Funding model: Let's get curvy

asdfjklsemi

Hello all, happy to make the first post. Let's have a spirited discussion regarding my proposed funding model which can be found here; https://drive.google.com/open?id=1I9TaNavMZDFvCTd6Y9BTDFJxCGiODZ-XroNP3yuDLSE along with its accompanying Excel sheet here; https://drive.google.com/open?id=17bPGoUu0FQ-VHROXwklCgKuLstxArT3PP-qbVZwiHDM

The basis is simple, the more funding that comes in to Tangram, the more expensive Tangram becomes. It's a simple employment of basic supply and demand. Take home? Price will be lowered, and those that had contributed stand to gain 20-40% more Tangram than their current holdings. When the price does reach $0.05, 50% of the needed funding will be filled, which will pay for the complete coding audit, along with other discretionary spending. Ask away!

ProHodler

Thank you!
I like the funding model and hope that it is implemented. I appreciate the work you put into this.

Additionally, here's the updated Version II that is not hosted by Discord https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VCgbL6pqOj794NG_y9k9PwH5f2gaJfQYe7Alf8yFnxk/edit?usp=sharing

MyNameIsJeff

asdfjklsemi Can i have a TL;DR? 👀Thank you in advance good samaritan

MyNameIsJeff

stang

wen

Tangraaam

I honestly don’t think people really want this at all. It was a decent idea at one point, but with the pricing of all the other coins out, the curve is kind of obsolete... even after taking into account the back compensate. I don’t support it

Arabic_Keyboard

I'd like to propose a 50% reduction on the price of the contribution to 0.025$ per tangram. I believe it would help increase the funding for the development of Tangram. Investors are less likely to risk their money while the alt market is having a hard time and hitting it's ATL. Also a contribution website would help increasing the contribution.

Cleo

asdfjkl; Thanks for continuing to be a driving energy. I think I understand how your funding mechanism works, more or less. I do get frustrated that you say that everybody totally agrees with it or doesn't understand it. I do get frustrated when you act like there are all upsides and no downsides or potential trade-offs. For example, I raised the issue of there being a concentration of node owners.

Cleo

Funding is connected to nodes, because part of your proposal is to scrap distribution via faucet and direct distribution towards node incentives. my point is that there are genuine trade-offs for doing this.

asdfjklsemi

Cleo I believe this was revised in V3 where faucet is allowed a percentage of daily output. Tokens not consumed by faucet are donated to node payouts on the following day. I /suggested/ that it be something like 50-50 for node-faucet, could always be 85-15, 25-75, whatever.

Cleo

Another thing that I think would an important amendment would be to have a rising and then falling curve, so that node payments decline and taper, rather than going off cliff. You don't want to have such a dramatic shift in the ecology of the system.

You have node payments curving upward and then cut off suddenly after three years. It would be much better to have them curving downward, too, so that there isn't a shock to the system.

asdfjklsemi

Cleo I had considered that but I think there's a bit of game theory going on here that may be too fire and brimstone. The reason for the sharp drop off is the assumption that more users continue to come in- why would anyone stop mining if the daily reward continues to be pumped out? After your proposed peak, the daily payout is lessened, but theoretically more users continue to come in- this diminishes payout even more. I'll add this as a 'caveat or alternative' to V4

Pizzi

When fried chicken? 🐓

asdfjklsemi

Pizzi Tuesday

asdfjklsemi

https://imgur.com/a/9yiy1zS

Here is a copy of the 'one page' that I made for Ramos that more or less summarizes everything.

Tangraaam

Once again, most people are NOT in favor of the “curve” model. Too many ‘assumptions’ and personal bias. I commend you for your effort to make a one page summary, but it does not exactly sit well with current investors as well as future ones.

Raizen______

Tangraaam Why would anyone be against the curve , it's literally free tangram for people that have already contributed at 5cents and for future contributors it will be a bit less than 5 cents (until a certain point).

