Changing Zcashs Emission Curve

Of course, that directly contradicts a finite supply…

1 Like

I personally think that nothing should be changed. The ECC and the Foundation should not “tweak” the emission curve or have anything to do with “driving adoption via marketing”. That should happen organically. If it doesn’t happen, then it’s not meant to be. In general, miners, investors and speculators should not be in a profit debate. Folks obviously have a bias on this, based on speculative investments. Zcash is trying to be a private peer to peer electronic cash solution, and this is all I care about. I, personally, don’t care if Zcash is worth 1 cent or 10000 USD. I just want it to replace the USD.

6 Likes

Second, 20characters

1 Like

Yup, I’d like it to replace USD as well :slightly_smiling_face:

Its easy to lose perspective, we’re a long way from crypto adoption & the tech isn’t really ready yet anyway. Speculative investments are fun but thats not what this is about. We also have years & years of user education ahead, by the time thats done inflation wont be an issue.

I’d be more interested in a program to get lots of small businesses using ZEC, something focused like ‘all the shops in a small village’ where an ecosystem can be incubated.

5 Likes

The problem is that the financing of development depends on the cost of zcash, are you ready to give the team money for development?

2 Likes

I have already made a suggestion about this matter here.

1 Like

Suppose that zcash costs 1 dollar, then the entire money supply on the market is about 7 million, while developing a month requires 1/10 of the entire money supply, is it really possible to collect such a volume? No need to abstract from cost, the higher the cost of the product on the market, as well as the high demand, the better, the company improves the product, but without a final cost sufficient for self-sustaining it makes no sense, whatever the product is not intended.

1 Like

not sure what you mean by “misaligned”.
chart you posted is a different timeframe.

zcash won’t replace the dollar if zcash is worth $0.01

in order for zcash to grow organically; people need to be taking about zcash in a positive manner. with GPU miners gone, and ZEC’s anti-marketing campaign, traders are the next best option. problem is, outside of a few elite traders; traders that’ve risked money on ZEC have had their heads chopped-off.

2 Likes

Looks like yours shifts ZCash by about 6 months in relation to Dash and Monero. As I have shown, if you align the dates, you will get similar patters. This isn’t surprising of course. All we are seeing that ZCash, Monero and Dash follow the general market trend.

2 Likes

That’s absolute BS .

Bevor commenting on charts someone has to understand charts and graphs first. The mistake you made is that you used a linear scaled graph and not a log scaled one.

Or simple, on your graph the values are just shown independed from each other for a given time frame. This can work out IF there are no unnaturally spikes but unfortunatly ZEC had at the start an artificial price at release that messes up the graph later. To avoid this you have 2 options:

  • remove the initial spike from the graph (still not accurate but better!)
  • use a log scale graph (best option)

It’s amazing how a lot of people make financial conclusions without even nearly able to read and analyze simple charts and graphs (just in generally!). Someone has to understand that market cap is the result of circulating coins/tokens x price.

Here the correct charts for ZEC market cap versus ZEC US$ price

Linear Graph with removed initial high ZEC price:

ZEC Log Scale Graph:

DASH Log Scale Graph:

Monero Log Scale Graph:

Now you can compare them correctly :wink:

would you mind not shitposting in this thread, al?

1 Like

side note - believe we already missed a chance for NU3, and don’t think there’s enough time to research/write up a ZIP for a non-invasive way to change the curve in time for NU4. i’m viewing this as more of a thought exercise at this point.

1 Like

sorry, thought it might be helpfull to correct your total wrong and missleading graphs. I wasn’t aware you prefer wrong data for your propaganda, sorry statler.

1 Like

Thoughts on that… freshly mined coins have to ‘mature’ before they can be shielded which has to happen before they can be spent. Increasing the number of blocks to mature coins would address that. Miner still gets coins but has to wait longer.

Still think its not necessary, but thats just my opinion.

