Throwing a theory out there: erc20 tokens to be listed on coinbase in the next few months, they most likely have to go with utility tokens to avoid reg/compliance issues - so gnt (and BAT) are likely front runners as both have actual products in market now
Super-psyched about the potential of this project, I have some questions/concerns that I'd like to put out to the community in the hope that you can put them to bed for me.
My first question - perhaps an obvious one but it's always best to ask even if it sounds not-so-smart :) ...
Given that all of the GNT has already been created and distributed, aside from earning GNT by providing compute power to the network, would a requestor need to buy tokens from the existing token holders on an exchange in order to pay a provider?
If so, I can see that this could create serious potential problems for Golem in the future as one of the key benefits in the white paper is the cost benefits of a distributed, decentralised, networked supercomputer. This has the potential to create:
a) huge price fluctuations for requesters - if the mainnet was already up and running, consider the price difference of a request between 2 Jan 2018 and 2 April 2018 - it's a 5x difference;
b) if the network takes off and scales to large numbers/users, the token holders have enormous influence over the success of the project - especially if there are many HODLers;
c) If the balance of requestors:providers is out of balance too many requestors will drive the price of service up significantly and this might price Golem out of the market;
d) If the balance of providers:requestors is out of balance too many providers will mean that an efficient service is provided to requestors but providers won't receive much return for supplying compute power.
Perhaps I'm viewing this incorrectly. I'd appreciate your thoughts on this
Back to your questions...
A) yes a requestor would need to buy tokens if he never had them/ doesnt have enough.
B) we don’t think it could create any issues. I’ll send after an article on the GNT economics. We hope there is a healthy, fluid market. Worst case scenario nothing’s set in stone and we’ll consider other ideas.
C) the market will be regulated by both requestors AND providers, we are not worried about this. It’s p2p so basically it depends on the users to keep the price stable and competitive.
D) same applies to this. Obviously we will have imbalances from time to time but more than affecting price they will affect, for instance, the time on which the tasks are completed for providers, or for instance, requestors wont get as much tasks.
Price is not something we are worried about. And we are making considerable efforts raising awareness gnt is a utility token, which eventually should generate less fluctuation.
And i think thats whats gonna happen, all the bs projects will have no value, people will only concentrate on real projects so dooms day is yet to come i think 😂 i was optimistic yesterday but just thought of what I said above makes quite sense on eliminating the useless tokens
Dont think the bottom is near, but this should be a nice cleansing since all ICO's (shitcoins too) are cashing their ETH and BTC for development which will run out. I think only the good tokens/currencies with use cases will remain at the end of the year as I've sajd many times before and those will flourish 💪😉