[XMR] Monero Speculation

[smooth]

Agree that we have selling pressure for a very long time, but I think with cutting the emission the selling pressure will be better to handle. It also gives more space to increase adoption and price will be less supressed as well. Personally, I think an increasing price gives more incentives for current holders to increase the adoption and maybe invest more. A decling price with making lower lows doesn´t really encourage current holders (since people will get into the despair or depression phase).

However, to be fair a low price (though not one that is perceived as declining) is better to bring in new buyers. It is not unheard of for people to evaluate a coin but feel the high price is out of line with the risk profile and level of maturity. I've done that myself (not with XMR specifically but with other coins).

That requires the prospective new buyers have some way to even find out about the coin, which gets back to some of the past few replies about pushing on the exposure and adoption side. Falling too far in value hurts this too. There is likely some sort of sweet spot (or range).

[1715349609]

1715349609

[1715349609]

1715349609

[1715349609]

1715349609

[1715349609]

1715349609

[1715349609]

1715349609

[binaryFate]

After I got involved in bitcoin, end of 2012, I've been spending significant time and efforts to vulgarize bitcoin (and cryptos at large) publicly. Most of the time with just enthousiasts, but also with media (including radio & tv & newspapers) and more recently with the (mostly financial) industry.

Being truly passionate, when I say "vulgarize" it implies in fact a kind of honest evangelism. I don't want to only inform those that are curious, I am humbly doing what I can for this idea to spread.

I can tell by experience this task would be way more difficult, some time painful to do, putting myself in potentially high discomfort during interviews, if bitcoin had gone trough what some of you want to do with monero emission schedule.

[TrueCryptonaire]

it was not my intend to split discussion again into another thread & other forum.

But you realize, that if we cut the emission we have selling pressure for a very very very long time, the daily inflation goes down way faster at the moment than it would with a different emission?

If the supply drops, why there will be selling pressure?

[smooth]

it was not my intend to split discussion again into another thread & other forum.

But you realize, that if we cut the emission we have selling pressure for a very very very long time, the daily inflation goes down way faster at the moment than it would with a different emission?

If the supply drops, why there will be selling pressure?

What he's saying is that the rate of decline also slows down.

If there is less emission now, then there is more emission later. That is a mathematical certainty.

The "selling pressure" argument for cutting would be that the emission now is less useful or more problematic than emission later. However that is necessarily speculative since what happens "later" is impossible to know.

[TrueCryptonaire]

After I got involved in bitcoin, end of 2012, I've been spending significant time and efforts to vulgarize bitcoin (and cryptos at large) publicly. Most of the time with just enthousiasts, but also with media (including radio & tv & newspapers) and more recently with the (mostly financial) industry.

Being truly passionate, when I say "vulgarize" it implies in fact a kind of honest evangelism. I don't want to only inform those that are curious, I am humbly doing what I can for this idea to spread.

I can tell by experience this task would be way more difficult, some time painful to do, putting myself in potentially high discomfort during interviews, if bitcoin had gone trough what some of you want to do with monero emission schedule.

The question is will Monero get new users enough to absorb the emission.
If the answear is NO, the coin will die, Now it looks like the volumes are down and pretty much there is no interest in buying the coin (go to Polo for some time and see).

On the other hand, if there is new users enough to absorb the emissioned coins, there is no need to cut the emission.

Currently there is 313 btc worth of buy orders out of which 100 btc is Risto's buy order at 0.0015... Once this wall gets eaten there is no guarantee there will be liquidity for the coins enough.

[TrueCryptonaire]

it was not my intend to split discussion again into another thread & other forum.

But you realize, that if we cut the emission we have selling pressure for a very very very long time, the daily inflation goes down way faster at the moment than it would with a different emission?

If the supply drops, why there will be selling pressure?

What he's saying is that the rate of decline also slows down.

If there is less emission now, then there is more emission later. That is a mathematical certainty.

The "selling pressure" argument for cutting would be that the emission now is less useful or more problematic than emission later. However that is necessarily speculative since what happens "later" is impossible to know.

Okay I got the point.
However now there are suggestions on keeping up the 1 % inflation after 18+ million coins are mined. If the emission has been cut, you can do this inflation without touching the total number of coins + network will be secure also in the future when it is most needed. Currently the network security is not that crucial as it will be if Monero gets wider adoption.
Those coins that are cut from the current emission can be divided for example for 50+ years.

