Without holders there will be no AE


#1

Developers do realize that if people don’t start holding AE the price won’t stop dropping, right?

In this kind of inflation no one will hold it and AE will be devalued until the project is dead.

Please decrease the block reward until there is still time.


#2

What do you think is the best prospective project right now apart from Aeternity if someone want to hedge against it?


#3

The decrease of the block reward can only be a community decision, put the vote once the vote.aepps.com is up and running.


#4

I don’t know. I quit comparing projects about a year ago.

Only have AE for a year now and I am shocked about the inflation rate.

It is extremely disturbing.


#5

I have forwarded your comment to everyone in the team. I think it is very much possible that the inflation rate is put to the vote. I am not sure if the miners will accept it though, as I am not sure if the miners will accept the BRI.


#6

You guys rock :fireworks:

Miners should not participate in deciding the inflation rate. They will not decrease their own profits.

This decision has to be made by the founders of the project - by the people who not only care about profits, but the project itself.

There are a lot of coins to mine and miners will just start to mine other coins and network hashrate will decrease.

Having a higher network hashrate at the cost of inflation of this magnitude doesn’t make any sense anyways.


#7

Just wait until they will be owners of additional 15% of the supply, they will hold it for you :slight_smile:


#8

Tezos is designing a governance mechanism that can change the protocol properties (PoW reward, dPoS reward, block time, etc.) with token-holders votes only - without doing a hard-fork (so without miners consent).


#9

Such properties is a total bullshit imo, it’s like a constitution, don’t let people to change it on the run. I treat all shitcoin governance as a plutocracy, totally flawed mechanism. Core properties like block reward and time must be created once and stay the same. There must be tail emission as well.

Now when it’s clear that high inflation was introduced as part of the trick to get hefty block cut by ongoing farce called BRI I have no hope left for this project.


#10

I also don’t agree on the public governance. It is just a sweet combination of words.

In reality what matters is if a project accomplishes its goals and if its effective at it.

I personally prefer the decision power to be in hands of developers.


#11

Yes, we are following the developments at Tezos. I personally think that what they are doing is quite complex is very user-unfriendly. Maybe in time will improve. Decred are also interesting in terms of governance, but again, not sure if user-friendly, also - I think there are too many votes.

What we did today, actually, was a quick test of the user-friendliness of aeternity voting. We brought together around 40 people for a “brunch” in the office of AE Ventures, asked them to create mobile wallets (Base aepp), sent them 2 AE each, and asked them to vote in the BRI. Everyone was able to intuitively figure out how to do it and voted. They were all very impressed by how quickly and easy it was to vote. I think this is the future. It took less then 6 minutes from wallet generation to vote submission. This is really unique! It was also the first time anyone from them experienced “voting on the blockchain”. Here are two short videos:


#12

Well, at this point, any voting is considered as “signalling” to the developers. The result of the vote is not automatically included in a new fork. The code must be updated manually and proposed for approval by the miners.

We cannot in any way force the miners to approve a governance decision. They need to decide for themselves and update or not update their nodes to the latest version.


#13

LOL electoral college of miners who will disagree with anything against their short term interests, and forget about “game theory” because they can easily switch to another shitcoin and milk it instead.


#14

A guillotine interface is also easy. Your poll logic is fundamentally broken, it requires voters who don’t want to give you money to guess what they must vote for 0% or 1%.

With electoral college of miners it all makes no sense at all.

The only governance that makes sense is a voting for funding per project.


#15

Regarding inflation rate I think most of the investors where surprised how big it is, because it wasn’t clearly specified in a whitepaper and during ICO.


#16

I just don’t get it, how did the idea to put in such a huge block reward passed in the first place…


#17

As I mentioned, there could be a vote on the inflation rate too.


#18

They asked nobody. They needed a big cut it was a part of the plan.


#19

That is not about it either. Taking a cut from lower block reward would be the same in terms of $. It is just dumb to have inflation rate this big. It is like killing the project before it even launched


#20

After looking at their replies to my fair concerns I see this team is as dumb as hungry for money. So we got that stupid mix.