Considering issue more XEMs organically?

Ideas
#1

With 30,000 - 40,000 $ worthy of mining machines, ETH or ETC or UBQ miners can make a decent profit for living.

With 30,000 - 40,000 $ worthy of XEM, NEM harvesting provides almost no profit for harvestors.

Because NEM’s transaction number is low, even though harvesters can harvest blocks, most of the blocks contain 0 profit.

That is because NO new coins are issued.

Keep selling coins at 2 billion valuation, new comers can’t see the incentive to WORK on the project.

As a community member, I wonder if we can issue more XEM, so harvesters can sell XEM comfortably for living, thus to enlight newcomers’ passion to put energy on this project.

#2

Hello.

I do not know how much other returns are with respect to capital investment by other minor.
However, actually NEM’s supernode reward (although not harvesting) is given an amount that can be lived. (Calculated by current price)

NEM aims for ecosystem in all aspects.
The electricity cost for mining is not environmentally friendly when using other than natural energy.
Unlike PoW type general currency in that part, we do not adopt mining.

Under the NEM standard, it can issue one new billion.
However, as a matter of decision, the issue number is fixed at 8,999,999,999.000000.
And if you issue newly, the price of NEM will definitely collapse. There is a possibility that the worst currency value disappears and the NEM disappears.

From now on, NEM’s commission will be approximately 1/20, so the rewards earned by harvesting will decrease at once.
However, the thing that the commission becomes cheap will make it possible for people who are confused by the high commission fee to be remitted.
This may increase the usage of the network, which may be a little, but will contribute to the reward of harvesting.

If I want to raise the profit more with harvesting, I think that we need to provide a place and service to use XEM.

#3

as a new comer the fee reduction will go a long way, as currently paying anywhere from 20-60 cents to do a transfer is a bit over the top and has stopped me doing small value transfers at all and left me using alternate payment methods.
I think NEM is a great concept and can go along way, and I think lower fees will see more transfers in a bock which will result in harvesters making a larger profit per block.

but its all just speculation really, we wont know the true effect until the fee drop comes into effect.

#4

Supernode reward is good. But harvesters have poor rewards.

I don’t think issuing new XEM will cause collapse of the price.

If you have new energy coming in, the energy will bring the VALUE to the digits.

But no talent wants to come in if they know they can’t win. Nobody wants to join a system that makes them a default loser. Default loser means, in this monetory system, no matter how you fight, you can’t be number one. Your importance can’t be number one, and your total xem can’t be number 1.

There is no growth factor set up for new comers. If the price is constant, everybody wants to have more XEM organically, by harvesting, fund raising, or building something for it. If they find a way to get more XEM, they don’t care if the price is dropping. The price dropping is actually good for new comers, and make the people who already have loads of XEM nervous. Therefore in game theory, that will trigger lots of dramas, fights, cooperations, and eventually, a good economy.

#5

miners have enough options to fuel their operations. They are not needed here. What we need are lower supernode requirements or better distribution of existing fees to that regular node operators get something for their efforts.

1 Like
#6

well, my concern is that if you invest 30,000 - 40,000 dollar on NEM now, running a normal node, the ROI is next to 0.

You can’t get more coins with your investment, you can probably get more fiat cash, but if you want to ditch fiat cash, there is no point to have more fiat cash.

The reality now is: normal node users can’t get more coins, and they can’t get more fiat cash because the trading volume is low.

#7

I wouldn’t be opposed to a tiny bit of inflation. Say 0.1 % or something. It would enable block rewards and make it possible to maybe even introduce transactions without fees.

#8

I am watching a documentary:

Quoted Bezos: in the formative gold rush land grab moment in the development of the web, profits could and should be sacrificed temporarily in favour of rapid growth.

And now it’s the gold rush moment for internet of value.

NEM shall grow rapidly, with a brand new strategy. Pump your volume instead of price, incent normal nodes not supernodes, work with people, not banks.

1 Like
#9

I think a quick fix of the current situation without issuing more coins is to generate lots of organic transactions between the dev team members and development funds.

This is to mimic the future amount of transaction, to provide enough fees for normal node users to collect.

