Considering issue more XEMs organically?


#21

But I think my prescription for now is to spend more between the dev team and the development fund.

It’s just not diversified enough for us to talk about inflation.

Just look at this chart you will know, there are more people waiting to collect XEM than the people who are actually spending XEM.

https://nemnodes.org/richlist/


#22

Given that chart, I’m inclined to agree with you at this point. It looks like all the largest stakes are still under dev control or trading. Unfortunately, I’m finding this platform more and more under centralized control as i learn more. The current price is then artificial. If more is released prices will drop. I can see why it stalled. Thanks for the discussion.


#23

Well, I think the price is still reasonable if the platform can provide enough incentives.

People did pump the price before because they saw the benefit of SuperNode.

People don’t pump the price now because they fail to see the benefit of running a normal node.


#24

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

I skimmed through the arguments here and Jim is right on with this. With proof of Importance or POI NEM is the best coin as it encourages network development by rewarding nodes with what is basically PageRank. But NEM as a new coin needs inflation. This is what builds the network by rewarding high PageRank scores. There is one other flaw in the coin and that is that the minimum transaction that increases page rank is 1,000 NEM.

The way page rank works is the number times value of all incoming payments to a node is added up. What we want is say a 7-11 to build page rank, but all their payments are small. If a 7-11 could earn rewards for doing business with XEM then we would take over the planet. But it cannot. Why? We have No Inflation and payments are set too high. We need to issue 3 billion new coins over 10 years to jump start this currency. Otherwise someone else will make a currency with PageRank and mining rewards (inflation) along with rewards for getting people to make small transactions.


#25

After several months, I hope everyone notice the importance of this thread.

No transactions in your block, gentlemen, no-fucking-transactions.

No inflation kills NEM effectively.

I am still running a node, prove that I am wrong!


#26

You first should prove that you are right. Why there should be correlation between infaltion and transactions in blockchain project?

Btw: you need to add some proofs. Just that some events looks correlated to you does not mean they are correlated. Even if they are correlated, it does not mean there is direct causal relationship


#27

Really you can make a living off a 40k mining rig?
Just asking… I thought to get in at 40k you would be just paying off the rig for a long time.
Not being clever or anything, yet this is a free forum and I can ask questions.
How long before ROI?
But I see your point. I was just asking about the mine rig thing.
But yes, some interesting discussion is badly needed in the forum.
Does rig operate 24/7 till it make 40k?


#28

40k you can have 20 mining rigs (6 GPU each) with 120 MH/s.

Therefore you can mine about 160$ per day, probably more.

My calculation is conservative. In good days you can do $320 - $480 per day.


#29

cryptocurrency is not just about crypto. It’s more about currency.

The tech team is good. I love to see NEM to be widely used.

But let’s focus on the economic side of it.

Money is created to carry value. Transaction is important.

Economically speaking, Catapult is a form of inflation. Someone else gain access to the same tech, and the currency XEM is not used in Catapult. Everybody gets diluted in this plan.

So basically to me, Catapult is a piece of shit, and the whitepaper isn’t properly shared to the community.

Listen to me, money is about distribution, consumption and exchange. If we focus on the money side, we are not afraid to share the philosophy behind it. Inflation is a kind of philosophy, because everybody’s share gets diluted by time, so they need to spend to fight for the new issued coins. Without spending, the proof of importance is wasted. And if I have satisfactory share of NEM, said 1%, which cannot be diluted, why I need to spend to keep my position?

Catapult is like the emperor’s new cloth. There is no philosophy behind it, and wasn’t prepared to be critiqued by people.

The whole thing sinks as everybody says when Catapult is out the price will pump. Pumped by whom?


#30

As a user, I don’t understand why I need to spend.

There is no point for me to improve my importance score, as there are almost no rewards in your block.

No reward is caused by no transaction, no transaction is caused by holders not willing to spend.

Deadlock.


#32

@jimgreen - I agree with the deadlock thought.

Problem is that NEM enjoyed a 2,000% increase and there is now a huge inequality of wealth.

500 out of 40,000 - or 1.25% - of the NEM accounts with a non-zero balance hold 70% of all XEM.

These accounts are now rich (on paper) and new money coming in has little hope of joining their ranks unless they bring $582,000 to the table.

So although it’s fair to say there was equality of opportunity if you happened to be one of the people who scoured bitcointalk for new coins back in the day and grabbed a NEMStake, there certainly isn’t now… and NEM public network still doesn’t have much in the way of real transaction flow that would allow the importance/harvesting mechanisms to balance things out.

A sceptic newcomer seeing Catapult as “day zero” would see a coin with effective huge pre-mine…

And considering that NEM team have acknowledged the importance of wealth distribution to the success of a crypto coin, it almost feels like NEM should do another stake distribution now there are a volume of supporters who have put in real money to get their vested 10k

But then, as a relative latecomer, I would say that :slight_smile:

Cheers
Rob


#33

And now imagine there was infaltion in nem, all the new xen created would be given to those old accounts making them even bigger


#34

User “needs to spend” only when he needs the thing he is buying, otherwise it is waste that is only destroying enviroment.

In reality what inflation does is, that it is taking money from those who save untyl they can buy something they need (responsible working class) and giving it to those who are close to issuer of money (big players / banks / government).

It encourages normal working people to invest in “assets” creating cycles of market bubbles and crashes which again centralizes welth into hands of few …

I believe arguments for inflation are not only wrong, they are evil.
Inflation of money can easily be one of most evil things in modern society.

(I dont thing crypto will save us from this, or that nem is answer to this situation and am happy nem does not advertise itself as answer to these problems)


#35

When there is no energy, there is no value for the money.

If saver’s money wasn’t diluted automatically, what is the drive for them to spend?

If there is no spending, what is the meaning for the Proof of Importance?


#36

PoI

Without inflation, there is no drive for accounts to have “behaviors”.


#37

The drive to spend money should always be the need for thing money are spent on. Otherwise it is just waste and burden for environment.


#39

Why do you keep spamming different threads with a question that has nothing to do with NEM anyway?


#40

he’s posting spam links (suspended for 24h to chill)