As many others already said i also do not like the idea to change the collateral. Sure its not set in stone but changing it will only create more problem for the project.
Consider how many bought their nodes when zcoin was 20 dollar, 40 dollar 100 dollar etc.
Also we will be much more centralized.
As someone said we should create more value instead of this. What if the price still dont move? should we double the collateral again?
This cant be a long term solution. So my vote in NO.
6 Likes
Hi Zcoin Team:
It’s good to see that the Zcoin team is taking this seriously and listening to user input (as usual) … and with technical changes coming soon for Lelantus and core code updates, the timing seems to be right to have this discussion now.
It is not clear the motivation behind some people wanting to increase the collateral required for a Znode. It may be lack of understanding on what drives coin liquidity and pricing, or it may be the desire on the part of some people to lock people out of being able to afford Znodes, and therefore with fewer nodes their portion of the Znode pool of money gets split between fewer Znode holders - which means ‘the rich will get richer’ - which should not be the intent of the Znode collateral amount that is chosen.
There is really no evidence that locking up more, or less, Zcoins in Znodes will affect the liquidity or price in any way - liquidity is a complex balance between many other aspects of a coin’s implementation.
In general terms - some of the things that make a coin successful are:
- Utility - can it be used for something useful - this will increase the demand for the coin.
- Use case - that there is a real world use for the coin - if so, there will be more demand than for one that does not have a good use case.
- Partnerships - depending on who the coin is partnered with can add a lot of value - and increase it’s demand.
- Incentives - master nodes and coin airdrops can both make a coin more desireable and therefore increase it’s demand.
- Liquidity - if a coin has a high trading volume, and short term stable price, it makes it easier to buy, and therefore increases it’s demand. There is a fine balance between supply and demand - and increasing the supply it not going to increase the demand (and will likely have the opposite effect).
In my opition - For Zcoin to evolve into a useful coin - it requires all of these things - and this will increase Zcoin liquidity naturally - but all of the other pre-requisites need to be addressed first - and the Zcoin team has been trying to address all of these over the past few years - to varying degrees of success.
Liquidity of Zcoin will improve if the coin shows real world uses, improved adoption, partnerships with the right groups, and the continued use of Znodes (with appropriate collateral levels). A lot of work has been done towards this - but more needs to be done.
The true requirement to increase Zcoin liquidity is to have all of these things in place - and for the bear market to turn around. Zcoin is not the only coin to be seeing the issue of poor liquidity - lets not try to fix one thing (that may not be fixable in this way), and break something else.
In actual fact, requiring higher Znode collateral amounts may reduce the amount of unlocked Zcoin, because people will be less willing to break up larger Znodes to sell or trade than if they own 2 or 3 smaller Znodes.
There is no proof that having 69% of Zcoins tied up in Znodes has any effect on liquidity on exchanges - basically - if you abolished Znodes, many people would likely sell off their Zcoins and the price of Zcoin would drop even further - and without the other things in place it would not improve liquidity at all.
Full disclosure (and it doesn’t affect my gut feel on this issue): I have 1 Znode, and saving for a second one (mainly though mining - and still need about 6 months to get the second node).
Responses to the issues listed in proposal:
- too high a percentage of XZC is locked up … and that it affects the liquidity of the coin on exchanges.
This argument is not intuitive - having larger requirements for Znode collateral could actually reduce the unlocked supply even further - assuming a similar number of people want to own nodes - requiring even more Zcoins to be locked. … Also - liquidity on exchanges is affected by lack of demand - not lack of supply. There is no demand because of both the bear market (everyone is holding on for dear life), and the fact that the other pre-requisites are not in place to the degree that they need to be - (Coin Utility, real world uses, further adoption, Partnerships) - and changing Znode collateral amounts will likely not fix this. - that Znodes are too cheap right now - if that was true then 100% of the coins would be tied up in Znodes.
Personal opinions:
Keep Znodes active - and use them for future services as planned (this can set Zcoin apart from most other coins if done right).
Keep Znode collateral at 1000XZC (Any changes to the collateral amount is likely going to upset somebody, or maybe most people).
2 Likes
Lets
change the name
change the algo
change the MN structure
that will fix things, right ? RIGHT ?
Zcoin is proof of work (miners produce blocks), ASIC resistant, proud to be money laundering coin, with Master Nodes (that hopefully will enable insta send).
Keep the 1000 coin MN.
2 Likes
Firstly, let me thank the team for bringing this to the discussion table. It is important topic and I hope development team will listen what is said here.
This reminded me a Smartcash project rising their mastercoin requirements 10 folds without consulting community. I have sold, walked away and never even looked back. (price dived btw.) Loosing trust can be done very quickly, but gaining it back takes much more effort.
