Hello everyone I might be late but I just discovered the planned change in the coin emission model and I have serious concerns - I have written a counter-proposal to stop the slush fund June with 31000PIVX. Let's use that amount for promo instead. Due to the urgency of this task, I wasn't able to make a precise business plan for the promo options yet but I will do that when it's becoming obvious that the new coin emission model will be rejected, Thanks for reading
Archived JUNE 2022 TREASURY
- Thread starter flow11
- Start date
The 31000 PIVX can be exchanged for Bitcoin and USD and be invested into the activation of an official PIVX faucet, a part of what is left after the activation can be distributed via the faucet, and the other part can be exchanged for BTC to buy banner ads on bitmedia or one of the other ad networks (coinzilla, A-ADS, adaround) and a third part can be spent on PTC promotions on the most famous PTC networks like coinpayu,com cointiply.com or adbtc.top
Dear Pivians:
I can understand you vote no. I know that it's very unlikely it will change the outcome. Also, I'm new, I'm making some unwanted noise. but still, I used my right as master node owner to send this proposal as I see this as a big danger for triggering the death spiral!
What I can'T understand is that many seem to vote "no" without even reading it.
What I also don't understand is that nobody answered the question of who will buy all these additional coins.
As many don'T seem to read the PDF file I'm adding the core points of my argumentation now here:
Maybe it's because of the situation, the decision is nearly 99 safe, everyone is happy about more future coins and then I'm coming and want to destroy everything. From the emotional side, I completely get why it's like that. From the rational side, I don't get it. From the business perspective, it's wrong. The opposite way would have been the correct decision. Reducing coinemmission would have reduced the supply this would have caused a price increase)
It's simple math (it'S most likely like that, it also can be different depending on the numbers)
Let's assume we have a stable demand still this will lead to a price decrease.
But at the moment it's rather hard to get enough buyers
So the most likely scenario will be a strong price decrease
----
FACTS:
MORE COINS DO NOT MEAN THERE ARE MORE USERS -- MORE PROMO MEANS MORE USERS
Let's assume we would have done it the other way:
reduced supply + increased demand (promo) --> strong price increase
and the strong price increase will attract new investors, while further price decreases will make the last go.
---
GENERAL RULE:
ONE DOES NOT CHANGe FUNDAMENTALS BECAUSE OF A BEAR MARKET
---
LOSS OF TRUST:
the biggest companies on earth all enjoy a lot of consumer trust because they were and are reliable, people are buying their products without thinking as they trust them.
The coin emission model is the most important factor of the whole PIVX network. It's like a promise you give to users it's what they trust in - "That's how we do it, that's our strategy" this won't change.
When this trust is damaged it might never come back. How can I trust it when it can be changed randomly.
For me personally, it feels like a slap in the face. I invested because of the promoted promises on the website, and what I get is a coin that breaks its promise
I bought the Masternodes because I trusted this scheme. I was happy after years I could buy 2 MNS for a good price and I was just planning to get one for every person in the family (11).
And then the worst scenario for me occurred. The reason why I invested will be changed. My trust is gone!
----
PROMO IS THE KEY!
Every investor, staker, masternode owner wants to see a price increase. but this will only work with promo.
PIVX is a stable running system with a good community and > 1600 MN, supporting low fees and private transactions. not seen anywhere else. The only thing it needs is more users.
Growth will lead to a price increase. And growth can be achieved with promo, not with an increased coinemission.
----
SUMMARY:
PROs:
enough funds for developers
CONS:
PRICE DECAY
MASTERNODE WILL BECOME WORTh LESS
MORE MASTERNODES WILL BE THERE REDUCING THE REWARDS/ MASTERNODE
LOSS OF TRUST
---
My personal perception. THIS WILL TRANSFORM PIVX FROM A TOP COIN TO A SHIT COIN
no bad feelings towards you, just this plan is crap
If this is really realized I will sell my MNs, maybe keep 1000 in the staking just in case I was wrong what I don't think.
thanks for reading
all the best flow11
I can understand you vote no. I know that it's very unlikely it will change the outcome. Also, I'm new, I'm making some unwanted noise. but still, I used my right as master node owner to send this proposal as I see this as a big danger for triggering the death spiral!
What I can'T understand is that many seem to vote "no" without even reading it.
What I also don't understand is that nobody answered the question of who will buy all these additional coins.
