Quote from: Apollyon2017 on June 01, 2018, 06:05:33 AM

Quote from: r1s2g3 on June 01, 2018, 02:25:27 AM

If I got you right, then it means the final destination of all GOOD token will be shopomy app instead of exchange.

But only thing now puzzle me how the shopomy accounts are getting created with GOOD$. It means some token should be burned when a account is created. Otherwise creating a shopomy account/or rewards distribution/ bounty in shopomy app is just creating a additional wealth (i.e inflation).

Good idea. It will avoid the point where Good tokens will be useless since Good Dollars can be created out of thin air without accountability. Burn Good Tokens in proportion to the existing App Exchange rate.

Having no blockchain of its own where we can trace the flow of coins and wallets, it will be possible for a rogue programmer or even a hacker to create for himself some Good dollars that can greatly affect the App's and the whole Goodomy economy.

Good dollars cannot be created out of thin air. All values must add up and be attributed to some verifiable action. We're developing a kind of block lattice where any value that isn't connected to multiple other values will be made obvious and perhaps quarantined. Transparency is in the works, but we're still quite new. As noted previously, the idea is to move GOOD dollars to its own sidechain or blockchain where transactions (and supply) can be input into a ledger.

One of my first considerations was to create a method where hacking would actually benefit rather than harm the economy. If a hacker managed to create $300,000 for himself and this somehow went un-noticed, they would have 2 choices: 1) keep it in their wallet; or 2) use it - one transaction at a time - to provide liquidity to businesses, limited to the discount value of inventory on offer.

This wouldn't be a scenario like where an exchange is hacked and someone makes off with x value. The hacker's actions in the above scenario would normally benefit businesses. 1 GOOD = 1 USD of value that must be used with it on either side of the transaction.

If the hacker decided to buy a Lamborghini with his loot, then it could mean that the car dealership might obtain less tokens from the marketplace (if that was their intention). It could also mean that the dealership sold something they might not otherwise have been able to and would then have a $300,000 GOOD reward for someone else to buy another car. This might help to convince them that retail mining is good for their business, as well as tell others about it. It is possible that the hacker might provide a service to the economy, but there is no way to measure this. Hacking is still a negative but at least we can minimize the effect and turn it into more of a positive.

That being said, such a system is in the works and will probably be based off of EOS.