Number of Coins Committee

Ideas
#83

If it is too weird number, it could be redistributed as 2 millions for everyone and rest could go for bounties and really generous faceuts... But I mean really generous, they should be ready and working from the launch, so no Fudding about "premine". Also doing giveaways, in offcial forums of other coins in section "other altcoins"..it is normal, it used to be popular...it would be free money for new users, so hate from competion reasons shouldnt be too intensive.

Just give them NEM with value of 10 bucks, they wont complain. They will check our wallets, maybe our forums, will se we are legit. It might do good for NEM.


Not entirely give away so easily but still unfortunately, not many think like you. Some want to make sure they want to gain the difference between 1/8B and 1/8.9999B. I have given up explaining. Too tired to talk about it. :(

https://forum.ournem.com/index.php?topic=2661.msg9595#msg9595
#84


We could just set the number of coins to 8,999,999,999 and evenly divide that by 4000, so everyone will get the same share (1/4000th) as now. Then there is no problem, right?


Well, that would mean everyone would get 2,249,999.999750 out of 8,999,999,9999.000000 which isn't very clean. It happens to also be the exact same ratio as 2,000,000 out of 8,000,000,000.  I'd much rather keep it in a more simple format.


agree
#85

8.9 is also fine with me!

Makoto, how on earth did you get the first part of this address?


TBMAKO-TAFIG5-P4EYBO-7XLPNN-SKRUCY-QOZPDW-27UA

#86

If it has to be over 8 billion, why not 8,888,888,888? Would be many times more lucky :slight_smile:

#87

If it has to be over 8 billion, why not 8,888,888,888? Would be many times more lucky :)


Too much luck overflows into bad luck ;)
#88

I have given a logical analysis earlier on here [url=https://forum.ournem.com/index.php?topic=2531.msg6776#msg6776]https://forum.ournem.com/index.php?topic=2531.msg6776#msg6776. The comparison was a simple one to draw some conclusion. I ended up saying that we could perhaps increase it to 80B instead, being 10 times that discussed. No one has disputed that suggestion. In fact not many acknowledged that either. Maybe they are in denial? I am not sure.

Since there is a call for a logical derivation and some form of conclusion, I am now going to confirm my initial conjecture mathematically. I hope this serves as a basis for increase. Not the crap that have been suggested, e.g.:


    [li]Too late to change[/li]
    [li]Confusion[/li]
    [li]Was cast in stone (as a matter fact, those who give this excuse are Flinstones and they shouldn't be in the crypto economy. Crypto economy is a dynamic economy with change being a constant)[/li]
    [li]Drop in value ( don't know what they are talking about without substantiation - typical of an antithesis heretic)[/li]
    [li]Anti Superstition ( when we have already moved on to increasing the base number to a higher number as the issue instead of superstition.)[/li]
    [li]And the list goes on, mostly without basis but statements of feelings and emotions[/li]


    Reference site: http://bravenewcoin.com/price/price-index/
    Time of evaluation :11/11/2014, 12:33:02 PM (AEST)
    More established Coins were excluded - Bitcoin, Litecoin, Namecoin, Peercoin, Primecoin - as it is not appropriate to compare with these "long time" coins. More can be taken out but the results will tell us that it is more favourable anyway. So, suffice to just take out five.


    Under BNCindex, with the 5 coins taken out as aforementioned, we have therefore 61 coins in consideration. Under BNC2.0, we have 8 more coins in consideration. Hence we have a reasonable sample size of 69 coins.

    We apply the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient, r (or ρ), to compare the linear relationships of the Price/Supply, Price/Market Cap and Supply/Market Cap. Of particular concern is the Supply/Market Cap correlation. The correlation falls between -1 to 1, with -1 being oppositely correlated (i.e, a small value will correspond to a big value), 0 being no correlation and 1 being linearly correlated (i.e., rising values are in tandem linearly). The following diagram best illustrate what I mean.

    ...

