Quote from: ranlo on July 25, 2017, 12:23:28 PM

The WORST thing you can do for long-term DVC members/contributors is not reward for existing holding. You would essentially be saying "So you contributed to DVC? Cool. You held your coins instead of dumping them because you believed in the project? Well, you should have just tanked it with the others because now you get nothing at all! Oh, by the way, interested in joining us on a new project?" Anyone that did this would end up with no reason NOT to continually dump at that point, because you'd be showing that it's the "right" thing to do.

I don't agree but share the frustration.

Quote

You would literally be rewarding those that contributed nothing and continually dumped their free coins on the market, which is at least part of what caused this anyways (price was MUCH higher, 120+ satoshis, before a huge influx of people started getting added to the receivers. As more people were added, the more dumps occurred, which can be seen by just following its history).

It may not reward holders but it wouldn't reward those that contributed nothing. Otherwise that's not generally correct. There are definitely many issues with share allocations/concentrations but shares actually function(ed) as a pseudo measure of difficulty.

We know that:
$ value of share = DVC per share * DVC/BTC * BTC/USD

Just rearranged = DVC/BTC = $ share value/(DVC per share * (BTC/USD))

Therefore the more shares, the higher DVC price. This has always been the biggest issue. The early period of highest prices was an outlier because the few participants were believers rather than participants in a sustainable project.

What's perhaps debatable is whether price leads shares or vice-versa (I think price leads shares) but if you plot the two you'll see they track. What should have happened was an adjustment to dynamic supply where generation is inverse to dvc per share. Or something like that.