015

[4d5af]

MODERATION UPDATE: The discussion here relates to a draft of the following open QIP proposal: https://github.com/theQRL/qips/blob/master/qips/QIP016.md Importantly, the substance of the proposal has been significantly enhanced and those wishing to contribute to the discussion are advised to review this updated proposal before commenting here.

QIP: 016 Layer: Node Title: Reduce emissions rate of the network Author: 4d5a Comments-Summary: Comments-URI: https://github.com/theQRL/qips/pull/32 Status: Open Type: Proposal Created: 2021-08-14

{{TOC}}

Reduce emissions rate of the network

Abstract

This proposal suggests that the emissions rate of the network should be cut by 90%

Motivation

The motivation of this proposal is to reduce the volume of miner dump on the already small liquidity pool of the network. By reducing the rate of emissions, the overall value per coin can start to rise. The goal being to start moving back up the CMC rankings board and attracting the attention the project deserves. Drastic action is called for to start moving the project forward in the crypto community.

Specification

The rate of emissions should be cut by 90%

Backward compatibility

N/A

Implementation

A relatively simple hard fork is required.

[jplomas]

Wide discussion about both the concept and the size of the reduction is welcomed. The development team invite and encourage interested parties to contribute on this thread.

[bsnoot]

I support this \:D/

[ElijahGartin]

I concur

[Ottslayer]

As QIP10 from 2019 might suggest: I am all for an emission cut by 90%.

In my opinion this will be good for both the price of qrl (miners won´t sell for a loss) and will generate more visibility for qrl in general through a higher cmc ranking.

Also the discussion about the enqlave costs being to high for the transfer of tokens might be a different one when the price has adjusted to the lower emission rate.

So:

I do support this QIP!

[cooper7777]

I support. We have to do it as soon as possible. But we can return to the discussion of the emission when the POS is ready.

[bsnoot]

I support. We have to do it as soon as possible. But we can return to the discussion of the emission when the POS is ready.

I agree with this as well.

[Uricon1]

If all the miners abandon QRL what mitigation measures will be needed to ensure the security of the network? (Eg 51% attack)

[4d5af]

If all the miners abandon QRL what mitigation measures will be needed to ensure the security of the network? (Eg 51% attack)

It would probably be wise to ensure that some baseline level of protection was available. however, for a 51% attack to work, there has to be a route to cash out. currently there really isn't one.

[AERProductions]

I also support this (AERProductions / prophesied).

Mod: Discord chat log of another user's comments removed

[AERProductions]

If all the miners abandon QRL what mitigation measures will be needed to ensure the security of the network? (Eg 51% attack)

It would probably be wise to ensure that some baseline level of protection was available. however, for a 51% attack to work, there has to be a route to cash out. currently there really isn't one.

No worries about 51% attack, QRL has already taken that into consideration and has protections in place.

[happysmash27]

I'm personally mildly opposed to this QIP, since it will make it harder to mine once my pool finally gets back online, and I still don't have the minimum number of QRL for a POS pool yet, assuming the number isn't reduced in the future. Other QRL miners may feel similarly due to the reduced profitability, as measured in QRL, of mining.

Only mildly, though, since it does seem this could help with CMC rankings, which could help with exchange listings. If we are higher on CMC, we get more exchange listings and more attention, which makes it easier to use QRL rather than just mine more of it.

[DonFixi]

I support this QIP, but 90% cut may be excessive - IDK.

Main reason dilution:

• The whitepaper promised, but the team has not delivered, a PoS chain yet. This unfortunate situation is continuously hurting with much dilution the original supporters since PoW mainnet.
• PoW under Cn7 ASICS/Botnets wildly diluted the coin price preventing much of its price growth during its ATH.
• PoW under RandomX keeps diluting the coin price partially due to lack broad interest/exchange availability.

IMO - PoW decentralization is ok, and has done very good among ASIC/GPU/CPU miners by now to support their operations. However, for the reasons mentioned above, I think the same as the author. PoW is hurting the project economics at this stage.

[happysmash27]

It should also be noted, market cap is a function of price, and amount of circulation. Reducing emissions means there is not as much in circulation over time, but I am not sure how much this would affect the market cap compared to the price increase, nor how much the market cap would be effected at all. It would help a lot if there was a good way to predict exactly how this would effect things.

[snannerb]

I support this... QRL is in a worldwide ecosystem with other blockchains and must compete with the economical factors of mining relative to the costs of supporting these networks .. Current factors include the exposure gained from coin list websites (cmc,coingecko,ect) The current state of this crypto ecosystem has a disproportionate funding/awareness towards the top pages of these coin lists.. QRL represents from an educational standpoint a solution to what is believed to be a gigantic issue with encryption .. How can the market become aware of this issue when QRL is on page 9 ... The time factor is running out with both Quantum computing advancements and also the amount of projects being added daily to the crypto ecosystem .. I understand why taking steps like QIP015 to gain visibility are necessary .

