Discussion about Factoid inflation

Secured
#3
I assume that I am totally unaware of the technical factors that can guarantee a fair reflection of the opinion of the Factoids holders community. However, I think that if the blockchain of FACTOM, as we all wish, will burn more Factoids than those issued by the need for Ecredits for insertions of our users, inflation, as I understand it is perceived in general, would skyrocket, that a fixed amount issued (73000) would result in a higher inflationary ratio, since it should be applied to the original supply LESS the "original" Factoids necessary to be burned (once those issued are no longer sufficient for this, which is the first step for a deflationary token). Without looking like a problem at all, and in the line of "openness" that reflects the intention of the ANOs and Guides to integrate and give prominence to other parties involved in the evolution of the FACTOM blockchain, I think it could be established that, in if the 73000 Factoids were higher than the REAL inflation at the time - which, by faith in the success of FACTOM, I think it will happen - the community could be involved to collaborate with its particular nodes to maintain the blockchain - and that, I understand, today I would only have the benefit of the vote. Of course, I raise this, ALWAYS from the guarantee that the ANOs - and other infrastructure expenses, grants, etc. - received the minimum established (and, presumably, in terms of contributions much more favorable than the current ones).

I would like to calibrate the opinions of NOAs and guides in that regard. I understand that this would be a de facto sign of integration for all purposes in the structure of Factom Blockchain ... and, in addition, would seek a greater balance to the ecosystem and a more significant presence to the community in that ecosystem (I would like to emphasize that individually , would be very modest returns, but as a new "Standing Partie", representative in votes and also with a return (only in case the issue exceeds an inflation of 10% - whose current distribution I fully understand deserved by the contribution of the active parties of FACTOM at the moment, which are the ones that make us grow -) ... thus ending up in a group with REAL entity in the structure. (And I understand that it would stimulate that there were more particular nodes supporting the blockchain of FACTOM ... thing, I understand that highly recommended)

Thank you all for the opinions - if you think the topic interesting -. (And my apologies for the problems of feedback, but reading and writing in English, a language I do not master, gives me certain problems of exprension, understanding and time that I hope you do not find too annoying). A greeting.
 
Last edited:
Secured
#4
I would not stop commenting that, beyond the economic returns, the basis of contemplating the hodlers who contributed their nodes, would be to limit, in the almost that the rate of burning of Factoids would skyrocket, the concentration of new tokens created in a small group of beneficiaries, which I understand is not very recommendable in a decentralized structure. Contemplating that beyond the 10% return for ANOs, grants, etc, the emissions would be "democratized", I understand that this process would be much more balanced and open in the face of decentralization as healthy as possible, which I think could be quite an aspiration common to the different members of the FACTOM blockchain. That, more than the purely economic extension of the matter, is the main motivation.
 
Secured
#5
I don't believe we will ever have a period of sustained deflation. Remember, the price of EC are $.001 so the higher the value of FCT, the more EC you get. If FCT are $1.00 and you burn it, you get 1,000 EC. If FCT are $10 and you burn one, you get 10,000 EC. If FCT are $100 and you burn one, you get 100,000 EC. Due to this model, while I suspect the number of FCT burned will continue to increase over time, we won't get to a point where there is sustained deflation. And if we do, ANOs may decrease the price of EC.
 
Secured
#6
Hi Purpelado, thanks for participating in discussions such a these.

Here is a link to spreadsheet Paul's made 1-2 years ago I believe.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...TF_giuXGUVEzTsY0X7_UpzQ6U/edit#gid=1604319654

As you can see with the 110 burn rate scenario, it is very hard to burn all the supply.

In a case where we have big uptake and month on month growth, the premium would sky rocket way over the book value and as David pointed out, each Factoid burnt would flood the market with massive EC created.

I personally have a hard time imaging a scenario where we would have deflation for a sustained period of time.