The idea was presented fine. Please stay on topic.
The idea about increasing the supply of ZEN through a airdrop makes me worried about the price of the coin. I predict the price would loose value directly proportionate to the airdrop amount.
I also feel like the max supply of 21 million is holding us back. The coins with supplies in the billions do much better.
If we go down this road I would like to see the max supply be 21 billion or 2.1 billion . Then I would predict the price to change from $11.50 to 0.11
Average retail likes to buy things for pennies. It’s weird but true.
Well yes but is there a better solution?
You can only sacrifice one or 2 things here. Increase the supply and price would fall as it would be over inflated and Zen already did a 100x if it does move its decimal points too far. And without an airdrop it devalued your holdings by how many times they decide to inflate the price.
There will be price discovery as it tries to find its footing in the market its basically a new coin listing but without the new ticker it might look strange on the chart after it would happen. But if we have the backing of venture capitalists and market makers it will find itself not lower or higher than the price is now. If the market is in demand for Modular blockchain then the price will find the appropriated footing.
It was late in the evening excuse me, please read the idea not judge the person presenting this idea. So far i have seen no expert present any of their ideas they are only exploring if we have any consensus on what we propose to do. Its one idea of possible two so far if we have two chains one HPV and one for EVM. The problem i have with airdrops is that we do not always get 1 to 1 airdrop to what we have in holding currently within our wallet. This solution would also cause a pump and dump scenario if it were to pass. And either zen comes out on top or the hpv chain. Or they both dump and nothing was gained. Witch is a big risk if the product is not even released yet as we speak.
I reiterate as i say there has been no expert presenting any ideas they are exploring our ideas. And please give any feedback on what you think of the idea.
It is nice to imagine, but very unrealistic, that ZEN changing the maximum supply is equal to death, old supporters will leave, and from the previous negative news, it is difficult to attract new supporters to follow. Each industry attaches more importance to the first impression, supply placement is negative rather than positive, the best way is unchanged, followed by airdrop, changing supply should not be considered.
If new coins must be issued, they should be pledged with ZEN, because as far as the industry is concerned, the first thing to do is to make ZEN more valuable. Only when the value of ZEN increases, the value of sub-projects can increase, just like ETH and SOL. If the value of ZEN cannot increase, then there is no point in issuing new coins no matter how many airdrops, no matter how nice it is, it is just to dilute, and the result is a failure.
ZEN and the new coin can only be a father and son relationship, not an auxiliary relationship, but also can not be a competitive relationship.
Every speech of the team can determine the life and death of the project and the confidence of the community, so please think before speaking, ZEN has survived until now because of the support of Grayscale and the support of the community.
You should have left up your post. I liked what you suggested about the blockchain converting ZEN to USD for gas so that the fees are predicable.
I also liked the idea of HPV being a sidechain (not sure it is technically possible) but liked it. One concept we might want to consider is being able to pay for gas in more than one token. It would be nice in EON if users could have the option to pay for gas in either a EON token or ZEN.
@SKyTL Yeah that is one way it could maybe work out (in my not very well thought out scenario) and would be interesting and novel I would assume. You could have Zen usable as gas on all the sidechains or the sidechains token as gas as well on each ie
EON or ZEN on EON(if that needed a token in the future)
HPV or ZEN on HPV new horizen chain
Then have an algo/process (that runs on supernodes maybe) that calcs the appropriate gas fee in USD (based on a preset logic with inflation accounted for so there are no surprises in regards to costs for users) and the fee could be paid in ZEN or HPV equivalent to the required amount in USD. Obviously this process would monitor the consolidated market price of each in order to calculate the appropriate amount for gas fee.
I think it is difficult to achieve, not only is it too complex, there are few such operations in each project in the industry, the increase of complexity is equal to the high cost of learning for new users, ZEN’s position in the industry is not special, so basically no new people are willing to spend time on deep learning.
Using dual coins as GAS fees is also equivalent to directly diluting the value of ZEN. Who will use ZEN when there is a larger and cheaper supply of new coins as GAS fees?
These ideas can be concluded on other successful projects, UNI in 2021 is so strong that it can only use ETH as GAS fee.
Side chain can issue new coins, but can not have any dilution of ZEN, can only use ZEN as GAS fee, otherwise it is to dilute the value of ZEN, will cause the failure of ZEN and side chain, because the value of the main network has not risen, how can side chain succeed? I haven’t seen a precedent for this in the industry.
by my calculations the transactions fees are extremely small to even being considered as a positive for ZEN when you considering the mining emissions of every block. Plus fees are not burned on EON. Using a EON token for gas would have zero dilution of ZEN in my opinion. There has to be utility for any new token, if not gas than what?
