Quote from: Gandalf86 on October 26, 2016, 07:11:04 PM

"Value" is not a valid argument IMO. The value of the entire chain depends on the practical use for it. If the practical use requires a high amount of coins (which was the reason I voted against lowering the coin amount during swap), if having much fewer coins would essentially render the whole thing unusable for the planned use cases, then well we will need another swap to increase the amount of coins again. Re-using unclaimed coins from other people is politically incorrect though, albeit much simpler than doing another swap.

@CryptoCoderz What negative effects would result from the hard cap being reached "too fast"? I don't think mining plays an essential role in applying a currency...

Okay so here's the rundown.

If we burn:

- Everyone hardforks and chain is completely re-calibrated (hardcap must be redone or the chain will never reach the 50B intended Cap)
- This will cause delay in development as there will need to be time put in for updating, upgrading all nodes and informing all exchanges, service providers of hardfork.
- The Devs go back to raising funds for giveaways and promotions as we would all only have our personal balances like before and hence why there were little bounties ever tied to this, everything else was given away
- On the positive the chain will payout longer before hardcapping.

If we DONT burn:

- Development can focus on features and updates
- The chain technically would have picked up where it left off (as ESP2 was premined the same amount as ESP1 will be mined out to as of the end of swap date)
- Unswapped Espers2 would go into a community voted upon "trust" address. Where they would sit in stasis only being scraped at for community agreed upon faucets, giveaways, competitions and such (THIS WOULD BE A COMMUNITY FUND)
- Overall market value doesn't become affected as the unswapped coins will never be spent by the dev team in any markets yet current and new users would benefit from being able to run faucets and the like.

That's our outlook on the situation. There is considerable voicing in favor of burning for market value increase, this will not increase the market value at all. There are still 50Billion total coins to be made, if many are burned it simply means the the miners and bagholders will gain more over a longer period of time to offset the burn and ESP2 would not longer pickup from ESP1's spot in terms of total mined coins.

As for the political correctness we agree with. It is absolutely unfair for the dev team to split it up like a fat bonus check or anything of the sort and that was never the intention.
We simply thought of this as an excellent opportunity to utilize already accounted for coins from the first chain that were not claimed due to users exiting or other reasons for Pushing Espers, we don't even have a faucet for users to be able to go to to get into this, we don't really have any bounties to offer other than the ones that the dev members personally choose to pay for, it's a little ridiculous and a COMMUNITY fund would solve this issue.

Everything would be voted upon by the community including what faucets were used, what the payout rate is, what giveaways to run, and the list goes on of course.
Otherwise like we said before, we do not mind burning them and we will if that is the final decision by the community.

Quote from: zsnorbi on October 26, 2016, 07:14:22 PM

Quote from: Gandalf86 on October 26, 2016, 07:11:04 PM

"Value" is not a valid argument IMO. The value of the entire chain depends on the practical use for it. If the practical use requires a high amount of coins (which was the reason I voted against lowering the coin amount during swap), if having much fewer coins would essentially render the whole thing unusable for the planned use cases, then well we will need another swap to increase the amount of coins again. Re-using unswapped coins from other people is politically incorrect though, albeit much simpler than doing another swap.

IMO value is also given by the trading volume but as long as the coin is traded in litoshis it has from zero to very low attention

Burning the coins would have ZERO impact on value

Quote from: Tastiger on October 26, 2016, 08:40:44 PM

Reading through this I tend to think stick with the plan rather than burn anything. I am hardly knowledgeable enough to know the effects of burning or not but to me a resource for marketing and promotion of Espers seems rather needed at this stage. The coin must be known about, does that not go hand in hand with usability and liquidity, value even?
As the hard work of the developers is added to Espers these new features must be promoted to attract new users to the project bringing along with them strength and life to Espers.

This ^^^ is what we're trying to say. Again IF it is decided not to burn the COMMUNITY would be the one's in control of the functions that dispense anything from the fund

Quote from: alexcfr on October 26, 2016, 08:50:53 PM

just send me all the unswapped :-)
or burn them...

by the way is it possible to let the coin symbol to ESP instead of ESP2
as investor i'm always suspicious about coin version 2

Once ESP1 shuts down the ticker will be changed from ESP2 to ESP. It is only a temporary measure during swap.

@Everyone,

We only argue to state a possible beneficial alternative to burning that we saw. We want to work with you and aren't going to twist anyone's arm.
That being said informing you all that there is an alternative to burning that also doesn't wind up in a dev's pocket is possible and probably a great choice.

Again, we will burn if that's the end decision but let's discuss this a little more first. We have some time prior to swap end to discuss proper usage of the unswapped coins.
(Bear in mind that the Novaexchange swap will not account for 2 of the Dev's funds being swapped and few other users as there were some manual swaps done)