[smooth]

However now there are suggestions on keeping up the 1 % inflation after 18+ million coins are mined.

You keep repeating this as if it were something new, but it is not. The same wording about a minimum subsidy was there all along. Here is an archived copy of the page from June for verification. There is one archived from May that I'm quite certain would say the same thing but it seems to be corrupted.

http://web.archive.org/web/20140625104827/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.0

[BanditryAndLoot]

Okay I got the point.
However now there are suggestions on keeping up the 1 % inflation after 18+ million coins are mined. If the emission has been cut, you can do this inflation without touching the total number of coins + network will be secure also in the future when it is most needed. Currently the network security is not that crucial as it will be if Monero gets wider adoption.
Those coins that are cut from the current emission can be divided for example for 50+ years.

Don't forget about longer verification times, and vastly increased transaction sizes.

CN just isn't going to have the same number of transactions in a block on average as a bitcoin based coin, because the size of the transactions is larger. Transaction fees with CN will likely motivate miners an entire order or magnitude or two less than a bitcoin codebase, unless we were to jack up the tx fees to ungodly amounts.

Honestly, one person can max out a block with a single transaction, pretty easily.

The justification that 'oh well the miners will mine for transaction fees', carried over from bitcoin, just can't happen with cryptonote, unless we make a few people pay insanely high amounts. Even if they're okay with it, how many times a week is one person going to want to use this?

I guess you could stretch out the minimum subsidy to .1 xmr/block .. but that's still 52,560 coins per year .. not really a great long term outlook .. as to get > 20 year security we'd have to suffer insanely high prices, which only might serve to scare off investors. Who knows though .. people seem to like buying things that are expensive.

[TrueCryptonaire]

However now there are suggestions on keeping up the 1 % inflation after 18+ million coins are mined.

You keep repeating this as if it were something new, but it is not. The same wording about a minimum subsidy was there all along. Here is an archived copy of the page from June for verification. There is one archived from May that I'm quite certain would say the same thing but it seems to be corrupted.

http://web.archive.org/web/20140625104827/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.0

This didn't answear the question of why now mine more coins than necessary and later inflate the coin supply towards infinity while we just could cut the emission and not to inflate towards infinity (put these coins towards the end of the curve and divide them for example for 50-100 years).
This can be considered as a solution for high emission currently + gives secure network for decades to come without touching the key fundamental which is 18.4 million Moneros.
The form of emission curve cannot be considered as crucial fundamental as the total coin supply, therefore smoothening the curve for decades can be considered as fixing a bug.

[Febo]

The question is will Monero get new users enough to absorb the emission.
If the answear is NO, the coin will die, Now it looks like the volumes are down and pretty much there is no interest in buying the coin (go to Polo for some time and see).

Volume of all coins is down. I was checking quite few times where was Monero compared volume among all coins and even in days with less then 100 BTC, like was yesterday and will probably be today, Monero is in top10 of all mineable coins. Situation as it is is same for all coins. We will just have to wait that there will be more trust in crypto. Might take a months or only days. Who knows.

[smooth]

However now there are suggestions on keeping up the 1 % inflation after 18+ million coins are mined.

You keep repeating this as if it were something new, but it is not. The same wording about a minimum subsidy was there all along. Here is an archived copy of the page from June for verification. There is one archived from May that I'm quite certain would say the same thing but it seems to be corrupted.

http://web.archive.org/web/20140625104827/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.0

This didn't answear the question of why now mine more coins than necessary and later inflate the coin supply towards infinity while we just could cut the emission

I stated the argument in favor of cutting the emission almost exactly that way a few posts ago.

and not to inflate towards infinity (put these coins towards the end of the curve and divide them for example for 50-100 years).

You are confusing two different issues. Stretching out the length of time longer and longer doesn't address the question of what happens after the time is up. I think you recognize this: You first said 50+ years. Now you've stretched that to 100 years. Continuing to increase the number of years to something that "seems like forever" does not address the issue.

without touching the key fundamental which is 18.4 million Moneros.

A fully fixed supply has never been a key fundamental of this coin, as I documented with the archived page above. You have Monero confused with Bitcoin or something.

