I think I understand what you are getting at, please correct me if I am wrong.
Am I fair in rephrasing this as “Mining new blocks dilutes the total supply, therefore, coin holders are paying towards FR via dilution”? - If it isnt fair then this post is probably irrelevant but might show what I am not considering properly.
The counter point would be that issuance of coins does not dilute the funds of others. That would be true if and /only/ if there was no total limit on supply.
The argument being, because there is a limit on total supply it is effectively the opposite of what you are proposing. Mining new coins increases the value of old coins because you are getting closer to running the well dry of new coins. (I am not an economist, this is just a counter using the same logic)
by value, we mean fiat value right? Be able to live, kinda thing? Everyone has to eat.
They are the only two mechanisms which the cybercoin has to interact with the consensus rules. Unless you are running a service layer within those rules. (something initially in bitcoin then dropped for security.)
Yes, I suppose for a ledger/fixed cap only blockchain.
Im not sure a lot of people know that the mining block “reward” for bitcoin was never meant to be the source of value. That was to come from transaction fees. The block rewards were meant to distribute the coin and encourage people to send coins to each other, this is why it started out so high and kept halving. - This model might not be ideal for successor coins.
In theory the value of all coins exist if they have been mined yet or not, as long as there is a cap on total supply.
If ECC wants to get funding from coin holders, or coin users they are going to have to either; break their initial contract or find new revenue streams. (I have some ideas, I will create a thread for people to put any idea they like up. one idea might prove useful.)
I know Im one of many who have proposed that idea, but that was before I was reminded of 90% of all mining rewards go to miners. You need a genuine opt-in and not a hobsons choice this time around.
//Stuff about Eth and funding below here.
With a system like Ethereum you can have a self sustaining, decentralised, nonhuman financial governance (in theory at least) - eliminating part of the problem. Sure it doesn’t solve where the rewards come from.
You might, for example, give rewards based off things like, unit test passes, integration testing, writing unit tests, translating a document, verifying results manually, etc.
You kinda have something like this already with the ton of tickets i keep seeing for unit test passing on the dev list. So it could be added as a sidechain, retrofitting sounds like hard work and expensive tho.
Do the rules allow for smart contracts? I think the devil is in the details on this. Any could work or not work.
At a high level I suppose for a new coin, transaction fees maybe with an initial FR of 10% + 10% of fees, weighted over 8 - 12 years, then fees only.
Going by your screenshot.
After 10 years ~8.5% of transferred btc is transferred in mining fees.
After 4 years ~4.8% of transferred eth is transferred in mining fees.
After 2.5 years ~0.015% of transferred zec is transferred in mining fees.
this seems to indicate that mining fees might actually work, if you coin gets adoption. (I admittedly that is what I wanted to see in those numbers so it could be conformation bias.) I’d love to know the monero numbers.
For zec, I really dont know. You are stuck between a rock and a hard place.