In another plain sentence: fake it until you make it.

Fake the number of transaction in the future. Give people who invest 30,000-40,000 dollars on NEM at least 10-30 dollars return per day. That is roughly 50 to 150 xem per day.

Believe me, in that case, your trading volume will go up, and your price per unit will go up, and your dev teams’ accounts’ importance score will go up, and your users will be super happy, and tell another user to join.

You will grow rapidly.

#10

This would only pump speculation and not transactions. If you want a system to be used, you need users not speculators. In order for the system to be used, prices should be stable, but works against price increasing at the moment.

1 Like
#11

I just can’t agree with this.

First of all, I am a NEM user, and because of me, there are MORE NEM users have 30-40k dollars worthy of XEM in their wallet, and they are running the NEM nodes.

Secondly, we do transactions ourselves. We do international transactions, and we contribute not less on the fees for supernodes to collect.

Now, let me tell you what is the problem. The problem is that our friends bought 30-40k dollars worth of mining machines to mine other coins. And he can then buy more XEMs with his other coins’ revenue than we collect.

So, tell me why, I shouldn’t sell all my NEMs, to buy 30-40k dollars worth of mining machines, and then use the coins I mined to buy NEM organically?

You may say “OK, go and sell all your NEMs at 30-40k$, and if price rises, you can’t buy back…”

OK, BUT WAIT…you also say we are working on a stable price!

This is a paradox - and only users know!

SO, no kidding! You either go big or go home. And if you want to to go big, GO BIG FAST!

#12

So what do you XEM for? It sounds like you want XEM as a currency more than what they use to charge for transactions.

I want to keep prices low so i can build on top of NEM, the platform. It is a bit of a conundrum though.

#13

Any true users of NEM shall know exactly what I am talking about. Unless you are super rich (have a supernode), or super poor (only have a few thousand xem).

But most of the super riches get their coins early on, and super poors are speculators, all their coins are in the exchange.

This is about the middle class. If you really run a NEM node, you shall know that you are harvesting nothing after a few months.

But who is paying the bill to fuel your growth? The middle class. They are the guys who are actually paying top dollars for your development. You want more of them. You don’t want them to leave.

#14

so it can all boil down to one problem: you don’t have enough volume of transactions NOW.

I think this system will work, if you have loads of transactions. But right now you don’t.

If you can pardon me I will use this tacky silicon valley quote again:
FAKE IT UNTIL YOU MAKE IT.

The super riches need to spend, dilute your own shares, and generate fees for normal nodes to collect.

Otherwise do you think it’s really wise to let we the middle class to do all the transactions, and generate fees for you super nodes to collect?

I think we will wait one month to see how this problem can be addressed. We are still running the normal nodes to see what happen.

#15

http://platformed.info/seeding-youtube-megaupload-paypal-reddit/

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-best-examples-of-fake-it-till-you-make-it-strategies-startups-have-been-using

Not sure if you work on startups before. But this is a good reference.

Screen Shot 2017-06-19 at 3.14.48 PM.png670×525 52.7 KB

#16

I agree with you.

#17

I’ve done a few startups, but just so you know i’m not a core dev. I’d like to work on nem as a platform. Given your examples, while that’s great to seed users, what you want is the price to increase. Would these companies want to build on a platform, say YouTube where bandwidth was a at variable rate of 2-3x what you started? Bandwidth gets cheaper the more you buy per mbps. In blockchain’s case, it potentially goes higher.

Several of these companies nearly went broke with scaling static pricing let alone variable pricing that doesn’t discount but is expected to increase with decreasing supply. AirBnB also came close to shutting down because they almost ran out of money. These guys ran up credit cards. In each of your examples, that was used to get users, not for people to ‘buy’ in, but just to ‘use’ the service. Once they are on the service, they use it, that generates fee’s for the ecosystem. Speculators looking to buy and sell the currency but aren’t likely to use whatever service.

