Flow Control Suggestions

so, if everyone stakes their coin for rewards, how does any get spend to invigorate the economy?

1 Like

KT the same coins that you spend would disappear just like if they were staked, there is no difference, both invigorate the economy, and a person can either spend or stake to stimulate the economy. Perhaps offer ENHANCED rewards on staked coins, and a lower amount on one that can be spent. Also the “staking” lock could apply to converts to Rally, not spending, donating, etc.

This, the open-market and price discovery can’t be stopped. People will find a way to sell and buy the tokens off the books anyway, Telegram and through p2p means. If curbing speculations is the one major difficulty then controlling the amount of coins issued into the ecosystem is the only way. If you build in limits then maybe the coin shouldn’t exist yet.

If the ecosystem/community can’t find it within themselves to hold and not dump then the ecosystem is too early and weak for a coin and thus back to basic centralization would suffice until you really can go decentralized and share the token in an open-way.

I feel there is a lot of over-engineering going on here to curb supply and demand dynamics when you really just need a regular controlled market like a simple old exchange with rewards built in to those that won’t dump.

1 Like

I completely agree. The more rules you make, the more loopholes you make. Look at tax codes…

2 Likes

I think it is interesting and good overall to talk about ways to control flows and coin supply management etc.

But here is a thought, if the project has actual substance people won’t dump it!

Project>coin

Introducing a coin too early, even with crazy smart flow controls will bring great drag to the project because coin management and economics is hell.

If the community or early investors dump coin too early, but the project was the real thing, guess what, prices will go up and punish those that didn’t have the foresight.

Going centralized first, then go decentralized later may greatly help projects in this regard.

And by the way, tax is the ultimate example of a convoluted system because it is hard to understand and apply fairly.

So after some prodding on discord below is my suggestion for this problem. I feel it addresses the flow control and creator fee issue simultaneously while also helping to address reward hunting.

Replace existing flow controls and creator fees with a FIFO strategy based on the creator coins purchase date. For any CCs converted to RLY a fee will be assessed on a declining schedule that I would propose be either 2 weeks or 30 days in duration. This percentage and curve can be decided/adjusted but should be very steep at under 48hrs (think 15%). This action will prevent the pump and dumps seen both on new coins and existing smaller coins mentioned above where a user can hold 0.0001 of a coin for a period.

Any fees pulled from these early sells should be fed back into the CC base value similar to the early RLY reward structure thereby “lifting” the whole community value versus just the creator alone. This means that if there is a drop in value from a large sell the community sees at least a small amount of value back.

These penalties could then not be avoided by breaking up the transaction to smaller amounts or by pre-staging a small value to allow for a large sale. This also aligns with the overall RLY goal of having people hold onto a Creator Coin or use it to support the creators campaigns.

I can’t agree on the above on potentially getting more and more (flow control) restrictions in. In my opinion the scarce resources of the team / community members could better be used to create value-adding tools between creators <> fans or on attracting non-crypto people in.

I have the feeling that more and more limitations will limit the growth of the Rally ecosystem as a whole and feels as a contradiction to Rally’s ambitions to become fully decentralizes.

Instead of short-term thinking of “solving” side effects, I think the community as a whole could better invest invest time and money to fix the source of the potential “issues” raised:

  1. Have creators attract the right amount of fans in combination with valuable perks of holding or transacting with a CC. This way, potential pump&dump stuff will have less & less impact. So agree with @exchange-kit-kid on that one.

  2. Each and everyone of us should continuously think in “amount of CC” in combination with the perks, transaction to be made etc. Potential pump/dump then will have zero effect at all as you’ll simply still hold your amount of a CC.

My 2 RLY cents

2 Likes

They do impact those of us using it as currency due to the wild swings in price.

2 Likes

Fair enough @Meta4ickal, from that perspective / use case, yes it indeed does as long as there’s not a large enough fanbase and/or big enough “perks” to keep you holding a specific CC amount.

My personal feeling (but hey, it’s just 1 opinion), is that more and more limitations (at least, that’s how I perceive it), will more and more limit the attractiveness of the Rally network as a solution for non-creators (and thus in the end for creators less attractive as well) and can even cause an acceleration of current liquidity flowing out of the Rally.io platform.

I agree with your take. More flow controls, penalties etc. just means more problems. And what happens when you get outside trading of coins. Are you then going to tax the sent coins regardless of who they go to? It is up to the creators to draw demand. This causes people to see value in holding coins even without rewards. Look at JAYUS, WAO, JEFF and some others. They understand what works and truly care about their communities.

