This separation - whales vs ordinary folks is what commies used to gain power in Russia - its classic def of commie mentality.
I’ve posted enough information about the ICO investors in Cardano. If one bought 1 mil usd worth of btc @ 200 usd and invested it in Ada, and had it locked up for almost 2 years - why do you make him some sort of an “enemy, issue, problem” - its a decentralized network(1) and (2) ANYONE could have bought ada at the same price (in satoshi) as during ICO. Only “difference” is ada “whales” bought btc at 2015 prices (or had them before, when it was even cheaper) and now you , like COMMIE, DISCRIMINATE THEM. Why one
commies solution was the gulag, now “friends” here talk about hard-forking Cardano
GJ for all those early investors. However, you can’t deny that markets that run by cartels are less efficient, which is what happens where wealth\resources are too concentrated. But that’s not even the worst problem: Unlike in ‘real like’ voting based on your stake volume is unfair and can derail Cardano due to rules that benefit few.
Well,if we already have whales with a majority all voting processes are going to be quite moot. Might as well just ask the whales what they need. I mean this does not have to be a bad thing but if we want a real voting process for a majority of users there needs to be other mechanisms as well. For example if users could identify themselves for voting process (2nd layer of cardano and with agreement to do this) we could also have some votes that where based on users not on total staked amounts. Not sure if that is a bright idea either but my main point here is that the voting system as is now is going to have face the fact that a small portion of people have a very substantial voting power.
First of all, you would need to know the “vibe” in the japan community around ada… they plan to Hold it for long time, so they actually bag hold ada cos they could lock out some profit even af this level but they didn’t sell at ath, and are not selling now. (Some did, some sold some portions… some smaller, small bigger - lets not forget that ALL ada in Circulation comes “from the whales”
Its was never about the majority of users, this is not a country. It was always about the majority of stakeholders, and it’s a free market - you can buy out some more power now - what are you waiting for? You wanna annihilate one’s stakeholder’s power, just cos he has more then you? Why are people even considering this?
Hi Adafans_io. No as I said in the post this does not have to be a bad thing only that it needs to be thinked through. I for one think that those who backed Cardano early for sure should be rewarded for that in every way possible as they made this project possible in the first place! With that said - I think most voting system in history that has been concentrated on the few voting over the many have failed.
They question whit the voting is not only about concentration, its about … whats at stake… imagine an scenario where a majority of small owners with no stake take control and derail the project and fail - what are they loosing - if they have a tiny/small stake at play? On the other side, a “whale” - will have a lot more to loose if the project either fails or has a “stagnant growth”.
That is of the reasons the (1) reward is proportional to stake and (2) voting power is proportional to nr of ada!
It’s obvious, that with each ATH, some of the big holders will sell (some of what they own) - it will happen sooner or later anyway - this is how market works…I am sure, the same will happen with staking, the big owners might sell some if the prices will be good (big demand cos ppl wanna get ada to stake it)
Big holders are providing liquidity to the market and stability (holding ada long term) and will sell most likely, only in time, in small portions… why give up the rewards from staking it, and gaining more? I am sure, with time, Institutional investors will start grabbing parts of the stake so they also gain rewards. They are the real risk - they have no attachment to the project (like the Original investors have)
Adafans_io just one point about your post I agree in general with what you say about stake and voting say but i have one comment - in stock law we (I think this is fairly universal and atleast in the country I studied law/psychology in) have protection for the minority stockholders. It is to me a very similar process as it is about economic interest and about stake. The reason why stock laws in general protect minority stake holders is (among other reasons) because if not then in economic interest majority voters can make changes that cause economic damage to minority and gain to majority. Ofcourse this all depends on exactly what can be voted on as well.
Comparing decentralized software to stocks is not valid imho.
Please consider this: only way, repeat, only way! the price of ada/usd goes up - is if , more and more people join the network (buy ada)… (doesn’t matter if stake is small or big)
Why would any stakeholder try to damage or hurt the network? What’s the incentives? To do so, they would need to have 51% of stakepower… but nothing is more than this cos they are the network in that case
SO, one more reason they will never hurt the project anyway…
I think when Staking goes live, IOHK/CardanoF/Emurgo stake + the rest of small one > a few big ones … i am sure this will be the case - so we will have a nice “trio” balance: the founding companies / the original ico investors / the new ones
you scroll up or search you can see others talking about it here as well.
They could be just trolls, or malicious elements trying to test the resistance levels. Its not by accident they are spreading this, here, on the official forum. If they dislike cardano, why use the official platform? They should make a blog and post all that BS there
To keep it short - I do not want a hard fork and if that is the thread posters intent then I am not for that.
Regarding Adafans_IO I disagree with you about it not being comparable to stocks but in any case your argument is that the interest of majority is aligned with the interest of the minority. This is probably the case as I agree with you network growth is currently a good model for value growth as well. However only a fool would think that at all times majority interest will be aligned with minority interests. There are plenty of historic examples of the opposite and in general if it can be done, is legal, and you can make money of it - it will be done by someone. But do not think of this as a critisism that whale powers must be reduced etc - all I am saying is there is clear problems here that needs to be thought out and that there should be a clear stance on that is communicated outwards so investors can consider if they should buy or not.
I think the main issue is the liquidity of ADA not being what it should be if 80% of ADA is locked up by the whale group.
ADA can’t be what it is designed to be in this situation.
Hopefully we will get some commentary from Charles about this and what the contracts with the original investors said.
You crazy man? Who can stop one joining ada network (buying ada) ?The more people buy, the more “retail” sellers sell out. With time it makes the price go up, whales sale up some - thats the cycle -again who’s ada do you think its trade in the last months?
I don’t have proof for either cartel, competition, or anything in between, but I’m not ignorant of the fact there could be today or in the future. There is no minister of competition or any authority to guarantee it either.
I’m aware that if people believe in the the coin they would hold it for a long time, and I’m glad to hear about the ‘vibe’ in Japan because I want this to catch.
But, I’m saying that cryptocurrencies aim to replace today’s money, but then might change the whole ownership model in the western world, and later maybe the political. This is a revolution and half baked ideas can be very harmful.
Do you suggest we should ignore the possibility that a person or a small group dictates the rules for ADA?
I can talk about the implications but I think you get my point.
Why are people even considering this?
cos they are the network in that case