While a 10k minimum stake amount would indeed allow for 200k+ separate account lock-ins (assuming all Safex migrate), the reality is that on the old Blockchain, there were only about 10k wallets, and presumably, many of them won’t migrate anyway.
There are many holders who have 500k+ SFT, and this again would reduce the number on wallets that would actually be locking/unlocking. Of course, until it actually happens, there’s no way to know how many wallets will be getting locked-in, given we’re now a privacy coin.
If the mathematics dictate that 10k makes sense, then I’m all for it, and those with less can either continue to accumulate, knowing the amount required, or hodl and sell for a profit in the future.
But I’d like to think the initial amount could be lower, to allow as many holders to participate as possible, and if it proves to be a problem, then like you said… the minimum can be changed in the future.
My feeling is that it should be as low as possible, but people shouldn’t be able to claim until they can at least cover the transaction cost.
Having said that, if it were necessary to set a minimum number of sft locked in for technical reasons, would it be possible to set up some sort of “pool” so that smaller holders could still be rewarded?
If the token becomes the “must-have” investment in everyone’s portfolio, the rev share must be within reach. Otherwise, it’ll just be traded and not held. I’m in favor of it scaling down overtime (50k, 25k, 10k, etc.). Maybe alongside the mining reward schedule?
Creating an event around the rev share (like the halvenings) would help increase the demand as well.
For the sake of decentralization I would say: as little as possible, as high as needed.
My scaling proposal for this:
Low amounts of locked SFT have longer time until fee collection and can’t unlock for x blocks. This way the fee distribution stays decentralized but the number of lock-ins / time gets lowered down. Thinking further, you could then implement a disclaimer within the wallet like “Your x SFT will stay locked for x blocks”.
Example:
1 to 10 SFT stay locked for 30 days
11 to 100 SFT stay locked for 10 days
101 to 1,000 SFT stay locked for 3 days
1,000 SFT have no limit
For a decentralized blockchain and marketplace the last thing we want is a centralized distribution of transaction fees (only top holders participate).
The question is: can this even be implemented? Can the system recognize how many SFT you lock in and put a minimum lock-in duration on you?
The contra for this: this doesn’t bring down the number of fee collectors itself. It only brings down the alternating number of locked coins per time frame.
P. S.:
Why and when would a minimum lock-in number be needed? The theoretical maximum is ~1 billion individual addresses. Right now there are less than 10k safex wallets with holdings. There’s a factor of x100,000 in between. And the 1b addresses with holdings will never be reached because of people always holding high amounts.
Your example is too tight a margin the rest is quite interesting, we could go for a wider range
1 to 100 SFT stay locked for 60 days
101 to 500 SFT stay locked for 30 days
501 to 2,500 SFT stay locked for 10 days
2,501 to 10,000 SFT stay locked for 3 days
Those numbers also look good.
The main idea for my approach is to code one system (if it is even possible as such) so that you can stay with it for a long time without any forking. And maybe you can also change the amounts and required block numbers in a soft fork.
How about being adjusted every so often. Maybe once every 6 months, or whenever mandatory hard forks are required.
It depends if adjusting the minimum lock-in is a hardfork event, or it can be handled with a software update.
This way it can be adjusted according to market conditions to enable the most amount of affordable users, whilst at the same time helping prevent spam.
Whatever we decide we need to start Simplifying Safex for everyday users
Not being critical of the project, just for an everyday “Joe Soap” we need to make it less complicated.
Like
1 to 100 SFT stay locked for 60 days
101 to 500 SFT stay locked for 30 days
501 to 2,500 SFT stay locked for 10 days
2,501 to 10,000 SFT stay locked for 3 days
And then you know where you stand, If once every few months, or whenever mandatory hard forks are required this will bring in another unset time frame.
reading this I’m not liking this model of based on time you can determine your lock in it doesn’t solve the problem.
I do like that we start high and reduce over time the minimum each year during the block reward.
I think also there should be some kind of barrier to entry Otherwise we will have a TON of ghosts 100%
It needs to be at least a bit dear or people won’t bother to valuate it. I want our investors to be intelligent not just throwing spaghetti at the wall and walking away. Something to add to the evaluation.
How many individual staking addresses would be a problem?
We are now at less than 10k individual addresses versus a theoretical maximum of 1 billion addresses (if each address would only hold one SFT).
The maximum amount of locked in addresses will have a natural upper limit due to the fact many people hold lots of coins (much of supply taken out) and the fact that SFT is not divisible.
So, maybe a minimum amount of locked coins is not even needed for a long time. I like the positive aspect of cutting ghosts out though.
until 500m gmv is achieved a sub 30k wallets with 30% of total supply not locked collect less than 500usd.
But like aussie yesterday said, there are people wich 500usd more in a year can make the difference.
I actually see a way to make everyone happy and at the same time and let the blockchain smooth.
locking pools. and here it comes the trust issue obviously even the best of us that proposes itself to do it could raise suspects. but seems we have a legal entity an exchange that is favourable to us and for small amount i would actually trust them to do it, they take a small fee and everyone is happy. with this system we could eve raise the minimum at 100k
In my opinion the rule should be set for the benefit of everyone, whether new or old.
Otherwise we act like an “old boys club” and alienate legitimate newer Safex investors.
How about setting a minimum to withdraw dividends instead? You will reduce or eliminate barrier to entry (znfall’s concern) and have a built-in time lock for people needing to meet minimum withdrawal amounts (oliver brought up time locks). The optics may be better because we are not excluding sft investors. They just have to wait. And if we can include real-time MP volume data we may be able to recommend a minimum amount of sft to lock to meet withdrawal requirements and transaction cost.
Good discussion. As an elderly investor, my concerns are learning a new market and understanding the terms. I need steady income to pay my bills at home and long term stability to leave my " bag" to my kids. This whole crypto thing is pretty cool !
)