

[zzuum]

What about updating nodes on the website to download? Other coins have that so that the blocks will be updated quicker.

[kiklo]

My Vote on Changes to Interest Rate

Agreed that the 20% rate is harming Mintcoin.
Because it gives some exchanges the ability gain interest on the mintcoins they hold for others and then sell to make a profit. (Even though they all denied doing such a thing , odds are some are.)

If we are going to change rate , my vote is this .
Drop the rate like it was originally planned except speed it up , do an update that drops the rate from 20% to 15% for 1 month , then 10% for next Month , then 5% for good.

This way we keep the original design , but we speed it up by a few years to keep the exchanges selling other people interest as much.

[cryptomommy]

Please take a look at this survey and let me know what I can do to make it more clear to pass around to the community:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/6Y6H6NX