    Based on the above, the following were obtained from the 69 coins:

    Price/Supply was = -0.042523124
    Price/Market Cap = -0.023708455
    Supply/Market Cap = 0.489481659

    Interpretation:

    The price of the the coin vs. supply in the sampled population is somewhat negatively correlated, although it is nearer to being uncorrelated. Hence we can say that the price varies insignificantly lower as the supply increases, which is obvious because we expect some dilution. But more importantly, they remain LARGELY UNRELATED!

    The same argument goes for the Price of the coin vs. the Market Cap, i.e., they remain LARGELY UNRELATED.

    Of significant observation is the Supply of the coin vs. the Market Cap. It shows, for the 69 coins in question, that the Market Cap LINEARLY INCREASES with the supply of the coin! At close to 0.49, the correlation is significant.


    Now let's take a look at BNC 2.0 components. There are 8 of them in question. If ever NEM is being considered it will fall into the Crypto 2.0 category and hence should fall under BNC 2.0.

    The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient for these 8 were:

    Price/Supply was = -0.330035441
    Price/Market Cap = -0.285714882
    Supply/Market Cap = 0.866585382


    Interpretation:

    Applied to the BNC 2.0, it shows a runaway conclusion that there was significant price correlation with the Supply and the Market  Cap, in that the higher the market cap, the lower is the price and that the higher the supply is, the lower is the price. This is obvious thus proving the validity of the Pearson product-moment correlation.

    The most conclusive is that the Supply of the coins are directly correlated to the Market Cap, i.e., the higher the supply, the higher will be the market cap.

    Conclusion:

    It appears that there is a very high correlation between supply of the coins and the market cap for Crypto 2.0. There is a very high likelihood that the market cap will be higher if the number of coins are higher.

    Further, it shows very clearly that the front runner in the capitalization are those with higher number of coins. There is no conclusion however that there should be a sweet spot value. Given a linear relationship, it should theoretically mean that the supply should be infinite.

    However, consideration should be given to "over supply" to the point that the volatility is affected. From the observation, a BTC valuation of 0.0000X is considered safe and if we wish to have a market value of the order of $40 million and a price of 0.00001BTC (0.35 cts) to start with, then the number of coins should be about 11.5 Billion, say 10 Billion. This figure should balance between volatility, market cap and supply.

    If we believe that NEM is a run away winner in terms of features, use and superiority in technology such as PoI, Eigentrust ++, multisig, Business rules, then scaling it to 100B should not be a problem as that will neutralize volatility.

    I can therefore conclude that it should be 100B based on a high Pearson product-moment correlation factor.


I am afraid that this is not really a mathematical proof and could be accidently.
Nevertheless there may be a small correlation, so that I am ok with raising the coin numbers.
Still I don't see the 8,999,999,999 there. Why not the straight 8 billion so that stakeholders get a stake with a one number and a lot of zeros instead of a weird 2,249,999.99975? I don't think the 1 billion more changes that much... it's ridiculous...
#89

I don't think anybody here thinks it is mathematical proof.

But it's worth a shot and not a big problem.

I agree that 8,999,999,999 is a weird number but I'm okay with it. If I would have OCD I would be freaking out though :smiley:

#90

If you like a number with a lot of zeros, Im happy thats NOT what the stakeholders get, because then a lot of people will be like: Nah, I don't give you anything, because then my zeros are gone.

:wink:

#91



I am afraid that this is not really a mathematical proof and could be accidently.
Nevertheless there may be a small correlation, so that I am ok with raising the coin numbers.
Still I don't see the 8,999,999,999 there. Why not the straight 8 billion so that stakeholders get a stake with a one number and a lot of zeros instead of a weird 2,249,999.99975? I don't think the 1 billion more changes that much... it's ridiculous...


If it is a mathematical proof, I'd be a rich man because I will be able to have a proof of math solution to my wealth. ;)

This is a branch of math called statistics and correlations. It is based on a sample. All outcomes are merely predictions and their correlation is merely based on what is out there with all the samples in question.

