Bible Pay

Read 685 times

  • Rob Andrews
  • Administrator

    • 1930


    • 26
    • June 05, 2017, 08:09:04 pm
    • Patmos, Island Of
    more
Re: Adding QT (Quantitative Tightening) to Evolution
« Reply #15 on: April 12, 2019, 01:13:06 pm »
Someone would need to see enough value and invest enough capital to get us to ~20sat for 1c to be viable (at current btc prices).

Currently it would take someone buying 84 Million BBP to get up to that (based on sell orders).   I realize the sell orders could change, but I see more value coming from value-add / adoption than restricting supply.

If QT is implemented, and we cut our superblock to 60%,   that is 40% less we have to support our obligations.  Though currently we seem to hover around the 18m to 1sat buy orders.

I think in a more mature market, QT makes sense but given the current state of the market I worry it will do more harm than good.


Also, this is more of a broad question, but how do these limits affect the total supply of BBP?
If we cut to 60% is it gone for good, or does it get added on later in the emission schedule?

This is actually a Pro investor proposal - this proposal has the effect of tightening supply - which has the effect of drying up the latent coins on SX (not adding more investor uncertainty).

From an investor perspective, this potentially gives them one additional reason to Buy bbp on the exchange.  Right now as an investor I look at SX, and say, I wonder why BBP has so many extra coins for sale, do they emit too many?  Etc.  This proposal has the effect of saying :  BBP is going places, they have a system in place to  drive them up to 1 cent in the "near" future.  I might buy some of that BBP and take a chance on them.

This proposal also gives us potential free advertising.  This comes into play if the coin starts moving up the ranks from position 995 to 900 to 850 within a month, this triggers algorithms to "watch" bbp.  It also triggers the potential impetus of Institutional interest (once we reach the threshhold of daily volume) which is entirely possible if we rise in rank and price.

I'm not in the belief that decreasing governance budget equals orphan failure or a decrease in available funding (at all - we possibly would have more).  This one is pretty strong in historical favor that in a free market just as the electrical relationship of V*A=W, the same relationship holds for finance Q*P=Market Cap, meaning that as this experiment matures, technically you would have less volume and a higher price, equaling out the Quantity sold * higher_price = Same orphan benefit.  The potential upside however is the free advertising and popularity.

On the coin supply this would permanently burn the coins from existence - they would never be added back to the end of the schedule.