CIP Proposal - Re-open burn in perpetuity


#1

This thread is to gauge interest on re-instating the BTC burn message type to allow the creation of XCP by burning BTC without a fixed end date. This would allow new users to obtain XCP without having to rely on third party exchanges. By setting the BTC/XCP exchange rate for burns well above market rates it shouldn’t disenfranchise existing XCP holders and will only make the platform easier for new users as they would only need BTC to get started.


#2

This seems interesting, could even work out as a price stabilizer if the burn makes ppl diminishing returns.


#3

Quick thoughts:

  • You can obtain XCP for BTC already without relying on a centralized exchange.
  • It would seem that picking a rate “well above market rate” would be a rather difficult bit of central planning and a forking problem, if the market rate rose above that level.
  • Picking a rate well above market rate also seems like it re-introduces friction this seeks to solve.
  • It would dilute holders who may not be aware of this change.
  • It would reneg on something that most people consider set in stone.

If we’re able to reasonably talk about changing the supply of XCP, which seems unlikely based on the hysteria of LLL asset names, instead of a burn, I would suggest a “stock split” where we just 10x everyone’s coins, so we go from 2.6 million to 26 million XCP.


#4

I currently hold no XCP. I agree with all of your points above. My worry is that prolonged debate on the subject could affect price for holders.

I have reservations about 10X-ing the supply, as it was a promise and I hold credibility over everything else. However, in today’s multimillion or even billion coin supply environment, I understand the desire. My question is need. Do we need a 10X of supply to accommodate asset and sub-asset creation, future LLL, LL, or even L names? Couldn’t we just lower the fee in the future, preserving XCP holders overall value? That may be 6 of one 1/2 dozen of the other, but at least it preserves the past.


#5

This is as insane as proposing to inflate bitcoin supply. A betrayal and an attack on xcp investors. The fact that it is being proposed by counterparty dev makes me question the project altogether.


#6

It’s not insane. We can’t just dismiss everything immediately. We don’t have to debate it and constantly revisit the same conversation like a 5 year old playing Mom against Dad. However, categorizing and idea as insane and an attack is a little harsh.

It is undesirable and as argued so far, it is a breach of trust. However, if the people who support it come up with a plan that under the right circumstances, benefits the majority, then I say do it. I’m guessing you hold a large sum of XCP? I hold a large number of named assets. When things like this pop up, I always say my piece and then let the overall interest in pushing the platform forward take precedence over my narrow interests.

However, if this is just a a half baked pump scheme to exit, then the people pushing for it should be marked as untrustworthy for any future “suggestions”. This is a Decentralized democracy and it gets messy. Let’s see where it goes before we dismiss it out of hand.


#7

You can obtain XCP for BTC already without relying on a centralized exchange.

Sure there are ways to get XCP without relying on a centralized exchange (OTC, swapbots, BTCPAY, etc.) but none of these are easy for new users to get started and all rely on a selling party. With an open burn its as easy as a single tx which could be built directly into the UI without any dependence on another party.

instead of a burn, I would suggest a “stock split” where we just 10x everyone’s coins, so we go from 2.6 million to 26 million XCP.

What would be the purpose of this?


#8

:thinking:

The idea to re-open a burn would help put XCP on a level playing field with platforms like ETH where there is only the need of a single token for users to get started. From my own experience helping new users, getting XCP is the most difficult part of creating a named token.


#9

Re: purpose of stock split. (I know it’s off-topic from your proposal! Sorry about that.)

It would make it easier for XCP to compete on these CoinMarketCap websites where everything else has huge supplies. It would be a technically simple change, at a certain block height, to 10x every XCP balance. It wouldn’t dilute anyone. It would psychologically make the price seem lower and possibly more attractive to new investors. In a perfect market, XCP trading at $12.00 would trade at $1.20 after a stock split, but in the cryptomarkets it might be that XCP trading at $12.00 would trade at $2.00-$3.00 after a stock split. We saw when XCP ran to $100 it was largely driven by rumors that XCP holders would get an airdrop. Of course, it would affect how much it costs to register assets, but that’s a separate issue and this is just a quick idea not something I am strongly advocating. But to Blockchaintoken’s point about “half baked pump scheme[s]”, I personally believe that developers should attempt to return value to XCP investors and that’s expressed in price.

Re: Open Burn - How would you select a rate higher than the market rate? And why? It seems like a complicated task. If you choose a very high rate, you re-introduce the friction you hope to remove. If you choose too low a rate, the market rate could exceed that rate and become a strange arbitrage opportunity that may cause a hard fork. It also might harm Counterparty’s relationship with exchanges which we desperately need for liquidity, if the developers introduce this kind of feature.


#10

I guess I should have clarified and said current market rates. Since XCP is inextricably linked to BTC, setting a fixed rate with BTC probably makes the most sense. While it sets a ceiling, that ceiling only exists in terms of BTC. The two assets rise and fall together. Maybe set it at 2-3X the current XCP/BTC rate?

I disagree. The current friction has nothing to do with the cost and everything to do with obtaining the asset.

This is certainly the biggest risk and why I think its important to chat about it to see how tenable the idea is.


#11

Thanks for the replies. I would personally be against this change because setting a ceiling on price doesn’t make Counterparty an attractive investment.


#12

Although i like the idea of having burns open, it creates an open ended question: when’s too much just too much?

I would suggest that the burning would only get you a fraction of the already burnt XCP, so as to maintain the original emission of XCP, while at the same time only giving a proportional amount according to how much BTC is on the burn address… so the more ppl burn, the less they get of XCP.