Quote from: ngin-x on August 20, 2017, 09:44:43 AM

Quote from: Krypto-Jack on August 19, 2017, 10:38:08 PM

i think they are said something about a cap or a control on production of coins , its infinate due to the amount of plays that could be generated over many years , it would be a crazy high number , i read they are changing the 1MC per play model and doing a UBI solution , Universal basic income payed for by mining the coins, they are pegging the artist money on Fiat not on the Musicoin Price or BTC price , from what i understood that is i could be mistaken , i think they have realised that the coin value needs to be much higher and limited , so it wont need an infinate number , they should cap the coin , create value and in 5 years be a trillion $ entity hosting a billion artists with a coin worth £1000 supporting a global planatery music system , its absolutly possible with BlockChain Dapps , and the local access supercomputers for cheap, Brave New World folks !

UBI sounds good in theory but it's another move that will suppress the price further. Correct me if I am wrong but UBI will ensure artists get paid a portion of the mining rewards so that users can listen to songs for free. Music will be reduced to a mere tipping coin. How do they expect the demand for Music coin to rise if nobody is forced to buy it? It's good for the users but bad for the holders.

you have a fair argument , lets hope musicoin can ad some clarity to the situation , if other projects are being built off the back of musicoin network wouldnt it be better to have a model that brings value to the coin to make it worth mining , no miners no network !

linking the coin to the 1MC play was a bad idea in the first place , people want to flow though music listening to as much as they can hassle free with out dealing with linked market rates on a coin in both the crypto and Fiat systems , in what is already a hard place to deal with , moving fiat into crypto needs to be alot easier .
as people use and absorb music they know they are paying for it but they know they are getting a good deal for lots of content , it costs alot of money to make music & time , to have to give it away just for exposure is wrong , then to sign a deal and give 65% away to the publisher is a raw deal , ownership of music costs money , all the different rights holders in each country , too many middlemen ! music shouldnt be cheap if people spend years and years of thier lives dedicated to an art form, greedy greedy corperations forced music to be cheap & free, thats why they are a combined Trillion $ Industry and artists are broke.

Musicoin should be capped , it should be the bitcoin of the music industry what they have is an amazing oppertunity ....................will they make the right choices only time will tell