I like the idea of locking pools and that would solve the issue, at least until there are so many small wallet holders that don’t want to have to leave their SFT in the possession of a 3rd party in order to collect SFX that it becomes a big issue. But by that time there may be enough development resources available to solve it in some other way.
The main problem with pooling isn’t that people would prefer being able to lock and unlock small amounts of SFT on their own, it’s exposure to potential hacks. It could probably be made much more secure than a crypto exchange, but not completely without risk.
With pool staking we cut a lot of tx, then if the pool operator split the actual payments to the users it mitigates completely any effect, normal case lock tx, unlock tx and tx for receiving the sfx, with the pool there would be 1tx to lock 1tx to unlock and fragmented payments to users in order to avoid any spike.
We do not need extra congestion, ghosts, etc. making the BC bogged down. The SFT right now is so cheap, I think there should definitely be a minimum required to “stake”. Sellers do not need many SFT do control their market, but ‘investors’ of SFT should have to meet a certain criteria to have the privilege of revenue share. Accumulating 100k SFT is pretty easy right now. 100k could be a good starting barrier and then adjust in following years based on SFT price.
Excellent advise. I was advised to use a sharpie and moleskin. I compare sft, in my head, to common stock. Buy it, hold it, collect dividend, reinvest or travel. If sft is or becomes that simple, imagine the pile of cash old folks could invest in crypto ? I remember trading stock in the early eighties, some companies still mailed you bearer bonds ! Bought my first fireproof safe .
The whale in you is speaking right now. Hard facts: if you take 50k or 100k as a lower limit you exclude the vast majority of today’s safex holders. See @znffal statistics.
If you set 55k sft as limit you cut off 75% of addresses from getting fees. This doesn’t sound like decentralization to me. Based on the distribution of sft I would find a minimum of 1k coins reasonable.
Agree on that when we just look at the economics of a return based on use. The big bonus is: It is an anonymous store of value that you can take anywhere with you in your mind and that no one can get a hold of. Exciting times ahead. P. S.: look into CryptoSteel, something you might want to put in your safe.
i would avoid at all cost the masternode hole, another thing, setting limits with price or value, both for withdraw or lock constantly requires an arbitrary action, wich is not the best for this situation.
I typed out a bunch of different scenarios, but here’s what I came up with at the end of the day.
Why not build it into the blockchain to take the 10 day trailing token price from the safex wallet (which will be taken from CMC, etc.), and have the cost in SFT of all of these be dynamic?
E.G.
Cost to create an account: $1.00 (i.e. ~200 sft today, but maybe only 20 sft in the future, etc.).
Auto adjust this until 1 SFT reaches $1.00 on a 10 day average. With SFT not being divisible, at that point, build into the code that from that point forward, there’s no cost to create an account (even if SFT price drops).
Cost to create a title market: $50.00.
Same as above. Keep this at $50.00 regardless of SFT price, until SFT gets to $50.00. At that point, make it free.
Minimum locked balance to claim revenue share: $100
Again, this makes it so it doesn’t matter the specific # of SFT. Right now it’d require ~15,000 SFT, but you can have this dynamically adjust until the point where you go to 1 SFT= $100. At that point, have it remove the requirement.
This is different than the COST to burn. You can set that at the same cost as creating an account. Something small, but meaningful enough. The threshold here for claiming is account balance.
This way, the blockchain/wallet can automatically determine if someone has enough SFT to do the above, and will dynamically adjust based on the price of the token.
As an example, here’s a chart on cost to create an account:
it wont work well from there: CMC will be glitchy etc; it will require a hard fork to affect the price at this stage. Trailing with oracles is always sketchy on the protocol level.
Tracking these metrics will help to determine the appropriate price. Though also factor in I intend to ante up to 10m sft for an account creation faucet.
Maybe I’m high but what about this idea:
Create/choose a gold title market on the safex platform.
Peg it to the average price of 3g gold in SFX on this market. From there calculate the SFT price via an on platform SFT/SFX title market.
Example:
price of 3g gold is 10 sfx on gold title market
price of 1 sft is 0.1 sfx on sft/sfx market
-> price of 3g gold is 100 sft
-> Minimum amount is 100 sft
Disclaimer: this is ridiculous and just a joke. But it shows what’s theoretically possible.
It’s a real and doable system but not for a distributed consensus mechanism to conform to a third party api url
The part I said I will ante up to 10m sft for an account creation faucet:
I will set up a website where you can put your email address and I will create an account for you.
So supposed its 50 sft per account then I can generate 200k accounts per interval.
@dandabek If there is a window between the time you lock and the one you actually starts to collect the network fee this will prevent people from compulsively misuse the mechanism. Let’s say for 1 or 2 days you do not collect fee after you lock.
I think 100k is achievable to anyone, not just for a whale as it’s $500. Also excluding holders is what Dan wants to do to reduce unnecessary TX on the network.
@cryptomanic In my opinion the thing to relate price to minimum lock amount is not effective and 2 it could resemble to a ponzi.
I will explain in short why the main goal is not “incentivize people to buy” but keep the network as stable as possible. if we start now pegging minimum lock amount to 500 or 1000 dollars it will surely work because it represents a “big” part of supply but one day if we mantain this system the consequences are 2 or we lost any kind of spam protection or we raise to incredibly high amounts resembling a masternode.
imagine sft at 5$ and minimum “stake” is 500$ you just need a minimum of 100 coins. does it sounds stupid enough?
We need to find the exact amount that can be locked without causing any “drama”, other systems as the one you start collecting after 1 or 2 days after you lock and even other mechanism but without overcomplicating it on the tech side. Also a trusted custody that can effectively manage a pool of small holders that also fragment the payment in different time.
If the objective is to reduce small/spam transactions then I think staking pools just defer the problem since this would require SFT holders to make transfers to and from staking pools anyway.
You could get small holders to register/sign a lock/unlock transaction off chain with an arbiter who then agrees to process a group of these requests all in one transaction at a certain date (say once a week for example).
The arbiter could be designated in whichever way is most preferred. Maybe there are a certain number of these arbiter addresses voted into that position or perhaps anybody holding more than X million SFT could do it.
The downside is that the transactions will be larger but it should still remove some overhead.
It’s not the number of tx the problem since block size it’s dynamic but the density of them in a very short period, people wont send and withdraw at once, but the actual claim tx in case those people would do it is one and then pool could even fragments people holdings based on the period they want to have it locked.
A minimum interval will be set, not every day obviously and then the pool operator can split payments over some block and make everyone happy.
Pool is needed to set an high minimum token requirement for locking.
Also like mining pools a minimum sfx to witdraw can be implemented so very small tx are not possible
Hard facts: if you take 50k or 100k as a lower limit you exclude the vast majority of today’s safex holders. See 
