As I see it, there are multiple things going on here: 1) creators do not feel in control 2) all users are treated as equivalent users and 3) the flow control system itself.
Slight Edit: in the below paragraph I said RLY instead of CC when listing the examples. I have updated the paragraph to be correct.
I will start with #3. The way I understand the flow control system to work is that the moment a user purchases some amount (any amount) of a creator coin the timer starts ticking. As time passes, they “unlock” the ability to transact a larger and larger portion of coin until after 30 days they have unlocked the ability to transact 5% of the coin’s supply. On the surface this seems reasonable, except that someone figured out that they could buy 1 RLY worth of a CC, wait 30 days, and then pump it, causing other people to get excited by the rise and put in more, only to immediately cash out everything they’ve put in it. A classic pump and dump. So long as they transact less than 5% of the coin supply they are within flow control limits as defined. A simple change here is that instead of unlocking 5% of the coin supply, they move towards unlocking the maximum of their already held supply. Additional “buys” relock an equal amount of the buy on scale with what they already hold. A few examples of what I mean: 1) I buy 1 CC, wait 30 days, and then buy 30 CC. At the moment of the second buy, I can transfer/withdraw 1 CC, but I have to wait another 30 days to fully unlock the rest of the CC. 2) I buy 40 CC, wait 30 days, and then buy 30 CC. At the moment of the second buy, I can transfer/withdraw 40 CC. 3) I buy 40 CC, wait 15 days, and then buy 40 CC, wait 15 days, and then buy 40 CC. At the time of the second buy, I can transfer/withdraw 20 CC (half way through unlocking the first buy). At the time of the third buy I can transfer/withdraw 60 CC (all of the first buy; assuming I didn’t cash any out yet, and half of the second buy). Similar proportional scaling like this should help fix the volatility of a coin, which was the original intended purpose of flow controls.
#2) With any kind of flow control system, there are going to be inherent problems in transacting large amounts of coin. This was already noticed before flow controls were implemented, and so they were implemented with the built-in exemption of creators and their own coin. So there is technically already a solution to the large transaction problem: Instead of User A paying User B, User A can pay the creator and the creator can pay User B. But this is very cumbersome and will eventually overwhelm the creator. Abstracting this, essentially the creator would be acting as a disinterested party to the transaction, or, in the finance world, they are acting as a clearing house. In a programmatic sense, what has happened is that the creator is white-listed to use as much of their own coin as they would like. Instead of the way it is currently done, it should be expanded to be a formal white-list that the creator is on for their own coin. They should even be able to remove themselves from it if they so desire (for potential reasons in #1). Likewise they should be able to add people to it. There is inherent risk here: a white-listed user now has the opportunity to tank the economy if they have the means and the motive. And so the number of users on a coin’s white-list should be exceedingly low; certainly less than 10 and probably less than 5. An arbitrary cap could be used, or not; either way, it needs to be clear to creators that adding someone to that white-list is very very risky and shouldn’t be done without very good reason. Potentially a further step would be for a quorum of creators to maintain a list of “pre-approved” and “not-approved” accounts that the creator in question could check against to see if this person asking for white-listing has a legitimate reason for doing so. But the details of that could be worked out later. I just can’t see any reasonable way to do an auction-house or storefront without white-listing some accounts.
#1) if it really is supposed to be the creator’s economy, they need levers and control, and more is better. I think they should be able to control the creator-fee (on/off at least; better yet, the ability to choose the flat-tax %). I think they should be able to implement a min (buy/convert-in) and max (transfer/convert-out) account-based daily transaction amount (which would be the reason to de-whitelist their own account; if set appropriately, this would be an extra safe-guard against their account being emptied by a nefarious individual). They could even be given the lever over the new flow-control method mentioned in #3; some creators may prefer “free market” volatility and would have no flow-control. Others may prefer to minimize volatility and have it set to 60 days instead of 30. As long as all of the settings of these levers are easily visible to everyone in the web UI, it shouldn’t negatively effect the overwhelming majority of existing users (i.e. no mass-migration out of RLY). Though it might make some major shifts on release, time and market forces should find most creators in an equilibrium; happier creators because they are in control, and happier users as they can put their money behind creators who they can be sure believe in the same fiscal policy as the user (e.g. hardcore free market users are going to be much happier putting their money behind hardcore free market creators; the same is true for hardcore fiscally conservative users/creators).
#4?) Blacklists. Internet history has demonstrated pretty well that “just block them” doesn’t work very well. They just create a second account. That said, it could be useful to the Rally team to see that “30 creators have blocked the same user; perhaps someone should look into that”. Therefore I think there is some small value in having them. But I think all they should do is prevent new buys. So if a user already has some CC and they get black-listed, they can still transfer, earn rewards, donate, and convert out. They just can’t convert-in any more. That should limit the potential for any abuse of the list to manipulate the coin value.