These reasons seem solid to me. Voted yes.
As several people mentioned, we should have one time vote on the initial market cap rather than the initial supply as the market cap is the concern.
all users behaved based on the assumption of 6250 supply so convince us that reducing to 4000 initial supply isn’t a dirty trick. not saying that it is at all but like… give us models please
This would be ideal but hard to orchestrate the greater good among too many people as some are seeking short term gains.
Exactly !!! 1st of all $DIgg was set to be released Dec 20th… Now granted we know devs have families, children, responsibilities, etc. People including myself invested large sums of money familiar with parameters already set in place… Changing parameters, especially after we already voted on specifics is very unprofessional. Especially 1 day before release. This indecisiveness is never seen as productive in a modern professional world, and can lead to many lawsuits if not careful and thoughtful.
The compromise number for the vote on BIP 8 is the 4297 initial supply.
There was no overwhelming majority when it comes to the winner in that vote.
That vote started on December 18th, since then Bitcoin has risen 1.41x.
Based on these numbers 4000 initial supply is reasonable and actually is on the higher end of the spectrum.
Not all investors are long term investors. You cant force people to hold shares, especially after a vote was casted. All this lead to is manipulative whales making small accounts to Sybil attack the protocol. Also Please make proposals 24/hr, and Vote to make proposals final
I voted no because even when I believe the arguments could make sense, are based on assumptions and there is no model / data to do a proper analysis of what would be better.
I may vote yes for a reduction of the initial $DIGG supply if a model is properly built, that could show the clear advantages of a lower supply with current BTC prices.
At the end it may not make a lot of difference, to be honest.
I only care about one point. Every vote will delay the launch of DIGG. DIGG will be delayed again and again, which will have a very bad impact on the community. I hope that the discussion should be completed at one time before DIGG goes online. Not endless waiting time and time again
I don’t agree with this. I voted no on the proposal just because I don’t think there is enough data to actually make an informed decision (it is based on arguments and assumptions). But if the community votes yes, I think everything else including the airdrop should be based on the new initial supply.
@ygclyde - do you really think the devs - who have been really active and responsive on here - are tricking us with this proposal and isn’t looking out for the best interest for the DAO? Think about it. I don’t think @Spadaboom & @jonto would do that. What do they have to gain from reducing the initial supply to 4000? I see none.
@Hodl - I understand your frustration, I was there. I really think this is for the best longer term for the DAO and $DIGG. It actually allows for further growth for your airdrop as well due to lower market cap. Remember it’s an elastic token supply. Say you own 1 DIGG at 33000 btc price. and the market cap doubles, well now you will own 2 diggs!
We have to think the long game here @everyone. Let’s get this launched @4000 new initial supply.
Yeah, totally agree with you, except by the fact that we only get one opportunity to do this right. A rebasing asset is really tricky and all things should be carefully considered.
This is why I didn’t like this proposal, because it does not show numbers or even a compelling argument. At the end I honestly do not think that this reduction would make a lot of difference (I could be wrong, but then again, the proposal isn’t showing me the numbers to convince me otherwise).
If there are reasons to delay DIGG and revisit this again, to get it right, then by all means, let’s discuss it with data. Otherwise let’s not keep discussing based on arguments and conjetures, which only delays.
Appreciate your input. I’m not frustrated. its more-so about constantly missing deadlines, changing parameters. and having to re-vote on issues we already voted on. We’ve been discussing these logistics for months. I hope the next vote is final…
Agreed I hope so too
If the digg number is going to be changed shouldn’t it be an emotionally charged number like be exactly a 1000th less than the total number of BTC coins ? 2100 for example or the year of the bitcoin birthday? 2009
Humans love meaning, it also helps to make a good news story.
I only see arguments, but no data or a model to support those arguments.
Why not reduce initial supply then to 2,000, or to 100, instead of 4,000 or 6,250? The same arguments could be used to support even further reduction.
What is the sweet spot? Is it really 4,000?
This is what the proposal is not showing to me and this is why I voted no. I really don’t like revisiting an issue previously agreed upon only based on arguments and not a model that could actually show why it is better.
Does it really make so much difference to reduce initial supply from 6,250 to 4,000?
I don’t think so, but again, there is no data to show it. I am not convinced that the 4,000 is the number that will, as you say, “prevent heightened IL for LP’s early on”. The argument could make sense, but then again, why 4,000 and not less or not more?
See my comment above yours @cryptomooniac
BIP 20: Reduce Initial DIGG Supply to 2,000 Because Bitcoin is Mooning
However, I’ve got to say, I’m not altogether sure why the number shouldn’t just be one. This would allow for massive numbers which would always be newsworthy as it would guarantee the coin becomes the most expensive coin (at times) ever. It would also be the most interesting number (in my mind) to use as an experiment. It would also solidify the beautiful thing about bitcoin, it’s hard cap and in a way make the perfect ‘bitcoin’.