[Uricon1]

YOLO.

JFDI.

Leroy Jenkins.

Fortune favours the Brave.

[surg0r]

Reducing issuance inevitably reduces the cost for a successful 51% attack. However, such a malicious reorg attack would fail as a method to steal from exchanges given our reorg limit protection (exchanges simply set confirmation limits longer than the reorg limit to be secure).

There is an economic balancing act between reducing new mining supply which is sold on exchanges versus keeping the network healthy with multiple mining pools and a healthy number of active mining validator nodes.

Consideration should also be given to what blockheight is chosen for a hard fork and allowing the majority of the network to be upgraded in time.

I support this QIP but wonder if 90% is too great a reduction?

[jackalyst]

Great to see some discussion on QRL's emission rate. A few thoughts:

As many are aware, we follow an exponential decay model to distribute 40m QRL over a 200 year period. As emission policies go, exponential decay is unique in that it contains a long tail beyond the end date (see the last line here: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/theqrl-community/qrl-tokenomics/main/data/emissions.daily.200yr.c.csv). This long tail ensures a continuation of block rewards for many years to come.

I also think it's important for this conversation to get some context of how QRL relates with other blockchain projects. To do so, I started with the data from crypto-monetary-base and added QRL to see where it fits into the mix, with the following result:

To me, the chart seems to signal that our annual inflation reflects that of other blockchain projects. Ideally, I'd like to see a stable monetary policy, whatever that may be. Regardless of the change, once it happens, QRL's issuance may seem too flexible to some and may induce uncertainty towards future issuance.

As for the amount, 90% may be a bit much, (~0.5 QRL/block), but it may also be necessary. Preferably, the reduction would be based on some data (ie. maybe 90% of people mining dump QRL to market?). Of course a new starting target could be based off something like the GDP growth over 10 years (while still being deflationary). Tying the the initial issuance to a defined inflationary target (while remaining deflationary in nature) seems sane. For example, if that inflationary target is 1%, the starting emission would be about 1.4 QRL/block and decrease from there to reach a total population of 105m.

[henryfacey]

I disagree with this for the time being. There is not nearly enough mining or trading going on to justify this. Inherently that means QRL really doesn't use lots of energy, especially in comparison to the big daddy bitcoin. Nah man, this isn’t gonna sell anyone on this for any reason other than an artificial pump in volume.

These exchanges want social media interest, period; not 5 likes on twitter posts from current pre PoS investors like QRL currently has. They want to see actual, real deal market interest. Why be there to give up server space for something that wont be traded because no one cares yet?

PoS leads to consolidation like a flip of a switch, while PoW leads to dilution of the concentrations of wealth held by original stakeholders through means like mining. Other than the obvious QC attack, I believe 51% is the only other argument against any PoW system. In the case of this, I believe this is irrelevant due to the volume currently of trading QRL daily. If it was such a threat, you’d see a lot more people going for this opportunity right now; QRL is the future.

I get this idea to an extent; mining was used originally with QRL for volume, interest, value transfer, market cap, etc. it also incentivised people to work for the blockchain as opposed to be at stake to that blockchain.

Since there is no overhead cost of PoS and its purely based on nothing but staking validations, it removes that inherent argument that “a lot of the emissions cost will be removed” that has always been marketed. This, in my opinion, was nothing but a bold marketing tool to promote gambling and not working/investing in your own wealth a decentralization. It was also to help consolidate the power now in the same hands of the people who “mined the coin into a downward spiral” to begin with, and of course any large pre PoS investor, with all the fruits of PoW competitor losses.

However, this will leave no room for smaller shareholders to ever reach the size of these originals, thus leaving all the power in the original share holders to validate (dictate) who can and cannot perform transactions and how they will be validated in any stage thereafter. This to me is eerily similar to current fiat currencies. Just think of the Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, Soros, etc.

All proof of stake validation processes will inevitably be done by the value from the largest original share holders, using computers to consolidate power over the currencies trajectory further; just like the stock market right now. That is effectively proof of stake.

PoW was never a problem for bitcoin or anything based on the bitcoin, only those trying to compete who cannot offer as good of market access with an asset worth mining over. While this may pump the price up in the short term, this could have very negative long term effects if we all as a community bank on the very few people validating transactions to be the same ones potentially holding the most stake in that currency.

If we worry about a few people being able to take advantage of the mining system, then I believe we should feel the same way with validators of transactions = those who have the most stake. It becomes a gambling game for lowers and a power trip for pre PoS position holders. I just don’t like that in concept.

I get the ideas with the artificial pump, emissions drop marketing ploy, and hope of a gigantic staking spree, but I have my doubts about how easily that system could be manipulated for targeted monetary censorship.

