Call for a more broad initial (IPO) distribution of Ether

Call for a more broad initial (IPO) distribution of Ether
---
What aethereum does is proposes to distribute coins to Bitcoin holders.

Does it makes sense for Ethereum ?
In my opinion, yes.

The success of failure of new alt-coins, beyond pure technology, is set around the fact, that many users can get it for free, even if in small quantity, just to try it out.

What I think makes sense to do, is to distribute a small portion, say 5% (0.05x) of IPO raise to Bitcoin holders, where Bitcoin guys will have to cryptographically prove, that they are the owners of said Bitcoins.

My maths:
1. assuming 26 million Ethereum will get sold on IPO.
2. at 5% = 1.3 million ETH extra for Bitcoiners
3. You can take a snapshot of the Bitcoin block-chain at a certain date (around 13 million BTC),
so it means that each one Bitcoin holder will get you 0.1 Ether for free !

This will dramatically improve distribution of Ether to the wide-community of decentralized money believers,
improve decentralization, and increase chance of faster Ethereum adoption.
(Look at NXT: too centralized distribution to only 70 people is the biggest problem of NXT coin, in my opinion, and 100% pre-mining).

Ethereum will gain even at current distribution scheme, which I believe is fair, but it could gain adoption even faster with my proposal.
As an investor, I fully understand, that I dilute my coins by 5% initially, but it will be fully compensated by faster growth trajectory.

Disclosure: I'm long Ethereum. (invested precious Bitcoins in IPO)
-Technologov. 4.Aug.2014.

Comments

  • TechnologovTechnologov Member Posts: 102 ✭✭
    Mining in Bitcoin, BTW, has 2 functions:
    1. transaction processing
    2. money supply distribution (this one is in jeopardy due to ASICs) -- so it worked only for few years.
    ====
    At least Ethereum gets "mining" part right, which is supposed distribute coins to believers.
  • JasperJasper Eindhoven, the NetherlandsMember Posts: 514 ✭✭✭
    Cant suddenly decide to change issuance this way without -basically- unanimous acceptance by people who bought ethers. Maybe could take it from the Ethereum portion, you could argue that is 'ours', but it might still depress the price, so that isnt very nice either..(especially if we do it early on)

    Of course, you can try snapshot it, and make a subcurrency if you want. I suggest using the merkle tree mechanism so you dont have to pay the gas to put everything in there.. (and removing dust, all bitcoins that havent moved in the last two years)
  • TechnologovTechnologov Member Posts: 102 ✭✭
    subcurrency will be worth ZERO, as it lacks good innovative ideas.
  • rabbitrabbit Member Posts: 15 ✭✭
    You're posting to the Ethereum forum so this is obviously going to be biased but take my view for what it is. Ethereum is not trying to be a currency so it doesn't make sense to think of it like an altcoin.

    Adoption is not the barrier. Bitcoin is fairly basic in terms of meaningful features which is not really a problem because truthfully we don't need a lot from a currency for it to be useful. Still, Bitcoin represents the first run at a new idea. Many have drawn similarities with the invention of the web saying it will change the world the same way but people forget that the software for the first web servers and browsers were rapidly replaced. Most who adopted the web never even saw that phase and this stuff changes without a pause. As much as developers talk about backward compatibility try browsing the web with an ancient browser and see how far you get. Remember when Yahoo dominated search or when Friendster dominated social networking or when Sega released the first game system to use CDs? I'm not saying Bitcoin will fail *because* it's the first nor am I saying it will fail at all but I am saying it has a terrible disadvantage given to all first runs and the clock is always ticking. All the notoriety and investment it has been given counts for nothing when weighted against the countless needs the future holds.

    Distribution is not the barrier. If the concern is that wealth will accumulate into pockets then someone needs to explain to me how that concern doesn't currently apply to Bitcoin. I'm probably missing what is so wonderful about Bitcoin's distribution graph because I'm not very mathematical but if that's the determining factor then why not treat Bitcoin as the altcoin? Snapshot its distribution into a subcurrency and build a community to support interoperability efforts between the various coins. Subcurrencies will have the same experimental advantage that I mentioned before except it's an advantage ether won't share. It may be that the properties of Bitcoin and Ether make them poor for human currency. Ethereum will allow for greater experimentation with currencies and by trading ether at the underlying layer there will always be a migration path available between future systems. It therefore seems the ether distribution appropriately rests in the hands of developers and development efforts because that's where it needs to be if Ethereum is to be successful.

    Now, it could be that Ethereum reveals new pitfalls and Bitcoin follows up with a smart contract implementation that avoids these pitfalls. Nothing is a given. This is frontier work. However, Ethereum is leading the charge on a lot of fronts and that clock is always ticking.
  • TechnologovTechnologov Member Posts: 102 ✭✭
    Ethereum will become a currency. Why?
    1. fast blocks generation means Ethereum is more effective in brick-n-mortar shops than Bitcoin.
    2. Ethereum contracts can use only Ethereum currency for intermediate states/internally. There is no way to use Bitcoin in ethereum contracts (until Code Obfuscator is developed, as explained in Ethereum wiki)
  • StephanTualStephanTual London, EnglandMember, Moderator Posts: 1,282 mod
    edited August 2014


    subcurrency will be worth ZERO, as it lacks good innovative ideas.

    That's wrong. By making metacoins trivial to build, ethereum enables developers to focus on things that really matter, such as issuance models.

    Here's 3 examples from the top of my head:
    • Taking part in distributed grid computing programs, where 1 hour of cpu time is equal to one coin
    • Directly measuring the production of clean energy at the source , rather than making approximations , where for example 1 watt of solar power would equate to one coin
    • Actions in the physical world, where for example a foursquare checking would be rewarded by the issuance of a coin

    Ethereum contracts can use only Ethereum currency for intermediate states/internally

    Wrong, but can't blame you for not being aware: PoC6 already enabled mined metacoins using SHA3 in-contracts to be disbursed as rewards to miners (COINBASE opcode). Furthermore, metacoins-for-gas is already planned and in trials.
  • TechnologovTechnologov Member Posts: 102 ✭✭
    >Ethereum contracts can use only Ethereum currency for intermediate states/internally

    Here I meant that there is no way to control Bitcoin Blockchain from Ethereum contracts. (as that would interest me most) -- which might be possible in future via Code Obfuscation.
  • StephanTualStephanTual London, EnglandMember, Moderator Posts: 1,282 mod
    @Technologov‌ , if you mean, in a completely automated way, no, that is correct.
    However a Bitcoin SPV clients as a contract is perfectly doable assuming users submit blocks to it, and are incentivized to issue transactions on the bitcoin blockchain on its behalf. Quite the roundtrip I admit.
Sign In or Register to comment.