Thanks, I agree. Requests for commentary have been invited across multiple channels, not that many people have piped up so far. Maybe they’re all a little sad for now. I hope we can see some more input, more ideas or insight floated. Some of the contributors with the most thought out proposals in this thread are people already putting in some of the most work.
Also I know all that ranting about exchanges is a non-technical complaint but I hope people can see the point being made… which is A) There are plenty of coins with little volume (less than xcp) on Bittrex and poloniex still listed, they get way more volume elsewhere and the same can happen for counterparty. The only reason it hasn’t happened YET is because counterparty hasn’t yet been listed on a bunch of other places. Now is the time to start putting in effort on asking why and fixing that
B) many people moved away from Bitterex and napoloniex as they became less popular few years ago they’re only getting more unpopular with recent news of disabling or delisting sys,burst,xcp- dcr,lsk and so on- ethically launched community coins whilst encouraging crowdsales. Or listing coins with unethical, rigged/backdoored launches etc, there’s plenty of coins not listed on those two exchanges at all where most of the volume is (albeit inflated) that are doing great… So not the end of the world
C) The reason for the price dip was nothing bad about counterparty, had no bearing on fundamentals. Simply exchange decision scaring holders… There isn’t wide liquidity pools, if there was did the price would not have dipped hard, it would of been shrugged off.
whilst Bitterex and Polo are not individually important, exchange presence or liquidity avenues (even if those are dexes) in general are. Integration on new exchanges has been /severely/ lacking compared to other projects. , which had impacted counterparty greatly, it has been growth and discovery stunted all this time to many observers and market participants as the market has expanded and the concept of tokenization which counterparty pioneered has taken off, all this time it hasn’t had visibility, no exposure. How can you research/hold/invest/build on a bitcoin asset platform if you don’t even know it exists? if all you see is NEO, XRP and eth tokens… now that this is recognized, that’s positive. Action can be put in place to ameliorate.
sure; there are other valid concerns like funding ongoing development and outreach… but there’s multiple other projects that are unfunded/asking for donations right now. Others with developers that quit, but still the chain is operational or tokens still liquid or whatnot. Even projects that haven’t gone past the whitepaper stage yet.
it’s not as if coins only get liquidity BECAUSE they’re good & there’s some of the inverse too IE simply because of low liquidity, stagnation in growth on that front people (all sorts, not just traders) abandon good projects and this creates massive negative feedback loop.
almost ANY other coin other than XCP. Seriously… pretty much ALL have significant exchange presence, All of those are liquidity/discovery channels- liquidity begets liquidity and liquidity is security and comfort to anyone interacting with it- at least in this markets seems to be a sign of a ‘solid’ foundation.
We were already in a bear market, vol, price down everywhere- xcp one of the hardest hit. but things were looking up- Counterparty works great, had been stable, until these two entities practically simultaneously made a delist decision, the price crashed a further 80%. It’s distorted as a result of the uncertainty & panic that has been instigated by those two exchanges. To be quite honest, I’d say as a result of it’s lack of broad presence for years, it’s always been very underexposed relative to the rest of the market. One bit of good news is especially with DEX’s you don’t necessarily need permission (or even payment) to get some kind of exposure.
But it is sad… one of the whole points of crypto was to try and escape from singular centralized entities that can manipulate market. A huge mistake here was that all the power and immediate fate was in the hands of two . Doesn’t matter how good counterparty is, how promising, how much development is ongoing- when exchanges announce they close down or delist and and they dominated the volume the price will crash, morale falls… that’s why xcp fell 80% when it was already at lows (but otherwise stable till then) Other projects have risk distributed between 20,30,40,50 zones so if they get hit from one, two sources that decides they’re not earning enough anymore it doesn’t matter…
everyone talks like the sky is falling and gets depressed just like happened with btc and gox, which also crashed the price… except here is better because A) nobodys actually lost their xcp and B) now there should be optimism about marching onwards and upwards.
So just want to (restate) my personal opinion so far on the best way forward
- Launch unofficial foundation or oversight group for focused discussion, feedback from community and implementations of changes going forward. This is obviously no one persons job, I will be happy to try and help in whatever capacity I can.
- Propose changes- e.g vote by burning or sending old XCP tokens if you support the changes. e.g committing to a tail emission for funding ongoing work. (IMO people need to commit with ‘skin in the game’ to take the most seriously)
- A percentage of burned/sent old XCP is allocated to a multisig/foundation for initial bootstrap/ development. This is the foundations immediate grant and initial incentive for funding the move forward.
- Perhaps open up the distribution of NEWXCP beyond existing holders?
- New token goes live and becomes swappable for old token for those that commited to the social contract at 1000:1 ratio.
- new token finds it’s use in the Counterparty ecosystem.
Third parties- for example those that want to swap a particular counterparty token- let’s say Bitcorn for XCP would simply swap $theirtoken for NEWXCP or whatever it is called instead of XCP within the counterparty ecosystem (e.g DEX) the same way they do now, when it goes live without disruption.
Agrred upon emission would be used to support development, outreach, PR, the same thing other projects do.
And if the new ‘base’ token ideally could, in any way be added/managed by external entities easier than the existing process for XCP (presuming that’s why so many are avoidant to integrate) AND/OR be more liquid-- idk, like the ripple gateway bridge Robby proposed, or an ERC-bridge I think that could help massively directly with anyone who uses the DEX, anyone holding or just anyone anyone who wants to build anything with XCP in general. Not all tokens would have to have the same properties, just the base token itself.
I couldn’t see where any objection would come from on these changes unless someone is REALLY commited to holding a fixed % of an decaying project vs agreeing to own slightly less of something now suddenly more promising with a brighter future, something that has genuine possibility of revitalization. If there is absolute disagreement about this “social contract agreement”, being violated, then perhaps there might end up agreement for steps 1-3 but with a total new community imagination of XCP. Exactly like NEM did with decrepid NXT or XMR did with Bytecoin, even LTC was a relaunch of a previous fork, FBX. All took something that wasn’t working or had issues and started again positively with a strong community,with promise for the future. That new energy was very important.
I’m no developer, so only thing I can do is commit to try and help in getting behind a new foundation/ new movement, funding grant with % of tokens as specified, and misc other bits and pieces- but fully behind trying to help revitalize in any way as a grass-roots community project…
Interested to hear any further suggestions