In short, with Proof of Work, it is peer to peer, or truly decentralized. In proof of stake, the largest investors gain the most say, and are thus able to dictate validations surprisingly easier, leading to a potential conflicts of interest for smaller stakeholders. As the value of the currency is artificially rising by the same liquidity from these same validators for their computers on exchanges, it will lead to further consolidation of power with automated trading. While it can help lower emissions costs, it inherently tries to do so by getting rid of all effort (mining) and costs (energy, computers, etc) that get put in on a regular basis to give a coin value past how much it is being bought or sold.

It helps consolidate for the big guy who got in early or who owned a lot to begin with because they helped develop it or invest in it, and leaves the little guy who's genuinely interested in mining or investing energy in a project, even as the costs of everything would go up. (Cpu parts, fees, internet service, electricity, etc.) This is all so a third party validator can be there for transactions, similar to banks with fiat currently. In my opinion, bitcoin holds more physical, real tangible value than Ethereum, as much more carbon is needed to run it with mining, and manpower is needed to get that carbon, and silicon, and the power lines up, and everything. Ethereum does not, and is held up on only the validation and stake which is broken, as your stake determines your ability to validate transactions on the blockchain. This consolidates wealth, power, and rights of the individual to the third party validating that process, which will be the people who invested the most before PoS (devs, rich people, rich people, rich people, etc…..) Thats it.

Thats my point of view on the matter and due to the amount of people who have had bank accounts attacked who were conservative online, and/or a third party who dislikes something because the transaction is linked to “misinformation” so it cant be “validated.” It will be used as a tool to take advantage of smaller people making transactions.

After people were removed off social media through covid for almost any reason on the right, I want away from that third party type of system (like social media, banks, etc), and unfortunately, this seemingly isn’t that.

Thanks for any consideration anyone.

[cyyber]

I agree with the emission reduction. However, 90% will be too much for PoW and any reduction % we select must be done carefully, as it could be something that will impact the daily profit of miners, the mining pool and impact the trade volume on exchanges.

However, a 90% reduction or something around 90% will make more sense, if QRL moves from PoW to PoS.

[cooper7777]

However, this will leave no room for smaller shareholders to ever reach the size of these originals, thus leaving all the power in the original share holders to validate (dictate) who can and cannot perform transactions and how they will be validated in any stage thereafter. This to me is eerily similar to current fiat currencies. Just think of the Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, Soros, etc.

POW never was the way to distribute supply between small shareholders. It was just only the way to mantain the network. If you want to be POS validator, just go and buy your bag. And you will always have such opportunity.

[henryfacey]

I get that, but that defeats the purpose of a decentralized ledger; it centralizes the power in pre PoS stakeholders hands and I think that just isn’t very fair. The QRL team is trying to turn this into a business, even though its a foundation and “decentralized ledger.”

The only version of peer to peer or decentralized trading is bitcoin or its derivatives, or things like the current version of QRL.

It is simply the wrong idea to take the power away from individuals who spend months to pay off just their rigs (as blocks get more complicated) and everybody is mining, as well as the individual user of a crypto, just for the benefit of the largest stakeholders.

This is the classic Marxist type business model we all fear in America. This is exactly what multi-national corporate facists do, as well as all other people who dictate others actions in this world (all social media, the chinese communist party, etc.). I dont think because you had a bunch of money from so other venture, and you are rich, you should beat out most of us who are under 35. Qrl was a chance for the little guy to trade a currency even the government couldnt sestroy; now that is easily possible with stakeholder robots and pre existing shareholders like (potentially) some (not all) of the lack luster developers or initial investors, most of which we are already all kissing their ass “for improvements and investment.” Since they probably control a lot more of the hash rate of mining, and buying the coin on coin tiger, these same devs and investors can justify the fluctuations as “mining dumps” and call the non progression of the crypto “an emissions problem.” Its total load, and in my opinion, its clearly and obviously meant to consolidate power.

For the record, I almost never mine QRL, and I have plenty of investment right now. I will be fine if this happens financially. I just think, in the future, this is detrimental to the idea of decentralized, and with stateful hash based signature backing all of this (eventually some equally trackable lattice algo), this is inevitably meant to track and control your currencies value and if any or all transactions are even acceptable to those large shareholders. Its truly turning this from decentralized, to basically a private company.

After sleeping on this, I disagree with this idea even more.

[cooper7777]

I get that, but that defeats the purpose of a decentralized ledger; it centralizes the power in pre PoS stakeholders hands and I think that just isn’t very fair. The QRL team is trying to turn this into a business, even though its a foundation and “decentralized ledger.”

The same story with POW. How much can you do with your average several KiloHashes Per Second from your average desctop? There are mining farms that transform capital to computing power. And then what's the "pre PoS stakeholders"? QRL will be tradable even after POS launch :-)

The only version of peer to peer or decentralized trading is bitcoin or its derivatives, or things like the current version of QRL.

It is simply the wrong idea to take the power away from individuals who spend months to pay off just their rigs (as blocks get more complicated) and everybody is mining, as well as the individual user of a crypto, just for the benefit of the largest stakeholders.

No problem. There are enough other coins with RandomX.

