@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’.
没错！谁能说，在完美的逻辑下，100个Digg代币是完美的数字。我真的不想无礼 但我们在这些金库中处理了大量的钱财。我认为我们应该发布协议，并根据情况进行调整。1或2个开发人员根据 "情绪 "做出决定，是我在所有投资年限中听到的最不专业的事情。老实说，我相信市场会让自己，但只是改变参数，发布前几个小时是不可持续的。这并不重要，如果它是100 $Digg 1000 $Digg 10,000 $Digg，当团队设置了一个最后期限，我们必须满足它，没有任何借口!
I voted Yes, cause I think it’s reasonable to reduce the supply. However, I do feel that we shouldn’t try and micromanage the token price or the expected rebases - both expansion and contraction - will occur. That is the beauty of $DIGG - it’s meant to mirror BTC - so yes, reduce the initial supply, and then let the market do its thing - eventually, supply and demand will balance out, yes there will be negative rebases, followed by positive rebases - that’s how a market works.
I voted NO for this reason as well. GIve numbers and models! We already voted. 4000 feels just as arbitrary as 6250. And the supply should not really matter in the long run, the price will be super volatile in the beginning regardless.
As long as there are good products around DIGG, the “psycological effects” of negative rebases won’t matter as much I think.
Plus, lower supply means lower initial liquidity in the AMMs (since the DIGG will be paired with BTC from the treasury) further affecting price volatility. My guesses anyhow.
My new professional will be Crypto Attorney !!! The amount of lawsuit I will slap on you will be comical
hillarious!!! straight comedy! let’s get serious though
The reality is this is something new. We don’t have data to say one way or the other. IMHO I don’t understand the people fighting against reducing the initial supply. Question is, what will the total supply of $DIGG when all is said and done? I believe in having somewhere for it to grow to. 4000 is an arbitrary number but it is a starting point. The only reason I see some people lobbying for a higher initial supply is because they are concentrating on what they can get up front and for free. I believe no matter what number is stated, there will be someone that disagrees with it, so 4000 seems to be a good compromise from where the conversations were before.
I was surprised that we are still going back to revisit previous decisions, but then I realised we all need more TIME.
The key will be community Education regarding rebase mechanisms.
We still have no clue about the team’s plans for a modified AMP rebase.
I believe you have to go ahead with the AirDrop, as all the community has been waiting for that moment and it affects the BADGER team credibility but don’t launch the rebase or release the coins for trading for another 2/3 weeks. This will give all interested parties time to understand the system and plan accordingly. Users will just have a balance of DIGG on the site ( not their wallet).
In addition to education, and releasing documents to community this will start many discussions on the forum how to fine tune the re-basing mechanisms and will give the team Time to launch the appropriate Setts/Stakes for that.
Just do the snapshot and release a DIGG balance to each then lets take our time plan for a successful launch.
On another note since there is so much apprehension from rebasing stable coin mechanisms why can’t DIGG follow the ESD/DSD seigniorage mechanisms with modifications from the team based on those experiments.
I voted yes for a lower market cap to start and a more sustainable approach
Yes good voted yes.
Probably won’t make big difference at end of the day, with rebases there will be plenty of $DIGG to come.
With the price of BTC now is makes totally sense to reduce the amount to be dropped.