Community Sentiment on Znode Collateral

NO! END OF SUBJECT lol

4 Likes

I wonder if this was even possible in the first place. maybe it was just idea but not technically feasible.

Two arguments were made for changing the collateral:

  1. The amount of XZC locked up in masternodes is negatively affecting liquidity
  2. Znodes have become too cheap as compared to the USD price in 2017

For the first argument, perhaps we can change the reward given to masternodes, or change another attribute that could affect liquidity. This could also be used to address the second argument by changing the profitability and appeal of operating a masternode.

For the second argument (and overall really), I feel we should just let the open market decide the value of Zcoin and of a masternode. We set an amount of 1000 XZC to own a masternode and by buying a masternode we all agreed that was a fair price. Changing it after the terms were agreed upon feels wrong to me.

It’s great the price is low right now and Znodes are much easier obtainable, hopefully that means more people will buy into ZCOIN for the long term and help support and protect the network!

1 Like

privatecash2019 - I think it is possible - not easy. But I suspect there was no real drive/support for this by those controlling dash funds.

As a related example matheusd has implemented trustless sharing of Decred tickets such that those with only say 10 DCR can be involved in ticket staking.

How does everyone feel about increasing the number of confirmations required to be a Znode to prevent in and outers?

1 Like

Are in-and-outers really a problem? … and does it affect liquidity and Zcoin price that much? It’s already confusing enough for some people when they setup a Znode - without making the confirmation period longer and more difficult for people to know ‘if they got it right’ … and what will it solve making it any longer?

I’m assuming those doing in-and-out would be companies providing short-term Znodes for people to share - and is this really an issue - or a bad thing? I’m sure a lot of us are, or are thinking about, using this kind of service while we save for our own Znodes.

It looks like more people want to hold Zcoin or ‘stake-it’ in Znodes than to speculate on it’s price in an exchange - again - is this really a bad thing? It doesn’t help liquidity or price - but that means the other components of what makes a good coin a good coin need to be worked on like I’ve said before, we need to improve: Utility, Use cases, Partnerships, Incentives - and that will help price and liquidity.

Increasing the confirmations will only upset people that are trying to use Zcoin - at least in some way - and will likely not fix the liquidity issue.
Just my opinion … keep up the good work …

2 Likes

I have not really got a lot to add. I only want to give my support to the excellent comments above which support zero change to the staking amount for a Znode. The more Znodes the more secure the network. The more secure the network the more chance of it being around when it becomes really necessary! ‘Chainlocks’ with only a few nodes in operation won’t be so reassuring. . .

I don’t think that liquidity is the issue here, clearly people are not going to spend something worth $2.5 now which is likely to be worth multiples of that in a few months time. If you ask me there is not likely to be real adoption taking place until the mobile wallets are shit hot and ‘instaspend’ is available - which is another case for having lots of MNs on the network.

Well done Zcoin team, this project is visionary, keep up the good work!

3 Likes

@reuben Is there anything new about this topic?

I think community consensus is quite clear. We won’t be changing the collateral at this time. Thanks for everyone who weighed in!

Do also check out https://zcs.zcoin.io

2 Likes