This has very very minimal impact and would delay things only for a very limited time.
For example if it takes 1 week to mature coins and than exactly 1 weeks everything would be old style again as daily the coins from a week ago would be fully available to spent.
If the maturity takes 1 month than after 1 month the effect vanishes and so on. Not really a slolution to fix anything.

Depends on how its done… for example, the last byte of the block hash could be the number of days before coins mature, extreme case & silly perhaps but it’d slow new coins getting into circulation.

<grumpy>
Instead of pissing on every comment, why not make a better suggestion?
</grumpy>

1 Like

The maximum effect it would last would be again the maximum highest possible number in days. If it’s for example 60 for 60 days than the effect would hold only 60 days and after this the released coins would be exactly as it was bevor. You get only a short break for as long as the FIRST “time lock” is.

It’s not pissing, it’s showing how it would work out in reality. It’s not my vault if a given suggestion has only a very temporary limited effect. And it’s not my opinion, it’s simple mathematics.

I can’t count how many times i have posted that the emission curve is designed without and further deep thoughts on how it will work out, especially for the founders reward itself. It was designed with some interesting intention but it doesn’t work out, obviously.
The only possible option to reduce the emission curve would have been to include it with a major upgrade/update/chance in the past. It just doesn’t make anymore sense to change while the Founders Reward is expiring at the same time because the only thing that would justify such step would be a founders or developers reward that ensures continued development. As none such is on the horizont after 2020 there is no reason to change the emission.

And just as a side note, while you many of you guys call my posts pissing and shitting i just adress the problems i see coming.
When i first mentioned all the fake volume months bevor it was picked up my media i got attacked.
When i mentioned that the ending founders reward is a bigger problem than the halving is positive, i got attacked.
When i mentioned for months now that the biggest problem actually is the emission curve and inflation, i got attacked.
When i wrote that naturally with this emission curve the BTC exchange will drop at least to 0.007, i got attacked.
No rocket science at all, enough you guys stop calling everything pissing and shitting that isn’t to the moon but adreses serious design flaws.

3 Likes

I remember when you were a paid bitman shill, lol.

I think a lot of people get lost in how you say stuff and not what you are saying. You have a very direct way of speaking, probably due to English being your second language. dunno, you might just be a very direct person :slight_smile:

2 Likes

Yeah, lol, seems these days “Monero troll” is fashion here. :joy::rofl:

I know i’am a very direct person, it’s indeed the case. The language barrier is not responsible for my directness, only that i have to write a lot to compensating for missing words that would explain things way shorter.

1 Like

As an individual ASIC miner, I’m strongly in support of changing the emission curve to reduce inflation. At current market prices for ZEC, ASICs are already barely profitable for individuals, and since Innosilicon and Bitmain control the majority of the hashrate they are continuously dumping vast amounts of ZEC to the detriment of the entire community.

It’s my opinion that instead of trying to fork ASICs off the network, we should instead look to reduce the current emission to such a degree that it’s no longer profitable to mine ZEC even with extremely low electricity prices. That way large farms will have no incentive to keep mining and dumping coins for instant profit. The result would be that any miners left on the network would have no choice but to hold their mined ZEC rather than sell it.

Not only would this deter large miners and future ASIC development, but it would almost certainly stabilize the ZEC price in terms of BTC. This may lead to faster price appreciation in terms of USD, and potentially alleviate some of the funding concerns of the ECC. With about 30k ZEC in their reserves, a doubling of the ZEC price would result in an extra year of funding.

I believe in order to achieve the desired outcome, a significant reduction of the block reward is required. A reduction of the miner portion from 10 ZEC/block down to 2.5 ZEC/block should suffice. However, I would add one caveat that the Founders Reward portion should remain unchanged at 2.5 ZEC/block so as to not disrupt the current funding of the ECC.

I hope everyone can give some feedback on this idea, because I would like to write up a ZIP for NU4 and the deadline is approaching fast. All criticisms and suggestions are more than welcome!

2 Likes