This is the classic Marxist type business model we all fear in America. This is exactly what multi-national corporate facists do, as well as all other people who dictate others actions in this world (all social media, the chinese communist party, etc.). I dont think because you had a bunch of money from so other venture, and you are rich, you should beat out most of us who are under 35. Qrl was a chance for the little guy to trade a currency even the government couldnt sestroy; now that is easily possible with stakeholder robots and pre existing shareholders like (potentially) some (not all) of the lack luster developers or initial investors, most of which we are already all kissing their ass “for improvements and investment.” Since they probably control a lot more of the hash rate of mining, and buying the coin on coin tiger, these same devs and investors can justify the fluctuations as “mining dumps” and call the non progression of the crypto “an emissions problem.” Its total load, and in my opinion, its clearly and obviously meant to consolidate power.

There is no need to drag Marxism here. QRL is not a means of solving social problems. It is a vehicle for transmitting value.

For the record, I almost never mine QRL, and I have plenty of investment right now. I will be fine if this happens financially. I just think, in the future, this is detrimental to the idea of decentralized, and with stateful hash based signature backing all of this (eventually some equally trackable lattice algo), this is inevitably meant to track and control your currencies value and if any or all transactions are even acceptable to those large shareholders. Its truly turning this from decentralized, to basically a private company.

Centralization issues have nothing to do with it. Do you think mining is a way to give coins to the poor? No, the bulk of the coins in any case are received by the owners of large computing power.

[JohnTitor21]

CMC ranking is an imperfect system that unfortunately has a negative impact on the awareness of this project, allowing hundreds of meme coins, scam coins, or projects otherwise less "worthy" of their ranking in relation to QRL to receive comparatively more visibility.

I support this QIP as I feel it is warranted to raise the project's market cap and awareness. Would be ideal to get more comments from miners here.

[4d5af]

Reducing issuance inevitably reduces the cost for a successful 51% attack. However, such a malicious reorg attack would fail as a method to steal from exchanges given our reorg limit protection (exchanges simply set confirmation limits longer than the reorg limit to be secure).

There is an economic balancing act between reducing new mining supply which is sold on exchanges versus keeping the network healthy with multiple mining pools and a healthy number of active mining validator nodes.

Consideration should also be given to what blockheight is chosen for a hard fork and allowing the majority of the network to be upgraded in time.

I support this QIP but wonder if 90% is too great a reduction?

In my mind there are two options for hitting on a good number for a cut.

The first is, eyeballing it. Which is what I've done here. Its not an ideal solution and simply solves the problem bluntly.

The second option is to find some route to measure real demand and tune the coin to come in below that. Ultimately any methodology we could employ there will also, at its core, be a guess.

In my mind, it would be easier to go hard (90% cut) than it would be to go for the more ideal line at this stage. It would be a lot easier to get miners to take a pay raise rather than take another pay cut should we need to move the needle again.

[AERProductions]

Reducing issuance inevitably reduces the cost for a successful 51% attack. However, such a malicious reorg attack would fail as a method to steal from exchanges given our reorg limit protection (exchanges simply set confirmation limits longer than the reorg limit to be secure). There is an economic balancing act between reducing new mining supply which is sold on exchanges versus keeping the network healthy with multiple mining pools and a healthy number of active mining validator nodes. Consideration should also be given to what blockheight is chosen for a hard fork and allowing the majority of the network to be upgraded in time. I support this QIP but wonder if 90% is too great a reduction?

In my mind there are two options for hitting on a good number for a cut.

The first is, eyeballing it. Which is what I've done here. Its not an ideal solution and simply solves the problem bluntly.

The second option is to find some route to measure real demand and tune the coin to come in below that. Ultimately any methodology we could employ there will also, at its core, be a guess.

In my mind, it would be easier to go hard (90% cut) than it would be to go for the more ideal line at this stage. It would be a lot easier to get miners to take a pay raise rather than take another pay cut should we need to move the needle again.

What about my recommendation in the discord of a timed-release cut. So it could be 40%-60%-80% and then the final 90% cut if it is needed after the first three. This could give better information as to where exactly we are at economically.

[4d5af]

Reducing issuance inevitably reduces the cost for a successful 51% attack. However, such a malicious reorg attack would fail as a method to steal from exchanges given our reorg limit protection (exchanges simply set confirmation limits longer than the reorg limit to be secure). There is an economic balancing act between reducing new mining supply which is sold on exchanges versus keeping the network healthy with multiple mining pools and a healthy number of active mining validator nodes. Consideration should also be given to what blockheight is chosen for a hard fork and allowing the majority of the network to be upgraded in time. I support this QIP but wonder if 90% is too great a reduction?

In my mind there are two options for hitting on a good number for a cut. The first is, eyeballing it. Which is what I've done here. Its not an ideal solution and simply solves the problem bluntly. The second option is to find some route to measure real demand and tune the coin to come in below that. Ultimately any methodology we could employ there will also, at its core, be a guess. In my mind, it would be easier to go hard (90% cut) than it would be to go for the more ideal line at this stage. It would be a lot easier to get miners to take a pay raise rather than take another pay cut should we need to move the needle again.