As many don'T seem to read the PDF file I'm adding the core points of my argumentation now here:
Maybe it's because of the situation, the decision is nearly 99 safe, everyone is happy about more future coins and then I'm coming and want to destroy everything. From the emotional side, I completely get why it's like that. From the rational side, I don't get it. From the business perspective, it's wrong. The opposite way would have been the correct decision. Reducing coinemmission would have reduced the supply this would have caused a price increase)
It's simple math (it'S most likely like that, it also can be different depending on the numbers)
- reduced supply and stable demand --> price increase
- reduced supply and increased demand --> strong price increase
- reduced supply and reduced demand --> stable price
- increased supply and increased demand --> stable price
- increased supply and stable demand --> price decrease
- increased supply and reduced demand --> strong price decrease
Let's assume we have a stable demand still this will lead to a price decrease.
But at the moment it's rather hard to get enough buyers
So the most likely scenario will be a strong price decrease
----
FACTS:
MORE COINS DO NOT MEAN THERE ARE MORE USERS -- MORE PROMO MEANS MORE USERS
Let's assume we would have done it the other way:
reduced supply + increased demand (promo) --> strong price increase
and the strong price increase will attract new investors, while further price decreases will make the last go.
---
GENERAL RULE:
ONE DOES NOT CHANGe FUNDAMENTALS BECAUSE OF A BEAR MARKET
---
LOSS OF TRUST:
the biggest companies on earth all enjoy a lot of consumer trust because they were and are reliable, people are buying their products without thinking as they trust them.
The coin emission model is the most important factor of the whole PIVX network. It's like a promise you give to users it's what they trust in - "That's how we do it, that's our strategy" this won't change.
When this trust is damaged it might never come back. How can I trust it when it can be changed randomly.
For me personally, it feels like a slap in the face. I invested because of the promoted promises on the website, and what I get is a coin that breaks its promise
I bought the Masternodes because I trusted this scheme. I was happy after years I could buy 2 MNS for a good price and I was just planning to get one for every person in the family (11).
And then the worst scenario for me occurred. The reason why I invested will be changed. My trust is gone!
----
PROMO IS THE KEY!
Every investor, staker, masternode owner wants to see a price increase. but this will only work with promo.
PIVX is a stable running system with a good community and > 1600 MN, supporting low fees and private transactions. not seen anywhere else. The only thing it needs is more users.
Growth will lead to a price increase. And growth can be achieved with promo, not with an increased coinemission.
----
SUMMARY:
PROs:
enough funds for developers
CONS:
PRICE DECAY
MASTERNODE WILL BECOME WORTh LESS
MORE MASTERNODES WILL BE THERE REDUCING THE REWARDS/ MASTERNODE
LOSS OF TRUST
---
My personal perception. THIS WILL TRANSFORM PIVX FROM A TOP COIN TO A SHIT COIN
no bad feelings towards you, just this plan is crap
If this is really realized I will sell my MNs, maybe keep 1000 in the staking just in case I was wrong what I don't think.
thanks for reading
all the best flow11
Eric_Stanek
Well-known Pivian
Even the current system, providing less than $4K USD per month to the Treasury, is increasing the supply.
Price is a function of Supply AND Demand. Your simple math assumes demand does not increase and only focuses on supply.
Stakers and MNs will get more rewards, thereby making it more attractive while protecting them from inflation. That increases demand.
Treasury funds are only created for proposals that pass and reach a funding state.
You are assuming Treasury funds spent, must be sold. In some cases, yes. But, there will be increased demand for the higher ROI for Stakers and MNs.
Also, the terms of the proposal for business development deals could be that the recipient HODLs their coins. Plus, they will likely not get a lump sum, but a monthly smaller amount while providing a use case that increases demand.
There are multiple errors in your PDF. The most glaring one is this:
"Mathematically each PIVX will lose ~70 % of its value"
You are implying this will happen right away. That simply is not true. It will take approx 13 years for the total coin supply to triple. Even then, the total supply will be FAR less than many other projects.
Price is a function of Supply AND Demand. Your simple math assumes demand does not increase and only focuses on supply.
Stakers and MNs will get more rewards, thereby making it more attractive while protecting them from inflation. That increases demand.
Treasury funds are only created for proposals that pass and reach a funding state.
You are assuming Treasury funds spent, must be sold. In some cases, yes. But, there will be increased demand for the higher ROI for Stakers and MNs.
Also, the terms of the proposal for business development deals could be that the recipient HODLs their coins. Plus, they will likely not get a lump sum, but a monthly smaller amount while providing a use case that increases demand.