[smooth]

The question is will Monero get new users enough to absorb the emission.
If the answear is NO, the coin will die, Now it looks like the volumes are down and pretty much there is no interest in buying the coin (go to Polo for some time and see).

Volume of all coins is down. I was checking quite few times where was Monero compared volume among all coins and even in days with less then 100 BTC, like was yesterday and will probably be today, Monero is in top10 of all mineable coins. Situation as it is is same for all coins. We will just have to wait that there will be more trust in crypto. Might take a months or only days. Who knows.

It also might take years, or maybe even just a year or two. There have been 1-2 year slowdown periods in crypto before. But by that point the current curve will be a pretty big failure. It will look like a premine to new users and it will provide little to no incentive to miners with very few coins being mined at still-low prices. (What makes declining rewards viable is the expectation of rising prices.)

By keeping the curve we are gambling on this slow period not lasting more than a few months before things pick up, and interest and prices begin to increase. I can't argue objectively that is a good or bad bet.

[TrueCryptonaire]

The question is will Monero get new users enough to absorb the emission.
If the answear is NO, the coin will die, Now it looks like the volumes are down and pretty much there is no interest in buying the coin (go to Polo for some time and see).

Volume of all coins is down. I was checking quite few times where was Monero compared volume among all coins and even in days with less then 100 BTC, like was yesterday and will probably be today, Monero is in top10 of all mineable coins. Situation as it is is same for all coins. We will just have to wait that there will be more trust in crypto. Might take a months or only days. Who knows.

Yes all the bleep coins have low volumes in exchanges. Monero has been marketed of being a liquid coin (which it currently is) but I am afraid once Risto's bid has been eaten the liquidity is not there anymore (Risto's 100 btc represents a significiant portion of entire bids still despite the number of bids have grown - perhaps due this thread being updated).

[TrueCryptonaire]

However now there are suggestions on keeping up the 1 % inflation after 18+ million coins are mined.

You keep repeating this as if it were something new, but it is not. The same wording about a minimum subsidy was there all along. Here is an archived copy of the page from June for verification. There is one archived from May that I'm quite certain would say the same thing but it seems to be corrupted.

http://web.archive.org/web/20140625104827/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.0

This didn't answear the question of why now mine more coins than necessary and later inflate the coin supply towards infinity while we just could cut the emission

I stated the argument in favor of cutting the emission almost exactly that way a few posts ago.

and not to inflate towards infinity (put these coins towards the end of the curve and divide them for example for 50-100 years).

You are confusing two different issues. Stretching out the length of time longer and longer doesn't address the question of what happens after the time is up. I think you recognize this: You first said 50+ years. Now you've stretched that to 100 years. Continuing to increase the number of years to something that "seems like forever" does not address the issue.

without touching the key fundamental which is 18.4 million Moneros.

A fully fixed supply has never been a key fundamental of this coin, as I documented with the archived page above. You have Monero confused with Bitcoin or something.

Being it streched to 50 years or 100 years - it doesn't matter - even if it is stretched 25 years if you want to hurry up.

Why not make this coin a coin that will stay for long haul, not just a couple of years?
When the coin is fully mined, there may not be miners anymore to process the transactions if the fees are too high so there should be inflation at the end, too.

Like you have posted - let's not touch the total number of coins but just extend the emission substantially. It is a good idea.
I might have not read the thread carefully enough. Recently I have even being not so interested in Monero so I might have missed some updates on threads and due to the laziness and being busy also with other stuff I have not been reading every single posts here.

[binaryFate]

[...]
The question is will Monero get new users enough to absorb the emission.
[...]

Sadly I don't know if it will, but I'm absolutely convinced Monero can do so.

Sounds a bit of an old tune, but it's true: all we need to expand way beyond the existing community is a sound DB+GUI implementation.
Then full steam marketing, but it will be a pleasure to do if Monero is technically the best anon candidate. Pleasure because made out of passion, not "just" greed of investor.
There is a huge coordinated crackdown currently on bitcoin black markets. I know from primary sources the first thing investigators do when they knock at the door, is to look for the bitcoin wallet. They can very easily build a partial but significant map of bitcoin activity around black markets, constantly expanding it with the activity of people under investigation.
Since apparently there is a need, or a demand, for such markets, people will seek for better solutions. Soon. In the current state of affairs really, I have no doubt getting enough users to absorb emission will be peanuts at current and rencent prices, once we have a software that works pretty much out of the box.