People are hording Znodes because
- rewards is high (this should be fixed next year with halving)
- nodes are cheap to run (see ZEN supernodes server requirements)
- people trust this project and see future in it ( let’s keep this)
Let’s rather focus making Zcoin leader in private transactions - grow services based on privacy, make it perhaps default? This creates desire & price will rise and with it, more people will sell their rewards, some perhaps even nodes.
Regardless of the final decision - keep the information flowing, thank you.
3 Likes
Please dont change the Collateral for Znode XZC requirements.
It is a huge NOOOO from me!
if you do that, that will have negative impact for the price, some buyer cannot afford for only one Znode anymore!! and they run to other cheap node and holder will be decreasing of course will affect the price and more downward! please consider!
2 Likes
+1 I have to Agree with you 100%
2 Likes
I vote for no change in the Znode collateral.
2 Likes
I’ll keep this poll open till the end of the year but keep the feedback coming. So far the community voice is clear.
2 Likes
I threw the Chinese language response into the translator and his idea was interesting with another tier node 5000 for a super node. If there are features that will make this advantageous then it should be put up for community consideration. I really appreciate that people are bringing in receipts and experience from other projects to show that this idea across the board had a detrimental effect. I hope we don’t change the collateral as that would erode trust and create a higher barrier of entry. From my last trip through Uganda and Rwanda there were those interested in znodes and zcoin in general. I think that the more people that can run a node to further decentralized the system, the better off the project will be. That is the reason we are doing a privacy coin with these features. It’s so important from a human rights perspective. I am excited for more partnerships that allows us to spend Zcoin directly or indirectly through the use of visa/mastercards that will let us load up with cryptocurrencies. Now with things like Travala and Bidali I am happy to spend some of my znode rewards after using sigma mint for extra privacy on accomodation and gift cards. I will keep on pushing my favorite merchants to consider adding Zcoin for payments as I really believe in this project and the good important work it is doing.
I also want to throw in that the features that will utilize the masternode structure against 51% attacks plus adding instasend are great for adding more value, credibility, and security to our system.
Tldr; no collateral change please and thank you.
5 Likes
Thanks to whoever raised this topic. My input in no particular order:
- The current or future price is irrelevant for deciding the collateral. DASH anyone … ??
- There is currently a lot of coins locked up in MNs. Also irrelevant. They will cease being locked up when there are worthwhile things to spend Zcoin on that cannot be bought any other way. This is an adoption issue, not a collateral issue. If the only utility of XZC is to save it for your next MN then of course it will stay there.
- Increasing the collateral will increase the short term supply due to those dumping what they have as they perceive the new limit is unattainable
- These will be snapped up cheap by those who already have capital available, and will add to their number of MNs or buy sufficient to make the new threshhold for their only MN. MN ownership will then concentrate in the hands of the already rich (which is just how capitalism is supposed to work)
- Also … not only is there a high number of MNs but there is also a much heavier concentration of mining. 89% for one pool, I noted online as I prepared for this reply.
- Perhaps the rewards for mining are too high and the MN rewards insufficient to justify buying more XZC? Miners are dumping them and MN (or potrential MN) owners can’t be arsed buying them because the ROI is rubbish.
Suggestion - if you are going to make an upward adjustment to the MN collateral then it would be fair and wise to make a similar adjustment to the reward, as well as making the mining algorith more efficient.
Hence, I would recommend increasing the MN collateral to 2000 to decrease the number of MNs - while still retaining thousands. I would also double the MN reward, which if my maths is correct would make it a 50-50 split between miners and MNs. That sounds fair to me.
Thankyou comrades,
Crypto Karl
1 Like
I use Google Translate to translate my post above into English.Hope the block rewards can be paid more reasonably.
The key to a project’s long-term survival is to be able to survive the trough period. During the trough period, the greatest contribution to the project is the R & D team and those who hold zcoin. They are the strong backing of the project during the trough period and deserve more profit distribution. At present, one node needs to mortgage 1,000 coins, so that people who hold hundreds, tens, or even a few coins cannot participate in the distribution of block rewards. This is unreasonable. In order to encourage everyone to buy more and to hold zcoin for a long time, and in order to enable more people to participate in the distribution of benefits, and for the POS many years later, we should reduce the rewards of miners, increase the rewards of holders, and implement a multi-level distribution system (the more zcoin they hold, the more distribution ratio they deserve).
- Reduce the rewards of miners and increase the rewards of holders of zcoin.