There are multiple errors in your PDF. The most glaring one is this:
"Mathematically each PIVX will lose ~70 % of its value"
You are implying this will happen right away. That simply is not true. It will take approx 13 years for the total coin supply to triple. Even then, the total supply will be FAR less than many other projects.
Hi Eric,
I'll reply one by one
E: "Even the current system, providing less than $4K USD per month to the Treasury, is increasing the supply."
yes, that's true but it was communicated and is/was a part of the setup. The emission model was part of the promise on the official website! If Bitcoin would have been changed in a bear market it would not be there where it is.
E: "Price is a function of Supply AND Demand. Your simple math assumes demand does not increase and only focuses on supply."
that's not 100% correct, Finally, I mentioned all possible options in my previous comment, okay maybe not in that detail in the PDF.
Also, my general suggestion is to increase demand via promo which shows that I have a focus on demand increase, The price wouldn't be there where it is if there was enough demand. If the price would be higher this new model wouldn't be implemented. So I'd rather assume that there is not enough demand at this point. And now this will be combined with higher outputs. I'm really curious if someone can explain to me how it will work then?
The only logic will be: Higher treasury - more promo! With the hope that the promo will have a higher demand increase effect than the newly generated coins will have the dumping effect.
E: "Stakers and MNs will get more rewards, thereby making it more attractive while protecting them from inflation. That increases demand."
Well, that'S your thesis. Even though I would get more coins for my masternodes I don't want them. I would prefer to have fewer coins that are worth sth than more coins worth less. And we will see if it really increases demand. It's not that attractive anymore to have a masternode when they are so easy to get
E: "Treasury funds are only created for proposals that pass and reach a funding state."
At least that's good logic if it's used wisely. But it also can be misused for generating coin for all types of bad decisions while the development focuses on the most important things if the funding is not too generous, (don't get me wrong I don't want to justify low funds)
E: "You are assuming Treasury funds spent, must be sold. In some cases, yes. But, there will be increased demand for the higher ROI for Stakers and MNs."
If the coins don'T lose their value, yes, but the concept contains a high risk that coins will lose their value. What have I won when I get more coins that are worth less ?
E: "Also, the terms of the proposal for business development deals could be that the recipient HODLs their coins. "
I can understand the idea but it might be not the best deal for the business partner. If there's a bullrun and he can't take the profits because of a contract he might not be happy about it.
E: " Plus, they will likely not get a lump sum, but a monthly smaller amount while providing a use case that increases demand."
That's one good point, but can be done also without changing the emission model.
E: "There are multiple errors in your PDF. The most glaring one is this: "Mathematically each PIVX will lose ~70 % of its value""
Let me explain it: This number assumes that all possible treasury coins are being created while having a stable demand.
let's make the example with 1000 Coins:
We have the same demand for both models: say 1000 $
Old: 1000$ for 1000 Coins = 1$ / Coin
NEW: 1000$ for 3333 Coins ~ 0.3$ / Coin
that'S theoretic price decay ~ 70%,
If there are more errors let me know, but this one was not an error according to my understanding
-
E: "You are implying this will happen right away. That simply is not true. It will take approx 13 years for the total coin supply to triple. Even then, the total supply will be FAR less than many other projects."
Indeed at this point, you are right, I did not mention that this will happen not overnight, It's a process that will take some time and meanwhile, it can be possible to increase the price with more promo.
The comparison to other projects is not a justification for the own strategy.
To my understanding, this change has 2 major fails:
1. Changing fundamentals: AN absolute NO GO! If the fundamentals have to be changed they weren't good from the beginning. That's the definition of a shitcoin.
But PIVX has achieved many goals with these fundamentals.
2. Ignoring the most simple rules of the market.
Thanks for your reply
I'll reply one by one
E: "Even the current system, providing less than $4K USD per month to the Treasury, is increasing the supply."
yes, that's true but it was communicated and is/was a part of the setup. The emission model was part of the promise on the official website! If Bitcoin would have been changed in a bear market it would not be there where it is.
E: "Price is a function of Supply AND Demand. Your simple math assumes demand does not increase and only focuses on supply."
that's not 100% correct, Finally, I mentioned all possible options in my previous comment, okay maybe not in that detail in the PDF.
Also, my general suggestion is to increase demand via promo which shows that I have a focus on demand increase, The price wouldn't be there where it is if there was enough demand. If the price would be higher this new model wouldn't be implemented. So I'd rather assume that there is not enough demand at this point. And now this will be combined with higher outputs. I'm really curious if someone can explain to me how it will work then?