[binaryFate]

It's a balance, and why the hell nobody seem to consider pushing the other side rather than pulling the emission one?

I ask though. If you say "it is a balance," then why do you dismiss the emission side of the balance and suggest that the only solution here is on the development side? Perhaps the best solution to this balance is both an adjustment to the emissions and pushing forward on development and adoption? That is a real question since I'm personally undecided on the matter.

I don't really dismiss it, sorry if I give that extreme impression, my tone is only that of someone trying to advocate passionately his opinion.

I don't consider optimal at all to tweak the emission side of the equation because of the tremendous consequences, that I don't see on the other side. Like a death sentence VS a bumpy road to an unknown future. I take the bumpy road.

[BanditryAndLoot]

What about a compromise?

We have 4,494,000 coins now

We have total coins being 18446000

We have 80% coins after 4 years being 14,757,000

We have already mined 4,494,000 coins in about half a year

So for the next 3.5 years, rather than deal with a continuously decreasing block reward, we acknowledge that there will be 10,263,000 more coins made...

so we switch to an immediate flat rate block reward for the next 3.5 years, where it is scheduled to return to a decreasing emission.

So we have 3.5 years left, so 1278 days, so 1839600 blocks until that day about.

So we take the 10,263,000 that is supposed to be made over the next 3.5 years anyways, and instead make it a flat rate of 5.5789 XMR/block.

In 3.5 years, we return to regularly scheduled programming.

Does this sound like a compromise?

[binaryFate]

There is no compromise. (I'm a man of no-fight usually, I'd like to go with you, but that doesn't work here).
Either you touch the code of the emission, or you don't. There is no in-between.

I would return the short term argument "Monero's life is threaten, we must survive short term, that is more important than long term considerations", as follows:
If you have been on the cryptos scene for a while, you know the premine accusation is a death sentence (on the "serious" alt scene at least). Short term, our only target to expand the community is the existing crypto currencies community, alienate them and we're dead, immediately.


EDIT: Not talking about the tail emission here. As smooth clarified recently, that part was always left open and talking about it, or changing it, wouldn't be a breach of anything.

[TrueCryptonaire]

[...]
The question is will Monero get new users enough to absorb the emission.
[...]

Sadly I don't know if it will, but I'm absolutely convinced Monero can do so.

Sounds a bit of an old tune, but it's true: all we need to expand way beyond the existing community is a sound DB+GUI implementation.
Then full steam marketing, but it will be a pleasure to do if Monero is technically the best anon candidate. Pleasure because made out of passion, not "just" greed of investor.
There is a huge coordinated crackdown currently on bitcoin black markets. I know from primary sources the first thing investigators do when they knock at the door, is to look for the bitcoin wallet. They can very easily build a partial but significant map of bitcoin activity around black markets, constantly expanding it with the activity of people under investigation.
Since apparently there is a need, or a demand, for such markets, people will seek for better solutions. Soon. In the current state of affairs really, I have no doubt getting enough users to absorb emission will be peanuts at current and rencent prices, once we have a software that works pretty much out of the box.

Nobody is interested in a coin or in general any investment which is in bear market because bear market makes the owner poorer. The purpose of investing is to increase your purchasing power.
I am not interested in any investment that makes me poorer. Temporarily I understand that there is fluctuation but since June heighs the fluctuation has been mainly bearish (lower highs - despite for some time Risto was able to keep also higher lows but even higher lows are not taking place).

I am interested in knowing to whom you sell Monero when it is declining.

[rpietila]

The reality is very simple and it has nothing to do with the current price:

Premined coins will be ignored.

BCN hit the market being 82% mined. Nobody took it seriously. It was forked. XMR was born.

The shitty market condition and developing of this new tech take 2 years. XMR hits the market, 70% mined. Many will feel pity for it to be a nice coin, but will nevertheless fork it since it has no chance to fly with such a huge unfair premine. Total loss for holders.

If we want that anyone takes XMR seriously, and regards it as a fair coin after 2 years, we cut the emission now. Otherwise we risk a fork to a coin with a fairer emission.