Tangraaam

Raizen______ Just because of “free tangram” does not automatically equate to “we should adopt this proposal”. What’s best for the project is the highest priority... The curve is, in itself, conjured at an inflated value (because at its inception the alt coin market was doing quite well), that back compensates the earliest donors at near .01 prices with respect to the % of community fund filled.. This is not very sustainable. TGM has no working product right now. If we used the curve right now it would Back compensate everyone and reduce the current price to .04 (at this current point in time according to asdfjkl;‘s latest v3 summary)... Not only are we only compensating past investors, but the future investors are now stuck debating on donated money at .04 (versus .05 which isn’t a huge discount).. for a coin that doesn’t even have anything working.. Meanwhile take a look at the rest of the cryptocurrency prices. The curve has too much personal gain in it.. And to be honest, I’d love to see how much asdfjkl; plans to gain from this curve although he has said “I have never calculated how much I will gain”. But if I’m speculating I think he said he donated in what? Summer 2018.. he’s probably looking at .02 price range for back compensation which more than doubles his Tangram.

Do what’s best for TGM. The curve was novel at one point and put light on lots of areas that needed it, but I don’t think it holds a candle in this bearish market, with no working product, and compared to a proposal halving of .05 to .025 which helps everyone equally (past, present, future investors).

Just some quick math: if the curve was accepted, some of the first donors would see near tripling their coin amount. Let just say you donate $1000 and you donated super early when .05 was announced.. you will probably be subjected to .015 prices.. meanwhile the guy who donated a couple months later is looking at .025 prices. That’s an amount of 100,000 vs 40,000... a 60,000 difference in a matter of months for something that continues to be delayed (for almost a year) with no updates, working product, and in a bearish market. Hard sell..

No offense @Raizen but you are quite accusatory when it comes to debating the proposal; not everyone is going to agree with you “free tangram”. There’s not always ONLY upsides; and just because you believe in it, doesn’t mean other should or will. Allow free discussion without jamming other people’s throats with what you think is best. It’s not conducive to a good community and only pushes your opinion... but also thank you for keeping the community alive. I do respect that greatly. And no bad blood to asdfjkl; either! You’re hard work is commendable. These attacks are not personal. Just a discussion.

asdfjklsemi

Tangraaam "But if I’m speculating I think he said he donated in what? Summer 2018.. he’s probably looking at .02 price range for back compensation which more than doubles his Tangram."
I donated around November/December, so now, I'm not looking at that. Believe it or not, but I'm not one of the major beneficiaries.
"Just some quick math: if the curve was accepted, some of the first donors would see near tripling their coin amount."
This is also untrue, you don't even need to do quick math- use the excel sheet.
Your argument is also stemming from Tangram 'not having a working product' which is precisely what's going on here, it's about donations, that's it. There's speculators on a mainnet launch that are trading ERC20 tokens, then there's us, giving money to random dudes on the internet to code something.
What I still don't understand with the objection is in regards to that there's one goal in mind, put more money in Tangram development's hands, that's it.
"Not only are we only compensating past investors, but the future investors are now stuck debating on donated money at .04 (versus .05 which isn’t a huge discount).."
Yes, instead of the complete bottle neck that we have now where no one wants to donate because there's no pressure or reason to donate.

asdfjklsemi

Tangraaam The biggest reason I haven't back-calculated the amount I stand to earn is because the sheet I've got with all the $ values for the date the Tx were processed is complicated, and I'm not sure which transactions are mine as it doesn't list the address. The reason I say 20-40% is because I think the first people to donate got 40%+ while currently, at $0.04, that's 20%+. That's why I reference 20-40 😃

asdfjklsemi

Tangraaam Also, many are saying 'just lower the price' .. Please do some quick math to try and modulate that while A) keeping the allocated supply the same and B) reach funding goals.

Raizen______

Honestly i don't get people that want 2.5cents but not this , most of people asking for 2.5c bought at 5cents , i feel like they just want to double their stake for free.

Tangraaam why not 2.5cents but old contributors get nothing

Raizen______

Personally i don't care about the curve, i prefer to have a website where people can contribute easily and not signing a btc address.

edit: can't they just add a way to contribute here ?
edit2: i like the distribution method tho