What about my recommendation in the discord of a timed-release cut. So it could be 40%-60%-80% and then the final 90% cut if it is needed after the first three. This could give better information as to where exactly we are at economically.

Each one of those will require miner consensus, and deeper pay cuts are likely to become increasingly unpopular. Given this datapoint:

Data for 15.08 I watched transactions from addresses that receive coins by mining. Cointiger received: ~ 3820 Bittrex: ~ 2230

Daily emission ~ 7200 In total, about 84% of the emission went to exchanges

I am looking at having a more sizable sample created.

[4d5af]

Reducing issuance inevitably reduces the cost for a successful 51% attack. However, such a malicious reorg attack would fail as a method to steal from exchanges given our reorg limit protection (exchanges simply set confirmation limits longer than the reorg limit to be secure). There is an economic balancing act between reducing new mining supply which is sold on exchanges versus keeping the network healthy with multiple mining pools and a healthy number of active mining validator nodes. Consideration should also be given to what blockheight is chosen for a hard fork and allowing the majority of the network to be upgraded in time. I support this QIP but wonder if 90% is too great a reduction?

In my mind there are two options for hitting on a good number for a cut. The first is, eyeballing it. Which is what I've done here. Its not an ideal solution and simply solves the problem bluntly. The second option is to find some route to measure real demand and tune the coin to come in below that. Ultimately any methodology we could employ there will also, at its core, be a guess. In my mind, it would be easier to go hard (90% cut) than it would be to go for the more ideal line at this stage. It would be a lot easier to get miners to take a pay raise rather than take another pay cut should we need to move the needle again.

What about my recommendation in the discord of a timed-release cut. So it could be 40%-60%-80% and then the final 90% cut if it is needed after the first three. This could give better information as to where exactly we are at economically.

Each one of those will require miner consensus, and deeper pay cuts are likely to become increasingly unpopular. Given this datapoint:

Data for 15.08 I watched transactions from addresses that receive coins by mining. Cointiger received: ~ 3820 Bittrex: ~ 2230

Daily emission ~ 7200 In total, about 84% of the emission went to exchanges

I am looking at having a more sizable sample created.

More sizable sample created:

Data for 15.07 - 15.08
Sent to Cointiger(only "mined" coins): 123630
Sent to Bittrex(only "mined" coins): 83119
Sum: 206 749

Overall emission for 32 days: 230400

Could somebody calculate share, please?
Okay, don't strain, this 89%

source data attached

bittrex_tx.txt cointiger_tx.txt

[moscowchill]

I support this qip. ~mchill

[Coin-Runner]

This is a major decision as the emission schedule is the biggest change possible. It publicly shows that the "immutable ledger" is controlled of a central authority and the total number of future mined coins can be increased as easily as decreased. It will take a long time for the negative vibes of this event to wear-off for investors, especially, if price does not follow like the theory hopes.

Changes are understood in the start-up phase, so there is some latitude for design adjustments. QRL has gone from erc20 -> cryptonight -> RamdomX already. These major changes all show the project in a state of design flux. Each one had good reasons, but the mood at the time gets forgotten and the record of major changes persists. RandomX was meant to ensure diversity of miners, but it has not proven to help. So, in this case the theory was wrong.

"Overall emission for 32 days: 230400" is only $46k per MONTH of investment needed to soak up the current emission even if 100% sold. That is peanuts compared to the sums thrown around in crypto all the time.

I see the proposal has support in principle by @surg0r and @cyyber so it may well proceed. In which case, I will add that 90% is way to much of a reduction. A 40%-60% reduction is more reasonable. @jackalyst never ceases to impress and produces a graphic which makes the right level clear. QRL should not be near the top or near the bottom of a graphic comparing other major coins. I note that ZEC has low emission, but it keeps falling down the rankings as well.

Don't make QRL an outlier crypto on its economic fundamentals. It should only be an outlier on its resistance to quantum computing advances.

Whatever emission schedule reduction is done, it should not be changed again when PoS happens.

[IMac318]

I strongly oppose this QIP and any reduction in emissions rate, at least until the transition to PoS is made. At the current emission rate, ~7200 QRL are created via block rewards. At the current price, this amounts to ~$1500. If 90% is sold, that's ~$1350 of sell pressure per day.

I find it hard to believe that such a low amount is suppressing the price in any significant way. If emissions were reduced by 2/3, that could be seen as the equivalent of an extra $1000 per day being "bought," but would it really be the case that one person buying $1000 of QRL for a month, or even a year, would have a substantial impact on the price? Would it do anything close to increasing market cap by a factor of 15 (which would be needed to get back into top 200)? I recognize that as prices rise, that amount rises as well, but higher prices also bring out more who are willing to sell, and I really can't see such a small amount making any substantial difference in the long term. Even if it doubles price, then QRL is top 600 instead of top 800. Is that so much better as to justify messing with monetary policy?

