Quote from: AORNET on May 27, 2018, 01:28:18 PM

Quote

Considering devs are holding 4% from pre-mine (ie. 420000, resp 420 MN) is not good. They are receiving over 15% of all newly created coins which means they will end with about 2 millions coins in the end which is 20% of total supply ever.
Based on this this, real pre-mine will be actually up to 20% not 4%. They can easily manipulate price, dump anytime, whatever they wish. Actually they receive much more coins because many coins are paid to them for operations.

They should fix these parameters to make platform more economically sensible for others. I suggest burning part of received coins to decrease supply and to decrease their strong monopoly position on the market and create incentive for other investors.

I like the GIN platform but economical point of view (described above) is far from being acceptable for future investment due to dev overwhelming control over supply. I hope the team will fix it. It would be bad to destroy such a project just for a greed.

My suggestion is: lock your 4% of your pre-mined coins (don't use them for your masternodes), put to market 1% or less per year max and also burn half GINs you receive from operations. Then the platform can be invested, evaluated and growing from capitalization point of view long-term. Right now I would not recommend it to anyone for investment.

Reasonable, but remember also that allowing third parties to control and manipulate an entire project, leads to a bigger disaster. Just look at the 51% attacks lately. This is the consequence of an excessive decentralization; centralization is not always bad, it's based on the admins intentions (bigger stake for the devs, bigger interest in a serious growth). BTC also it could be easily controlled by the early bids, and we're still considering it the digital counterpart of gold. How many BTCs does Satoshi Nakamoto possess? It could be easily 3M, if not more.

Third parties could manipulate the project as well but it would cost them big money so they would need to invest first. To what? To destroy their investment? Real numbers here are even worse than I described previously because devs can create new masternodes form huge emission of these initial 420 master-nodes so they have since the beginning - so they can have even 800 masternodes right now. It can be not that bad if they behave reasonably but also very dangerous for other investors when they don't. If I buy coins for full price today, in five minutes (if they want) they can dump the price to 10 cents and shock the market as they like without being worried too much.

So now at least 3 things would be needed.
1. Reasonable promises not to stressfully flood the market with coins to manipulate price (let's say don't cash more than 1% of current GIN supply per year)
2. Bring some "burn up" plan to partially destroy percentage of coins that are obtain as GIN platform operational cost. I suggest to burn 50% of coins obtain from platform operational fees.
3. Give promise to keep majority the remaining GINs locked (not used for MN or to realize profits) to give better condition for small and new investors and to give positive outlook to the market long-term.

crnewbie

Posts

Merits