If the token price doesn’t go up, the miners will go
1 Like
That’s pretty close to what I’ve been trying to push for.
- Make transactions have a fixed base fee (fixed min gas price), of which 90% get burned and 10% are redirected to the node that sourced the transaction. This still prevents spam and also makes the UX around gas prices much simpler. The 10% for nodes sourcing the transaction would give more people an incentive to run their own infrastructure. Currently all infrastructure for wallets relies on cashflows outside of the system which makes the whole system less resilient.
- Add a variable fee (tip) on top that users can include if they want their transaction to be prioritized.
- If we switch from PoW to PoS lower block rewards significantly, since the operational expenses would be much, much lower
In combination with PoS this could allow us to adjust fee burn rate, staked/unstaked ratio more or less dynamically and maybe based on that get better security.
2 Likes
The first and easiest step would be to just introduce burning rate on top what we have now. I think 90% burning rate of TX fees is too much. I feel it should be between 1% and 10%.
Let’s do some math based on Ethereum. You can see here https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/ethereum-transactions.html that there are roughly 700k transactions daily and let’s assume $0.05 median price for tx fee. That is around $35k per day in tx fees and around $1m per month. 5% burning rate would give around $53k tokens burned monthly and $630k yearly. That would be a good start and the focus should be to make Aeternity more popular, the more transactions the more burned coins.
I think burning rate would have better effect than staking. If you have staking, a lot of tokens would be frozen and the liquidity might be poor. Burning rate would support the token value as the token value would be directly connected to an economic value of tx fees. And that is a real value. You can really say the crypto is supported by the economic value of its network.
The question is wouldn’t Aeternity be a security then? Are there any blockchains with burning rate implemented? If not, Aeternity would be the first of its kind. The negative effect of Aeternity to be considered a security is partially waived by the ability of paying for tx fees with tokens (native tokens), so in theory you don’t need to have AE coins to pay for transaction, you can pay with a native token (stable coin for example), the miner will take a native token and will burn AE. Still, AE token value (and holders) would benefit from that economical activity, despite the user doesn’t have it or doesn’t use it directly. Isn’t it beautiful?
So Aeternity can be a platform that encourages using native tokens in various forms. Those can be security tokens (for example REITs tokens) or not (for example USD/BTC/ETH-backed tokens). Let’s use the technical potential Aeternity has that the other blockchains don’t have and be the leader.
I like these ideas, but the biggest question on my side will be - is there any consensus on this? And if there is not - how can we build it?
The only way forward in my opinion is through the governance aepp. If you have a proposal - present it for voting there (wait for Ledger support though).
3 Likes
Interesting, Ripple (XRP) has such a burning rate implemented as you can read:
Every transaction must specify how much XRP to destroy to pay the transaction cost.
Beneficiaries of the Transaction Cost
The transaction cost is not paid to any party: the XRP is irrevocably destroyed. Since no new XRP can ever be created, this makes XRP more scarce and benefits all holders of XRP by making XRP more valuable.
Is governance AEPP finished & ready?
How can we put a proposal & a poll?
The Governance aepp is available in the mobile Base aepp. Just go to base.aepps.com on your mobile phone (use Safari on iOS), then click on “Browse”, and select the “Governance” aepp.
Ledger support is coming. As soon as that is available, a tutorial on how to use it will be shared with the community.
1 Like
Now I am against of changing any of inflation formula. It dropped anyway, but it showed how Aeternity Foundation and founders manage the project. Confidence in Aeternity reflects its price. Aeternity deserves the price it has and it should be even lower due to such a harmful economic policy. I don’t want Aeternity price to increase until BRI funds will be depleted. It is unfair funds drain what Aeternity founders have been done. Fortunately the market reacts how it should. The price is the consequence and nobody should be fooled by more harmful actions. All token holders needs to understand that the price may go to 0. Just admit it. It is for good. Anyway the more time pass the more I think Aeternity is a mistake that should be forgotten.
What I can eventually vote for is to introducing burning rate. This will not artificially change the token price (like inflation does) until it will be in real use. The more transactions and fees, the more tokens will be burned. Otherwise AE token might drop to 0 for me to clean the cryptospace and make it stronger by promoting real and honest innovations.
2 Likes
guys, for the english section of the forum ONLY ENGLISH is allowed as language. posts in chinese and other languages will be deleted without warning. if you like, you can post the chinese* translation BELOW the english text inside a post.