In my opinion NEM is the platform, or in the example used, acts similar server and bandwidth costs. If you’ve done startups you know that variable costs are the killer. In order to calculate how much $ you need, costs should be fairly straight forward. We are looking at it from different positions. It seems you’re looking at XEM as a security, where I look at it as utilitiy. The example you use is actually what I would need to do to get people onboard, because it costs $, folks like me would have to ‘fake it to make it’ and not pass the charge onto consumers/users until they are familiar with the platform, which goes against your goal. Price goes up for you, you cash out. Price goes up for me, i lose money until the user base is self perpetuating. See the difference?

#18

Yep I’ve done a startup and was the founder of it.

Nope, XEM is not a security, but NEM promises normal nodes rewards. I am just discovering that the rewards it provided are minimum.

Spending XEM within the system actually is the best way to promote the business without spending “money”. That is an operation with no cost, but a bit of generosity, caring and perspicacity. You are not building it to make yourselves a billionaire, but bring vitality to the society, create a new economy.

If the riches are not spending, who else will do transactions? The poor? The people who actually pay their money to use NEM?

You may say: but there is nothing for me to spend my NEM, spend on what?

Then I will say: spend on your user creations. If you want more users, give them rewards.

I do care about this project and have a deep appreciation on the founding team. However, I know deeply that the current users are not happy with the harvesting system. If you think I am wrong, you can buy XEM with 20,000 dollar and run a node to see how do you think.

(And if you are a supernode user, you can still divide your supernode into many normal nodes if the normal nodes collect more fees). DON’T TELL OTHERS.

#19

Just out of curiosity. How do you anticipate this going? How/What are new comers expected to put energy in? Say, harvesters/supernode get a bigger payouts. There’s two sets of developers, the devs that build the platform and the devs that building on top of it, users, and harvesters/supernode operators. What will they use it for? Or is your idea, NEM is the service and that is sufficient as a payment system/business? Sorry for the questions, I’m trying to understand the model you are presenting. I know both are pain points for devs as they hear it from both sides.

It is an interesting discussion because there’s no more issued and over time a lot will get continually burned. I’m not familiar with how this concept works in practicality because the utility cost is positioned to increase over time because of decreasing supply. Cost of transactions, cost of namespaces, etc. This is also the first pre-mined coin i’m actively vested in, but ‘poor’ by comparison.

I’m thinking PoS or PoW might be better with your $ only because that does generate new block/coins and you could resell those. With pre-mined, I’m not sure how that works because someone has to effectively pay for the rewards. The question is who?

Steemit has a similar problem. They do a lot of payouts and take investor money to pay out content producers and generate new tokens for use inside the system or for sale. I don’t see steemit as durable because it relies on constantly bringing in new (investor) money to pay for all the content. That’s all fine with the price going up, but once it falls, people start to pull money out and possibly fewer investors buying in. The users, are not paying and being rewarded based on their ‘work’ but I don’t see how this is sustainable. This sounds similar to what you suggest to me. Yes it can get popular but that makes the burn rate faster requiring more investors to reward more users as it grows.

#20

I actually think there is an answer in the previous thread makes sense.

About your question:

Yep, nobody wants to sacrifice their own interest to pay for others’ bill. But the Proof of Importance system itself is a system encourage spending. But if the richest see no incentive to spend and boost their importance score, then who will spend?

So you gotta to have some magical formulas to meet the spending demand. I think the dev team shall think hard on this.

But I think, maybe introduce 5% of inflation every year, and big spenders get more rewards from the inflation?

Do you think it makes sense?

In the Ethereum world, it’s currently working like this: I invest my ETH to get other tokens, and if other tokens’ value rise, I use the tokens to buy back my ETH from the miners. Buying back ETH from miners is critical, because if I buy back the ETH from ethereum founders, they will rise the price, and I will never have more ETH than them.

In the NEM world, it shall probably go like this: I invest my XEM to get other mosaics, and if other mosaics’ value raise, I can use the mosaic to gain back my XEM from the new issuing inflations. Gaining back XEM from inflations is critical, because if I sell mosaic to get XEM from the supernode holders, they will rise the price, and I will never have more XEM than them.

The game has to be designed like a fair game. At least, it’s fair in theory.

1 Like