At present, there are 25 XZC rewards in a block, which are allocated to miners with 14 XZC (56%), node 7.5XZC (30%), and team and seed investors 3.5XZC (14%). Node income is usually stubbed out as a new node (this can protect the price of zcoin), while the miner’s income is usually sold in the market (this will have a downward impact on the price of zcoin). When the block reward is close to 0 many years later, it is not realistic to rely on POW to protect the network, and it is more realistic to switch to POS. Then I would like to ask a question, when there is a reward in the block, it is not allocated to those who hold hundreds of XZC, But ask them to protect the network when there is almost no reward in the block. Is it reasonable?
Therefore, I recommend allocating 7.5XZC (30%) to miners, and 14 XZC (56%) to those who hold zcoin. - Implement a multi-level distribution system for people holding zcoin
Assigned objects: 5000 XZC super nodes, 1000 XZC ordinary nodes, 200 XZC small nodes, and online wallets without nodes
Total distribution: 14 XZC
Allocation ratio: All nodes get a total of 12.6 XZC (90% of the total), and the return on each coin of the super node> the return on each coin of the ordinary node> the return on each coin of the small node, such as: In a certain period of time, a small node of 200XZC received a total of 1 XZC income, then a common node of 1000XZC can get about 7.5 XZC (the yield per coin is 1.5 times of the former), and a 5000XZC super node During the same period, approximately 56.25 XZC can be obtained (the yield per coin is 1.5 times the former). All online wallets without nodes are divided into 1.4 XZCs in proportion to the number of XZC in the wallet (10%)
A couple of years ago Dash proposed to implement code that would allow ‘trustless masternode shares’ so that people could share masternodes without losing custody of their coins. Sadly no one followed up and it is not yet done for dash.
IMHO this is the way to go to allow many more people to take part! However this will not be easy or straightforward code to do especially if there is a governance element in future … and would probably be the subject of a Zcoin Improvement Proposal (ZIP)
Messing about with the core 1000XZC collateral is a recipe for bad things to happen as described by many people above.
3 Likes
NO! END OF SUBJECT lol
4 Likes
I wonder if this was even possible in the first place. maybe it was just idea but not technically feasible.
Two arguments were made for changing the collateral:
- The amount of XZC locked up in masternodes is negatively affecting liquidity
- Znodes have become too cheap as compared to the USD price in 2017
For the first argument, perhaps we can change the reward given to masternodes, or change another attribute that could affect liquidity. This could also be used to address the second argument by changing the profitability and appeal of operating a masternode.
For the second argument (and overall really), I feel we should just let the open market decide the value of Zcoin and of a masternode. We set an amount of 1000 XZC to own a masternode and by buying a masternode we all agreed that was a fair price. Changing it after the terms were agreed upon feels wrong to me.
It’s great the price is low right now and Znodes are much easier obtainable, hopefully that means more people will buy into ZCOIN for the long term and help support and protect the network!
1 Like
privatecash2019 - I think it is possible - not easy. But I suspect there was no real drive/support for this by those controlling dash funds.
As a related example matheusd has implemented trustless sharing of Decred tickets such that those with only say 10 DCR can be involved in ticket staking.
How does everyone feel about increasing the number of confirmations required to be a Znode to prevent in and outers?
1 Like
Are in-and-outers really a problem? … and does it affect liquidity and Zcoin price that much? It’s already confusing enough for some people when they setup a Znode - without making the confirmation period longer and more difficult for people to know ‘if they got it right’ … and what will it solve making it any longer?
I’m assuming those doing in-and-out would be companies providing short-term Znodes for people to share - and is this really an issue - or a bad thing? I’m sure a lot of us are, or are thinking about, using this kind of service while we save for our own Znodes.
It looks like more people want to hold Zcoin or ‘stake-it’ in Znodes than to speculate on it’s price in an exchange - again - is this really a bad thing? It doesn’t help liquidity or price - but that means the other components of what makes a good coin a good coin need to be worked on like I’ve said before, we need to improve: Utility, Use cases, Partnerships, Incentives - and that will help price and liquidity.
Increasing the confirmations will only upset people that are trying to use Zcoin - at least in some way - and will likely not fix the liquidity issue.
Just my opinion … keep up the good work …
2 Likes
I have not really got a lot to add. I only want to give my support to the excellent comments above which support zero change to the staking amount for a Znode. The more Znodes the more secure the network. The more secure the network the more chance of it being around when it becomes really necessary! ‘Chainlocks’ with only a few nodes in operation won’t be so reassuring. . .
I don’t think that liquidity is the issue here, clearly people are not going to spend something worth $2.5 now which is likely to be worth multiples of that in a few months time. If you ask me there is not likely to be real adoption taking place until the mobile wallets are shit hot and ‘instaspend’ is available - which is another case for having lots of MNs on the network.
Well done Zcoin team, this project is visionary, keep up the good work!
3 Likes