The current hash rate of 24 MH/s is already quite low for any bad actors/competition to manipulate or attack the chain, and reducing emissions would only lower security. This is probably a red flag for new investors already, and I doubt that most would do the digging required to find out that there is a reorg limit of 300 blocks and that exchange (and hopefully EnQlave?) conformation times are longer than the reorg limit before dismissing any purchase.

Considering that EnQlave is right around the corner (hopefully attracting new users and adding liquidity), the limited benefit to price, the negative perception that comes with a change in monetary policy, and the lowered security, I see an emissions cut as largely net negative for QRL.

[Fy00zh3n]

Totally not down with this. QRL appears to be right where it needs to be as shown by Jackalyst. This temporary attempt to boost price..by what 10%?? The only attention it would attract is negative attention IMO. The emission is NOT what is keeping it price down. Anyone believing that seems like they are desperate for cash.. or anything (this isn't the right "anything" imo)

Any reduction and I would instantly switch my 25khs to XMR..(or possibly even Veil) sit on the over 1000 I have and watch for any REAL news except "reduced emission schedule" or "block rewards drop" as a positive progession of the project. It's barely worth mining now. A Better solution is an advanced hybrid. 50% PoS/ 50% PoW (30% RandomX, 25% ProgPow for GPU) or some variation. THAT..would draw attention, keep decentralization and invite other miners using GPUs but still ASIC resistant (think Firo), but check out Veil (lack of devs there tho) Reducing block reward or emissions schedule does none of that.

THAT'S progress..what is being proposed is more like a way to temporarily boost price, which would only work if people were paying attention to QRL in the first place (they're not)

I sell nothing. I'm here to support the driving premise of the project QRL.... Keep scraping up bits, helping the network. Hoping that it gains true PRIVACY similar to XMR. It's obviously a very forward looking project. This idea does not seem to coincide. JMO of course.

[Coin-Runner]

The number of coins on Bittrex equals 47 months of mining rewards. Strawman argument. Why not cut emission by 99% to 0.05 QRL, almost zero? Does that make any difference to the mountain of coins on Bittrex? No!

The solution is to encourage the market to find QRL. It needs buzz spilling over from the QC community to the crypto community. This is not easy and will take time. Once the price starts going up for any reason, coins will move to the orderbook as sellers take their opportunity. It still needs new buyers to come to vacuum up those coins. New buyers who have higher expectations about QRL. News that the emission changed since launch will make buyers think twice about the stability of any investment.

Prices are all about sentiment. If the market is interested in something it will rise. Look at dogecoin dropping for years, then publicity. Boom.

Changing emission is a diversion of resources from enQlave and PoS. These will create buzz and improve sentiment in holders for lasting market price gains.

[bsnoot]

The number of coins on Bittrex equals 47 months of mining rewards. Strawman argument. Why not cut emission by 99% to 0.05 QRL, almost zero? Does that make any difference to the mountain of coins on Bittrex? No!

The solution is to encourage the market to find QRL. It needs buzz spilling over from the QC community to the crypto community. This is not easy and will take time. Once the price starts going up for any reason, coins will move to the orderbook as sellers take their opportunity. It still needs new buyers to come to vacuum up those coins. New buyers who have higher expectations about QRL. News that the emission changed since launch will make buyers think twice about the stability of any investment.

Prices are all about sentiment. If the market is interested in something it will rise. Look at dogecoin dropping for years, then publicity. Boom.

Changing emission is a diversion of resources from enQlave and PoS. These will create buzz and improve sentiment in holders for lasting market price gains.

Please review the data provided by 4d5af in previous comments, and join the QRL Discord server before you take a position on a QIP. I understand that you are new to the project, but the community has worked very hard and anything less on your part is dismissive of that.

[bsnoot]

This is another reason we need an on chain polling solution.

[bsnoot]

This person is fresh over from a mining server I shilled at earlier today. He/she is new to QRL has yet to take part in any discussions, has yet to join the Discord server and has already taken a position on a QIP. I think our next focus needs to be a polling consensus mechanism with delayed voting access.

[Ottslayer]

So, feel free to correct me if my assumptions here are wrong, but as far as I understand qrl and it´s capabilities the following scenario should be possible:

A QRT could be minted (think "qip15" something) and distributed by balance to everyone holding qrl. Create 2 qrl addresses which are then posted in discord. (one for yes / one for no) -> everyone can transfer his qrt based on his preferrence to the according address -> we have a decentralized vote

[Fy00zh3n]

So, feel free to correct me if my assumptions here are wrong, but as far as I understand qrl and it´s capabilities the following scenario should be possible:

A QRT could be minted (think "qip15" something) and distributed by balance to everyone holding qrl. Create 2 qrl addresses which are then posted in discord. (one for yes / one for no) -> everyone can transfer his qrt based on his preferrence to the according address -> we have a decentralized vote

Distributed by balance? How about only those quanta that were mined and not purchased being the only ones counted? Mining takes much more effort and shows more long term support and EFFORT helping support the network and therefore project.

