fair enough, we dont know the fair market cap. In my opinion starting low and increasing to fair marketcap makes a lot more sense than starting high and decreasing to fair marketcap.
Happy to see this proposal. Having been through a few Rebase tokens lower the initial MC the better.
Lower MC = more chance of positive rebases. Launch to high and we get a succession of negative rebasses people will be asking Sir where are my tokens.
This seems reasonable. You can’t underestimate the importance of psychological knee jerk reactions to negative rebases. Better to start out with a strong push and let users experience a familiar rise and correction pattern than an immediate precipitous correction. Just my two cents.
I voted yes, I find it reasonable
Big vote ‘yes’ here. @jonto and @Spadaboom are clear headed here folks. I want DIGG supply expansion and I want same % but of a larger pie. Diluted mcap gives us the best opportunity. Love the dialogue but the ‘no’ votes in here are starting to sound like the gitcoin thread in discord. kek
Great point and i assume the same. It would of been continuous negative rebases the last few weeks. Would be interesting if we catch the inevitable down turn of BTC.
Fair diluted marketcap is so hard to predict with this rebase token. I feel marketing can play a big role in reaching a higher marketcap, especially for a rebase token like DIGG.
Would love to see some good/big influencers behind this.
I haven’t sold even 1 badger and I wont be selling any DIGG
Voted yes. I think this is necessary to the start
I’ve participated in 3 rebase tokens, staked into 2 of them… repetitive negative rebases and the FUD that comes along with it is real… so is the impermanent loss when the rebases swing wildly in either direction. I vote yes and think it is best for sustainable growth.
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.