Break down of coin life:

:point_right:Stage 1: Tokenization

  • Convert paper/physical or digital good to a coin/token/crypto
  • Name, add symbol and have it on a blockchain (ERC20)

:point_right:Stage 2: Distribution (this is where many get stuck)

  • Get coin listed on the third-party centralized platform (Binance, Coinbase or other large platforms)
  • Broker/static price offering (let people buy token at more less static prices)
  • Get coin on own market/exchange (open orderbooks trading, HollaEx Kit)
  • Provide a token staking/lock system (lock and reward more tokens to people lock hardest and longest)
  • DEXs (Uniswap, 0x)

:point_right:Stage 3: Backing the token

  • Giving coin real value by backing it, attaching coin to real-world value (goods, cashout and communication)
    -Governance
  • Give utility, web applications and stuff that work with the coin (think redeeming systems and ways to pay for stuff with coin)
  • Allow full speculation on a token/coin to find the real value/price (pretty much open orderbook trading)

Lot of effort goes into marketing and communication (this gives a good sense of the work and costs in marketing view_cost_here.png) in stage 2 which will burn a coin creator, business or anyway out. Just look at Atari they still struggling to really communicate what is going on with their coin and they are a huge brand name.

I think people should probably not under estimate how hard stage 2 is and focus more on 3 first.

1 Like

cb this is simply not true, some of the coins you mentioned see interest due to the current rewards structure (JAYUS). The volatility you see isn’t because some creators aren’t driving demand, it is due to the fact we have a system currently that rewards behavior that is counter to the growth and the stability of communities. Both rewards and flow controls encourage pump/dump behavior currently.

I think a new thread on the rewards system would be helpful. I’d love to see what ideas the community has on how we can improve the current rewards system to encourage longer term holding and primarily reward fans who are in it for the long haul. More rewards for creators who are seeing campaign redemptions, and some way to ensure that Creators who are selling goods aren’t missing out on rewards under the net deposit system for needing to sell the CC received to pay for the cost of producing those goods, vs. creators that are all digital or primarily holding driven rewards.

It’s unclear to me if the current rewards system is having all the desired effects, but it seems to be driving volatility across the eco-system.
Perhaps @bvajresh has some insights from back-end data on how RLY rewards are being utilized and the behavior of CCs and coin holders after rewards top out? Some data like this among other back-end data would definitely help inform some improvements on the rewards system…

I agree that a new thread on the topic of Rewards would be beneficial.

I like the idea of modifying the Rewards system in order to encourage longer term holding etc. One idea might be to modify the rewards calculations so that rewards don’t kick in until coins have been held by that user for a certain period of time. For example, you could have a system where rewards only kick in after someone holds a coin for at least a week or two. Rewards could even have their own bonding curve so that people who hold a coin for 1 month get lets say 1x rewards. Whereas people who hold a coin for 3 months get 1.5x rewards.

Overall, I think Rally rewards are a great thing. Looking forward to hearing other ideas that people might have on how to improve the system.

1 Like

You say it is simply not true. Most things are never 100% true or false so I am not sure why to point out one of the three is wrong, from your perspective, and to make a point it is all wrong. I better more logical statement would have been I understand what you are trying to say but there is a bit of pump and dump going on with JAYUS still. JAYUS does see some pump and dump interest due to that, but it is a new coin and has yet to fully stabilize. I used that one to make a point. I see why it has value beyond a pump and dump because it has some added utility and a larger community and that adds stability because many people like what she does and want to support her.

Is there data on the rewards for this JAYUS?

Sounds like rewards are issued to fast.

It is normal for token issuers to hold a lot of coin as a reserve to stabilize market (XRP and even the ETH foundation held a load of coins and issued them later).

JAYUS is an example and not an isolated case. I wont go into semantics, but lets just say that we are a few weeks too early to have this conversation. Ill stick to flow controls here, and flow controls need fixed period as they are obviously not working as designed with the .000001 reset.

I understand where you are coming from but would rather not debate the issue. I don’t get paid for that, and have better things to do with my time, as I am sure you do.

1 Like

All love man! I appreciate your input in these conversations they need to be had! Much respect.

1 Like

Appreciate the thoughts here. The primary part that resonates with me is offering creators more control. I don’t really see any other suggestions that read as objectively better or worse across the board but all of the suggestions seem like they have merit if a particular creator is interested in them.

I think at the network level the approach should be to provide configurable options with some limits on frequency/magnitude of change. Any application on the network would then choose what it believes are reasonable defaults along with configuration options and appropriate UI to inform users across the entire spectrum from pure utility to pure speculation what they’re getting into.

In other words, I think Meta4ickal should have the ability to configure their coin exactly as they’ve described with configuration limitations only in place to ensure transparency and consistency for participants in their coin; but there doesn’t seem to be any reason to believe that same configuration should be applied in a one size fits all manner to all coins.

2 Likes