The only logic will be: Higher treasury - more promo! With the hope that the promo will have a higher demand increase effect than the newly generated coins will have the dumping effect.
E: "Stakers and MNs will get more rewards, thereby making it more attractive while protecting them from inflation. That increases demand."
Well, that'S your thesis. Even though I would get more coins for my masternodes I don't want them. I would prefer to have fewer coins that are worth sth than more coins worth less. And we will see if it really increases demand. It's not that attractive anymore to have a masternode when they are so easy to get
E: "Treasury funds are only created for proposals that pass and reach a funding state."
At least that's good logic if it's used wisely. But it also can be misused for generating coin for all types of bad decisions while the development focuses on the most important things if the funding is not too generous, (don't get me wrong I don't want to justify low funds)
E: "You are assuming Treasury funds spent, must be sold. In some cases, yes. But, there will be increased demand for the higher ROI for Stakers and MNs."
If the coins don'T lose their value, yes, but the concept contains a high risk that coins will lose their value. What have I won when I get more coins that are worth less ?
E: "Also, the terms of the proposal for business development deals could be that the recipient HODLs their coins. "
I can understand the idea but it might be not the best deal for the business partner. If there's a bullrun and he can't take the profits because of a contract he might not be happy about it.
E: " Plus, they will likely not get a lump sum, but a monthly smaller amount while providing a use case that increases demand."
That's one good point, but can be done also without changing the emission model.
E: "There are multiple errors in your PDF. The most glaring one is this: "Mathematically each PIVX will lose ~70 % of its value""
Let me explain it: This number assumes that all possible treasury coins are being created while having a stable demand.
let's make the example with 1000 Coins:
We have the same demand for both models: say 1000 $
Old: 1000$ for 1000 Coins = 1$ / Coin
NEW: 1000$ for 3333 Coins ~ 0.3$ / Coin
that'S theoretic price decay ~ 70%,
If there are more errors let me know, but this one was not an error according to my understanding
-
E: "You are implying this will happen right away. That simply is not true. It will take approx 13 years for the total coin supply to triple. Even then, the total supply will be FAR less than many other projects."
Indeed at this point, you are right, I did not mention that this will happen not overnight, It's a process that will take some time and meanwhile, it can be possible to increase the price with more promo.
The comparison to other projects is not a justification for the own strategy.
To my understanding, this change has 2 major fails:
1. Changing fundamentals: AN absolute NO GO! If the fundamentals have to be changed they weren't good from the beginning. That's the definition of a shitcoin.
But PIVX has achieved many goals with these fundamentals.
2. Ignoring the most simple rules of the market.
- reduced supply and stable demand --> price increase
- reduced supply and increased demand --> strong price increase
- reduced supply and reduced demand --> stable price
- increased supply and increased demand --> stable price
- increased supply and stable demand --> price decrease ( THAT'S the PIVX scenario)
- increased supply and reduced demand --> strong price decrease
Thanks for your reply
Eric_Stanek
Well-known Pivian
Re: "If Bitcoin would have been changed in a bear market it would not be there where it is."
Correct. It might still have 100% Market Dominance, instead of 40%.
Re: "The only logic will be: Higher treasury - more promo!"
No. While such 'promo' proposals may be submitted and may get funded, the goal is that higher treasury means we can fund projects that develop solid use cases.
Re: "Even though I would get more coins for my masternodes I don't want them."
OK. Give them to me please. It will take a LONG LONG time before the total supply increase is significant. Well before then, the plan is to increase demand through use cases.
Re: "At least that's good logic if it's used wisely. But it also can be misused for generating coin for all types of bad decisions .."
Correct. But PIVX is designed such that Masternode Owners are far more likely to complete Due Diligence before voting, as they have much more invested. If we can't trust that logic, the PIVX is going to fail regardless.
Re: "That's one good point, but can be done also without changing the emission model."
Nope. There are no funds for developers, let alone business development deals.
Re: "If there are more errors let me know ..."
Let's assume there is currently 70,000,000 PIVX in the total supply.
To get to 3x the total supply, we need to get to 210,000,000 which is an increase of 140,000,000.
Let's also assume the new model creates 10,000,000 new coins per year. (It is slightly more)
That means we need to wait 14 years before your math works.
So, while your math is correct, it implies it happens immediately after the new economic model is released, and that there will be no increase in demand in the 14 year period.
That is what makes the statement so WRONG.
Re: "If the fundamentals have to be changed they weren't good from the beginning. That's the definition of a shitcoin."
