I am super happy that people are expressing their opinions here regardless which way it is. It means people give a shit about the project. Keep it coming. Don’t forget the weigh in on the algorithm change poll as well.
7 Likes
I am also against the change of algorithm. MTP is very good and has proven its robustness against ASICS. Or perhaps a policy change to favor the ASICS, it’s all about a strategic choice. I am not against changing the algorithm if it is an assumed choice to allow big mining players to mine Zcoin. It is also a way of encouraging the entry of new investors. If it’s changing the algorithm and preventing ASICS, it’s already the case today so I see no reason to change!
Keep the collateral at the current 1000 XZC. As expressed in previous posts I don’t see a liquidity issue stemming from this. Changing this economic parameter will create a lot of confusion and distrust in the Znode project. Some existing Znode operators would probably considering shutting off their Znode(s) - and with it their support for the project. I would most likely terminate my two Znodes if such a change would be made.
And as to the argument that Znodes are too cheap: End of 2017 / Early 2018 were the “crazy” times with prices going through the roof. A lot of people were flush with crypto gains and were able to afford the higher Znodes prices. With the crypto market cut by multiples in the bear market people are not so flush anymore and the current Znode prices are only relatively cheap.
7 Likes
This sums up how I feel; would hate to see the collateral requirements change. I was attracted to this project for many reasons, but it was the nodes that originally caught my attention. This would kick many node holders while they are down after staying the course for so long.
8 Likes
Keep in mind that there are some of us who have been accumulating Zcoin all the way from 70$ down to this prices just to host a mn. Changing anything isn’t a good decision as it will abuse the trust of the community. There are people who bought xzc mn for $90k and u want to change it just like that Bcus the price dumped? Doesn’t sound like what someone who have human sympathy would even think of. Should be thinking of how to get some whales to pump the price.
8 Likes
我本身已经运行几个znode 把znode的抵押提高对我本身没有太大的影响
但是就如上面所说的，提高抵押的确不能增加zcoin交易的流动性，两者并没有绝对的关联。
而且抵押这个数额不应该随便修改 对于zcoin的社区很大的影响
币的社区是扮演很重要的角色，以太坊都知道社区的重要性 我们得更关心并了解社区的想法。
4 Likes
一个项目能够长期生存的关键在于要能安全度过低谷期，而在低谷期对项目贡献最大的是研发团队、持有零币者，他们是项目在低谷期的坚强后盾，理应得到更多的利益分配。目前1个节点要抵押1000个币，使得持有几百个、几十个甚至几个币的人没能参与区块奖励的利益分配，这是不合理的，为了鼓励大家更多地买入并长期持有零币，也为了能使更多人参与利益分配，更为了很多年后的POS，我们应该减少挖矿者的奖励，增加持有零币者的奖励，并对持有零币的人实行多级分配制（持有的零币越多越应该得到更多的分配比例）。
1.减少挖矿者的奖励，增加持有零币者的奖励
目前一个区块的奖励有25个XZC，分配给挖矿者14个XZC（占比56%）、节点7.5XZC（占比30%）、团队与种子投资者3.5XZC（占比14%）。节点收益通常还会被攒起来做新的节点（这对零币的价格能起保护作用），而挖矿者的收益通常会在市场上卖出（这会对零币的价格产生向下的压力），更何况若干年后区块奖励接近于0时，寄希望于POW来保护网络不太现实，转向POS更为现实，那我想问一下，现在区块里有奖励的时候不分配给那些持有几百个XZC的人，等到区块里几乎没奖励的时候却要求他们来保护网络，这合理吗？
所以，我建议分配给挖矿者7.5XZC（占比30%），而把14个XZC（占比56%）分配给持有零币的人。
2.对持有零币的人实行多级分配制
分配对象：5000个XZC的超级节点、1000个XZC的普通节点、200个XZC的小节点、未做节点的在线钱包
分配总额：14个XZC
分配比例：所有节点合计分得12.6个XZC（占比90%），且要使超级节点每个币的收益率 > 普通节点每个币的收益率 > 小节点每个币的收益率，比如：在某段时间内，一个200XZC的小节点总共获得了1个XZC的收益，那么一个1000XZC的普通节点同期大约能获得7.5个XZC（每币收益率是前者的1.5倍），一个5000XZC的超级节点同期大约能获得56.25个XZC（每币收益率是前者的1.5倍）。未做节点的所有在线钱包依据钱包中的XZC数量按比例瓜分1.4个XZC（占比10%）。strong text
3 Likes
Is there someplace to formally vote, or do we just leave a comment here?
My input: Please don’t change the collateral requirement or remove Znodes. Nodes and privacy are what attracted me to this project. If you get rid of Znodes, I’ll leave. (It’s what differentiates Zcoin from other non-masternode privacy projects.) I’d hate to see the collateral change simply based on price. I also don’t get the liquidity argument. The bear market won’t last forever, and when it turns around, a higher coin requirement will make it impossible for others to get nodes. Leave it as is, and let the market play out.
3 Likes
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