[bsnoot]

I do not think this this QIP is the place to discuss this problem. We have discord for that, but we do need to elevate the idea on the priority list IMO.

[AERProductions]

The number of coins on Bittrex equals 47 months of mining rewards. Strawman argument. Why not cut emission by 99% to 0.05 QRL, almost zero? Does that make any difference to the mountain of coins on Bittrex? No!

The solution is to encourage the market to find QRL. It needs buzz spilling over from the QC community to the crypto community. This is not easy and will take time. Once the price starts going up for any reason, coins will move to the orderbook as sellers take their opportunity. It still needs new buyers to come to vacuum up those coins. New buyers who have higher expectations about QRL. News that the emission changed since launch will make buyers think twice about the stability of any investment.

Prices are all about sentiment. If the market is interested in something it will rise. Look at dogecoin dropping for years, then publicity. Boom.

Changing emission is a diversion of resources from enQlave and PoS. These will create buzz and improve sentiment in holders for lasting market price gains.

Dogecoin is a very low bar, we aim higher. For QRL, it isn't measured by the same metric that all of the other crypto that is going to be wiped out of existence is measured by. This is a long term project that intends to solve an existential threat. Just the fact that you mention dogecoin's publicity being the reason its price rose and that is somehow "success", but what does dogecoin provide to the world? Nothing. That is not a standard to measure yourself by, that is something to point, scoff, and laugh at.

Simply having a high valuation and an interest from profiteers is not success to me, QRL is measured by a higher standard and it meets it too, where so many others fall so short.

Even though I would likely suffer from this QIP implementation, it is only temporary to boost us into a ranking position that may work synergistically with the new feature set that the QRL team is about to put out. Both acts together may put us over the top for exchanges to start listing. Slowing down the exchange dump seems to be pretty important at this point in time. Too many mining to exchanges.

So, feel free to correct me if my assumptions here are wrong, but as far as I understand qrl and it´s capabilities the following scenario should be possible: A QRT could be minted (think "qip15" something) and distributed by balance to everyone holding qrl. Create 2 qrl addresses which are then posted in discord. (one for yes / one for no) -> everyone can transfer his qrt based on his preferrence to the according address -> we have a decentralized vote

Distributed by balance? How about only those quanta that were mined and not purchased being the only ones counted? Mining takes much more effort and shows more long term support and EFFORT helping support the network and therefore project.

This sounds like a good start. It would also add heavy incentive to keep those coins, as they become a form of vote staking for supporters of the network, which is a benefit from supporting the network which is better than just trying to make money by selling. It adds value.

[cooper7777]

Distributed by balance? How about only those quanta that were mined and not purchased being the only ones counted? Mining takes much more effort and shows more long term support and EFFORT helping support the network and therefore project.

It's so funny)))) Maybe then we will only allow those who do not have coins to vote?)))

"Overall emission for 32 days: 230400" is only $46k per MONTH of investment needed to soak up the current emission even if 100% sold. That is peanuts compared to the sums thrown around in crypto all the time.

It's peanuts when it's only $46k. But when coin is trading for $0.5 or even higher it is not peanuts no more. That why the price is stuck on current level.

[IMac318]

It's peanuts when it's only $46k. But when coin is trading for $0.5 or even higher it is not peanuts no more. That why the price is stuck on current level.

So let's have someone who is in support of this QIP do an analysis on actual price impact.

Here is my simple analysis on why I don't think it's a good idea or will actually work to accomplish the goal it is trying to:

Price is a function of supply and demand. I think from the current rich list, it's fair to say there is a floor of 13 million QRL on exchanges. That represents the supply, amount people are willing to let go of for the right price.

The ~7500 QRL emission/day would be 1.3 million over the next 6 months. That would increase the "supply" by ~10%. During that time, market forces in isolation bring the price of QRL to p. An increase in supply of 10% would then bring the price to 0.9p.

If emissions are cut by 90%, then only 0.13 million are added, supply only increases by 1%, and price ends up being 0.99p. So this emissions cut raises the price by 10%. How does that effect CMC rankings? Pretty much anywhere in the chart, a 10% difference is only a handful of rankings. And it's a 10% increase in price for a 90% reduction in security on a chain whose core value proposition is long term security

Again, I'd like to see anyone supporting this QIP provide an alternative model that shows support for a significant increase in price.

[cooper7777]

Price is a function of supply and demand. I think from the current rich list, it's fair to say there is a floor of 13 million QRL on exchanges. That represents the supply, amount people are willing to let go of for the right price.

That doesn't represent the supply.

[IMac318]

That doesn't represent the supply.

Happy to adjust the model if it's off. What should the supply be instead?

[cooper7777]

That doesn't represent the supply.