Is the team aware that if current holders see their investment diluted in any way (increase in max supply or new token created without any link and added value to $ZEN), this will be the end of confidence in the project for past and future investors?
Just like the ARB,OP,STRK,UNI tokens on ETH, they are just governance tokens. Although they have no other role right now, ETH L2 and DEFI issued tokens enrich and improve the ETH ecosystem, making ETH more valuable, and then they will become valuable themselves, even if they are just governance tokens. But still the market is good.
If these ETH L2 were to use their own tokens as GAS fees, I believe the value of ETH would immediately drop significantly, which I believe we all do not want to see, there are many successful models to learn from.
As long as the new coins are useful, they represent a decrease in the value of ZEN. This is an obvious competition relationship. The team will airdrop new coins to ZEN holders, and then the ZEN will be abandoned and moved to the new chain.
I suggest that you continue to use ZEN as a GAS fee, new coins do not need to be useful, new coins are used to improve and enrich the ZEN ecosystem, please do not dilute ZEN, thank you.
If ZEN fails, then no one will believe in the team’s next new project.
The dinner in Hong Kong last time was incredibly wonderful and an honor to experience. Thank you.
As I mentioned before, I would like to propose a token swap instead of an airdrop.
The concerns about doing an airdrop are as follows:
The emergence of both the existing ZEN and a new token may force Labs to choose between supporting the old or the new, raising concerns that the original ZEN might be abandoned.
Holders would also end up owning two types of tokens, which might force them to choose one over the other. Moreover, an airdrop is a forced drop based on a snapshot, leaving no choice for the holders.
If ZEN is not considering continuous diverse types of token airdrops for its holders, then ZEN may end up being overlooked as a mere event token.
If only the new token receives support and development, there is a risk that ZEN will become obsolete in the market.
However, issuing new tokens and then swapping them with ZEN has the following advantages:
Holders can choose whether to swap for the new tokens or not. This is a personal choice, not coercion, which is closer to the idea of decentralization.
If there are ZEN amounts that are not swapped, it implies a reduction in the issuance of the new tokens. The unswapped amount of ZEN would proportionally decrease the issuance of new ZEN.
Swapping with existing ZEN, rather than just issuing additional new tokens, preserves the legacy and ethos of the original ZEN. After the swap, the original holders will continue to support and cherish the new tokens as they did with ZEN.
For these reasons, the term and concept of a ‘token swap’ seem more reasonable than ‘airdrop,’ which could be misleading.
“There is a saying, ‘New wine in new wineskins.’” For the sake of starting anew and removing the stigma of anonymity from Zen, I support the creation of new tokens through a swap.
Simply airdropping would require managing two tokens and continually addressing issues with the existing ZEN, so I strongly support a token swap.
The ratio can be determined by considering the amount of new tokens to be additionally issued.
This swap idea is very creative. It formulates a suitable exchange ratio, and the holders of the old zen can freely choose to swap or not. In the end, a balance will be reached, which is conducive to maintaining the stability of zen and avoiding directly going to the exchange to crash the market. .
If new tokens have to be issued, I would only support airdropping them to ZEN holders. Token swapping is not a good idea.
Since the team has proposed to issue EON tokens and current HPV tokens before, if there will be new tokens in the future, the number of ZEN will certainly not be enough to destroy, which will delay the process of new projects and lead to huge chaos. Since the team has chosen to issue new tokens, the focus will definitely shift from ZEN to new projects.
This is the middle of the bull market, please cherish the time, the market will not wait for any project that is not ready.
I had this thought around utilising the same zen tokenomics (with the necessary block reward adjustments required for shorter block times on substrate) and it would be good to get some thoughts on why this is a bad idea and how it compares to the creation of a new token.
Retain current max supply, current distribution, emission rate
Re-evaluate the block reward distribution:
Reducing miner (validator on PoS) block reward %
x% goes to a VC fund
x% to incentives
———
VCs could be offered a % of the VC fund pot, guaranteeing them zen from every future block
Same for the incentives to build.
Do validators really need so much of the block reward?
I appreciate I may have a simplistic outlook on how it all works, I know we need an incentives fund, but what do VCs look for - why might a new token be more alluring to them.
Get the VCs to pump some zen into the incentives pot
How does funding from VC’s even work with a decentralized blockchain? Can someone explain?
Do they deal with the foundation or HL? I was told in the past when HL talks to investors at events they tell them to buy ZEN to invest. Is that not true?
A week have passed. Is research ongoing OC?
Now as most people have settled with the idea with a new tokenomics lol.
How quickly do HL see the new token on the markets? Once voting etc is done I.e if its tokenswap from zen. Do we have a token on the market before mainnet?
