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