No. When the fundamentals were designed, there was no such thing as ICO, Premine, NFTs, ERC-20 swaps, Corporate involvement, YouTubers demanding $25K USD min, Exchange Listing fees reaching $1M USD, etc. etc.
What we have seen, is that the PIVX fundamentals were great at the beginning, but after 6 years, which is an eternity in crypto, things changed massively, and the PIVX economic model has not changed at all.
A successful business changes over time to meet the demands of their market. PIVX needs to as well, or it will die.
Re: "Ignoring the most simple rules of the market."
We are not ignoring the rules.
No one knows about PIVX anymore. We need to increase demand via promotions, or much better through developing use cases. That costs money. That's why the model has to change.
Cheers.
Correct. It might still have 100% Market Dominance, instead of 40%.
Re: "The only logic will be: Higher treasury - more promo!"
No. While such 'promo' proposals may be submitted and may get funded, the goal is that higher treasury means we can fund projects that develop solid use cases.
Re: "Even though I would get more coins for my masternodes I don't want them."
OK. Give them to me please. It will take a LONG LONG time before the total supply increase is significant. Well before then, the plan is to increase demand through use cases.
Re: "At least that's good logic if it's used wisely. But it also can be misused for generating coin for all types of bad decisions .."
Correct. But PIVX is designed such that Masternode Owners are far more likely to complete Due Diligence before voting, as they have much more invested. If we can't trust that logic, the PIVX is going to fail regardless.
Re: "That's one good point, but can be done also without changing the emission model."
Nope. There are no funds for developers, let alone business development deals.
Re: "If there are more errors let me know ..."
Let's assume there is currently 70,000,000 PIVX in the total supply.
To get to 3x the total supply, we need to get to 210,000,000 which is an increase of 140,000,000.
Let's also assume the new model creates 10,000,000 new coins per year. (It is slightly more)
That means we need to wait 14 years before your math works.
So, while your math is correct, it implies it happens immediately after the new economic model is released, and that there will be no increase in demand in the 14 year period.
That is what makes the statement so WRONG.
Re: "If the fundamentals have to be changed they weren't good from the beginning. That's the definition of a shitcoin."
No. When the fundamentals were designed, there was no such thing as ICO, Premine, NFTs, ERC-20 swaps, Corporate involvement, YouTubers demanding $25K USD min, Exchange Listing fees reaching $1M USD, etc. etc.
What we have seen, is that the PIVX fundamentals were great at the beginning, but after 6 years, which is an eternity in crypto, things changed massively, and the PIVX economic model has not changed at all.
A successful business changes over time to meet the demands of their market. PIVX needs to as well, or it will die.
Re: "Ignoring the most simple rules of the market."
We are not ignoring the rules.
No one knows about PIVX anymore. We need to increase demand via promotions, or much better through developing use cases. That costs money. That's why the model has to change.
Cheers.
Now I can say I get all your points and you have valid arguments also,
I understand and agree that the funding is necessary
also, it's a fact that I have not explicitly mentioned the time horizon.
But even if there is this time horizon it will have an impact on the price sooner or later. Let's assume the increased treasury will solve the funding problem and it's possible to increase demand and price through use cases and promo. It still will have an effect on the price. The future price will be lower in this scenario, even if now everything works as planned and it's possible to increase the price with taken measures. (assumed the demand increase would have worked without an increased coin emission, which I think is possible)
But as it's done now I can't do anything about it anymore and will accept that it's going to happen
Still love PIVX although I think it's completely wrong l will follow my plan and add the PIVX faucet.
I might start working on a promo proposal meanwhile and increase the promo myself. Yesterday I have sent 20 PIVX to 20 different users, and most of them had new wallets means were new PIVIANS
thanks for your answers
I understand and agree that the funding is necessary
also, it's a fact that I have not explicitly mentioned the time horizon.
But even if there is this time horizon it will have an impact on the price sooner or later. Let's assume the increased treasury will solve the funding problem and it's possible to increase demand and price through use cases and promo. It still will have an effect on the price. The future price will be lower in this scenario, even if now everything works as planned and it's possible to increase the price with taken measures. (assumed the demand increase would have worked without an increased coin emission, which I think is possible)
But as it's done now I can't do anything about it anymore and will accept that it's going to happen
Still love PIVX although I think it's completely wrong l will follow my plan and add the PIVX faucet.
I might start working on a promo proposal meanwhile and increase the promo myself. Yesterday I have sent 20 PIVX to 20 different users, and most of them had new wallets means were new PIVIANS
thanks for your answers