[bisq-contrib] BSQ denomination

[Manfred Karrer]

> On 5 Dec 2017, at 03:36, mihail.mihaylov at gmail.com wrote:
> 
> Signed PGP part
> Hey all,
> 
> My preference goes for 2.5 BTC - a neat 10% of donations. I agree with
> Chris that this will leave a large portion of the funds (semi-)centralized,
> but this has advantages as well. I also agree with Mike that this will give
> us a good buffer in case something goes wrong, i.e. see it as spreading the
> risk. We could in fact use the buffer BTC as the reserve for legal and
> development funds, which were originally intended as part of the BSQ
> distribution model, and instead use all issued BSQ for "active" purposes.


That is a good point. The legal risk funds are melted into the genesis distribution so there is no explicit one anymore (though the more exposed ones received more BSQ to cover their risks).
Once the DAO is out and we see real BSQ price the persons who are legally more exposed can sell a part of their BSQ to secure their private legal contingency fund. After that time we are safe to release the remaining BTC as the role for legal contingency has move over to BSQ. Until that I think it is good to keep it as it is. Moving it to a MS might be an option but was quite a hassle in the past...

How to spend the remaining funds should be a happy problem. One solution can be to distribute it in proportion to the genesis receivers (we need a BTC address then from all) or we use it for some special bounties or events. Maybe we will make our own Bisq conference some day  ;-) or more realistically hire Peter Todd for auditing the DAO (would be of course better if would accept BSQ).
So lets assume we have an event where we need BTC or Fiat funds in larger amounts. It will be very difficult to collect those funds from contributor or ask for donations if we have already distributed the current BTC.
Better be conservative and release that reserve funds after BSQ is in action and we don’t need it anymore.

How we spend it can/should become subject for DAO voting.

The centralised escrow issue is already now the case as I hold the 25BTC and the BSQ are not real yet. So that does not change anything until we have the mainnet genesis.


> 
> 
> BTW, the spreadsheet does not consider less favorable scenarios in which
> the BTC value drops. Those scenarios are still relevant in my opinion.
> 
> Lastly, I'm not particularly fond of the 21 symbolism: we actually don't
> see 21 anywhere in bitcoin - it's either 210000 (blocks), or 20999999.9769
> (actual max), etc. Also, 2.1 is not 21, so it's a bit artificial.

It would be 21M BSQ. I think even if exact number is different it might have a nice reference and PR effect. But not super strong opinion here, just if we use an arbitrary number in that range why not go with the obvious one? ;-)


> 
> 
> Best,
> Mihail
> 
> _______________________________________________
> bisq-contrib mailing list
> bisq-contrib at lists.bisq.network
> https://lists.bisq.network/listinfo/bisq-contrib

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-contrib/attachments/20171205/b1df01a6/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-contrib/attachments/20171205/b1df01a6/attachment.sig>