Happy to adjust the model if it's off. What should the supply be instead?

Something like the whole supply minus foundation funds. 75 - 8 = 67 million Quanta. I mean that is it useless to say that people storibg their funds on exchange want to sell, and others don't.

[IMac318]

That doesn't represent the supply.

Happy to adjust the model if it's off. What should the supply be instead?

Something like the whole supply minus foundation funds. 75 - 8 = 67 million Quanta. I mean that is it useless to say that people storibg their funds on exchange want to sell, and others don't.

Ok, if the actual supply is 67 million quanta, let's run the numbers again.

Over the next 6 months, with no reduction, the supply goes from 67 million to 68.3 million. That's a 2% increase to supply. So if market forces in isolation bring the price to p, then with the increased supply the price becomes 0.98p.

With issuance reduction, the supply goes from 67 million to 67.13 million, a 0.1% increase. So with the increased supply, price becomes 0.999p.

With the assumption that supply is 67 million, reducing issuance by 90% would lead to a 2% increase in price over the next 6 months compared to no reduction. Even less worth it than before.

[cooper7777]

That doesn't represent the supply.

Happy to adjust the model if it's off. What should the supply be instead?

Something like the whole supply minus foundation funds. 75 - 8 = 67 million Quanta. I mean that is it useless to say that people storibg their funds on exchange want to sell, and others don't.

Ok, if the actual supply is 67 million quanta, let's run the numbers again.

Over the next 6 months, with no reduction, the supply goes from 67 million to 68.3 million. That's a 2% increase to supply. So if market forces in isolation bring the price to p, then with the increased supply the price becomes 0.98p.

With issuance reduction, the supply goes from 67 million to 67.13 million, a 0.1% increase. So with the increased supply, price becomes 0.999p.

With the assumption that supply is 67 million, reducing issuance by 90% would lead to a 2% increase in price over the next 6 months compared to no reduction. Even less worth it than before.

This doesn't have sence. You don't know how is going to sell, except of miners. We already know what they sell 89% of mined coins.

[cooper7777]

Ok, if the actual supply is 67 million quanta, let's run the numbers again. Over the next 6 months, with no reduction, the supply goes from 67 million to 68.3 million. That's a 2% increase to supply. So if market forces in isolation bring the price to p, then with the increased supply the price becomes 0.98p. With issuance reduction, the supply goes from 67 million to 67.13 million, a 0.1% increase. So with the increased supply, price becomes 0.999p. With the assumption that supply is 67 million, reducing issuance by 90% would lead to a 2% increase in price over the next 6 months compared to no reduction. Even less worth it than before.

This doesn't have sense. The model that don't describe the behaviour of the phenomenon, is not a model at all. You don't know who is going to sell, except of miners. We already know that they sell 89% of mined coins.

[ufosrule]

Other than the obvious QC attack, I believe 51% is the only other argument against any PoW system.

There's the negative energy and environmental costs associated with PoW, which you've completely disregarded.

Disclaimer: I'm a miner.

[0xFF0]

I do not support this QIP.

My analysis shows that we would need a 99.5% reduction to be near the top 200 on CMC.

Hypothesis used are:

• BTC to USD: 45 545$
• Mining reward per day for QRL should be less than 0.0013 BTC for 1 MH/sec. If it's more than that, QRL will be more profitable to mine. This data is based on https://whattomine.com/coins/101-xmr-randomx.
• CMC rank estimation are the "real one" based on market cap ranking. However, ranking on CMC is not based anymore on market cap and the top 200 is based on something else (i.e: look at the market cap of coin #201: it's way higher than #200!) (ref: https://www.forbes.com/sites/lukefitzpatrick/2019/08/20/coinmarketcap-algorithm-changed-is-the-ranking-flawed)
• 89% of mining is directly sold to exchange. This means that if QRL is not profitable enough, 89% of the miners will mine another coin. The hypothesis is the current QRL hashrate (estimated at 22 MH/sec) will drop to 2.42 MH/sec.

Also, I think QRL should not do "market manipulation" to achieve their goal (I know it's a rough description of QIP15, but I think it could be seen as market manipulation). It looks to me like a short term solution that could have bad consequences in the long term. For example, if you were an analyst in a big investment firm, would you recommend to invest money in a coin that has done market manipulation in the past?

To finish, the problem we are trying to solve is QRL mining should not be the most profitable coin for randomx. Alternative solutions I can see to solve the problem are:

• Implement PoS
• Foundation could buy hashrate to secure the network. This would make QRL mining less profitable.

[hadacnot]

I (user Mquantum in Discord and Noclone3 in Twitter) do not support this QIP. I agree with the arguments by IMac and 0xFF0. Namely I think reduction of emission is not guaranteed to significantly increase price. I believe low price is not due to large offer, but low demand, which is also partially due to difficulty in purchasing QRL.

Discaimer: I am not mining QRL, nor actively trading it. I am just a small holder.