Quote from: gormae on October 01, 2016, 09:00:11 PM

I've invested, but I'd be interested in thoughts on this -

The value of incent rises and merchants want to continue to reward their customers with incent. Unfortunately, due to incent's value, it's only feasible to reward customers with a percentage of incent. Merchants are now rewarding customers with 0.001 incent. This reduces incent's perceived value for loyalty participants upon their introduction as theyre not even receiving a whole token. Bitcoin has this issue. People want to own at least ONE of something.

When customers receive 2000 flybuys, they're excited and have no idea of the value. Having 2000 of something just seems like a big deal and generates interest.

If a merchant sells a product for $5, they're not going to be able to reward with whole incent tokens forever - even at the 25c low cap, there's an adoption issue.

Why so little coins from the start and why the cap, why not change it? This all seems quite obvious from a marketing perspective, so am I missing something here? Is the goal not mass adoption?

I love the fact that you are thinking about and challenging this concept and to your specific point, Incent won't be displayed to either merchants or consumers as tokens - but rather as 'digital value' in their local tender. The token is the fuel but it exists 'under the bonnet'. Recall Intel's annoying little jingle against the words "Incent Inside" - ;-)

Consumers receiving 2000 plastic points and having 'no idea of the value' is precisely what we are trying to move away from.

RW.