The outcome in this is that the market cap has a very high correlation with the number of coins in supply. It doesn't proof that it WILL have a much higher market cap but it appears that it will tend to have a higher market cap based on all the coins that have been listed out there. Further, it is more likely an exception that the market cap is lower because the correlation tend to be very high, i.e., 0.87.  You stand a 13% exception to the rule that it will be higher, based on the sample, not a proof.
#92

What's wrong with 4 billion coins, any more than that is overkill, coins with huge market caps tend to have low values. 4 billion is already too much.

#93

What's wrong with 4 billion coins, any more than that is overkill, coins with huge market caps tend to have low values. 4 billion is already too much.


read the thread...
#94


What's wrong with 4 billion coins, any more than that is overkill, coins with huge market caps tend to have low values. 4 billion is already too much.


read the thread...


I did. Nothing but fodder for the chattering classes. What's wrong with 4 billion coins? Answer:: nothing
#95

No you didn't …


coins with huge market caps tend to have low values.


Rockethead mathematically analyzed in this thread that the exact opposite is true.
#96

No you didn't ...


coins with huge market caps tend to have low values.


Rockethead mathematically analyzed in this thread that the exact opposite is true.


Well a quick glance at coinmarketcap and a wealth of experience shows the exact opposite. Not to mention the fact that I wouldn't trust the mathematical analysis of a guy who mathematically analyzes an oz of silver at $120
#97


No you didn't ...


coins with huge market caps tend to have low values.


Rockethead mathematically analyzed in this thread that the exact opposite is true.


Well a quick glance at coinmarketcap and a wealth of experience shows the exact opposite. Not to mention the fact that I wouldn't trust the mathematical analysis of a guy who mathematically analyzes an oz of silver at $120


I rather trust the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient than your quick glance at coinmarketcap.
And dimissing his analysis because you think he made a false unrelated statement somewhere else is a logical fallacy.

Besides, there was a vote and most people voted in favor of 8 billion. Deal with it.
#98



No you didn't ...


coins with huge market caps tend to have low values.


Rockethead mathematically analyzed in this thread that the exact opposite is true.


Well a quick glance at coinmarketcap and a wealth of experience shows the exact opposite. Not to mention the fact that I wouldn't trust the mathematical analysis of a guy who mathematically analyzes an oz of silver at $120


I rather trust the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient than your quick glance at coinmarketcap.
And dimissing his analysis because you think he made a false unrelated statement somewhere else is a logical fallacy.

Besides, there was a vote and most people voted in favor of 8 billion. Deal with it.


Oh yeh, well I'd really like to see the data for analysis. Another 'vote' rushed through on messy forum poll, when 90 per cent of stakeholders don't even attend this forum.

Seems NEM is changing and changing fast far from its original concept we signed up for, first NEM is not shared equally among stakeholders, now changing the coin fundamentals. Big changes. I wonder why the 'Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient' wasn't use to choose 4 billion in the first place?

I expect the announcement will come soon that stakeholders are still only entitled to 1 million NEM each due to selfishness and the other 4 billion has to go into dev fund or buy more silver?
#99

Wow… another loose canon and fireworks at NEM. From one pan to another. haha. So far I see rocketheads show facts but others oppose talk only. I also glance here glance there and see no facts but fine many clowns. haha. Love to see if many clowns got brains to disproves him with equal facts. :smiley:

NEM on rocket fuels!!!

#100

Oh yeh, well I'd really like to see the data for analysis.

If you want to take a deeper look into his analysis you could just ask him in a polite way, he will probably do his best to help you understand the analysis. If you would read a little bit in this forum, you would have known that this is how pretty much everybody acts here.


Another 'vote' rushed through on messy forum poll, when 90 per cent of stakeholders don't even attend this forum.

This forum has 620 members now. It is unlikely that the most are not stakeholders.
Decisions have to be made. What do you expect the devs to do so more people vote? Collect phone numbers and call them?


NEM is not shared equally among stakeholders

You mean the fact that people were allowed to get one for their loved ones? Or that some people managed to get more than 2?
#101

Robbie, if you feel like your opinion has back up from community, you are free to show it to us. Nem cant bend as one or two persons wish. Looks like you are the only one fighting this war … Decisions must be done, and better by people that care for NEM.