*or other language version.
regarding the inflation rate, please use the governance mechanism to vote on a change or to keep it as is.
please also stop the FUD about the crazy high inflation rate with aeternity. bitcoin had a much higher inflation in the first years and aeternity is very similar to the ethereum emission curve or even lower? please check yourself.
ae inflation: Block reward and block time - #11 by xiahui135
btc and eth inflation: Cryptocurrency Inflation Rates - Christian Ott
regarding the token price: if you guys want it to increase, you should sell more tokens to others. thats probably the best way. even putting the inflation to zero will not influence the price too much.
1 Like
by the way, point of the governance aepp is to eliminate FUD and make tokenholders declare their opinion in a tamperproof way on chain. don’t believe random forum or twitter trolls any more!
" FUD is an acronym for fear, uncertainty and doubt. It is a marketing term that is often used to cast a shadow over a competitor’s product when your own is unable to compete. FUD is a technique used by larger companies who have a large market share.""
If you engage in FUD or being paid for FUD you are a bad person. karma karma. go back to your shitcoins you support!
1 Like
Bitcoin has no ico, no private placement, no reserved mining, and no bri, ae cannot be compared with Bitcoin. What you hate the most is that you never admit your mistakes, and always make excuses for your mistakes.
2 Likes
With what do you want to compare AE if not with other public blockchains?
What mistakes are you taking about? That aeternity blockchain got successfully developed and is now technologically leading the space? That the first governance vote was a success (two thirds voted for it) and now there is a sustainable funding mechanism for the development with the BRI? Of course, assuming that there are going to be a LOT of transactions on aeternity, otherwise why are we here? Why are you here? Why don’t you fork off?
1 Like
Do you think that technical development is complete even if it is successful? Completion of technical development is the most basic requirement. The key to blockchain is consensus. There is ecology only when there is consensus. Your unbridled additional issuance has collapsed consensus and the community has lost many allies. The computing power is also quite concentrated, and the ae network is currently very insecure compared to other projects. These are all caused by the additional issue. What are you still arguing about here? You don’t understand what a blockchain is.
Excuse me！！！ The fund has invested so many projects. Is there an outstanding one? Intuitively, we can see that since one year, the market value has been falling, and the computing power has been falling. Three years have enriched the team, and then nothing has been solved!!
1 Like
Why is there no consensus if every developer created release was fully supported by the miners, including the one with the BRI? Just fork off with your trolls or start a competing mining pool, then you can do something useful.
1 Like
Your idea is too naive. From 2017 to 2019, I have used my personal relationship to promote the ae in the blockchain circle. However, due to the additional issuance, my reputation and money have suffered huge losses. Now I do n’t have the ability to help ae. Please think about why this is the case before you accuse others of not doing anything.
4 Likes
Aeternity is delivering.
The problem is that there is no USP. What are the reasons someone should pick Aeternity instead of Ethereum? Let’s think:
- Speed: Currently the ae network can process 100-200 tx/s. There is no actively developed, widely used side chain which can scale up to thousdands tx / s. In Ethereum there is one of the best research community and awesome development showing how to scale up to 1000 tx/s without sacrificing safety.
- Gas cost. AE is cheap an AE network costs are much lower. However the Aeternity blockchain is way less secure: It’s costs $61,000 / hour to attack Ethereum. For aeternity it’s roughly $614 / hour.
- Side channels. It’s still not production ready. In Ethereum we have many solutions fully operational and tested.
- Token business - since the network is weak, no serious project will put his token business on Aeternity.
As somebody told you, Bitcoin had no ICO and initial block reward (thus inflation) was irrevelant and in fact only determined how many coins will be created in total. Aeternity had the worst setup ever. No clear announcment about inflation that caused huge losses for ICO investors. Also wasting million of dollars to pay miners to secure immature network. This basic mistakes causes the loss of credibility of the project and its team. The risk of using, investing and programming on AE is too high.
2 Likes
so, with bitcoin you don’t want to compare it? satoshi did no ICO but mined a million bitcoins? but also not with ethereum? the approx. “inflation rate” was clearly stated within the terms and conditions of the campaign and quite similar to the one of ethereum.
what losses are you talking about? the token price in the first contribution campaign was way lower than the current price (opposite of loss). crypto markets have generally been very volatile, most projects from 2017 don’t even exist anymore. huge losses? you are clearly spreading FUD here.
2020 will be the year of the aepps.
closing this thread since discussion goes off topic. please use the governance app to vote on this issue.
2 Likes