I don’t see it working for anything but meme coins. Any serious project that needs funds can’t wait months or even years to pay for the expenses, unless it does a premint, which would be a bad signal - but Ethereum did that, why not, right?
And on Bitcoin it’s as simple as sending a transaction, that’s it, doing a bunch of clicks using https://ordiscan.com, to mint THOUSANDS of open-to-mint BRC-20 coins or Runes. Why would they use a complex canister app on IC where they would have to know about Docker, git and github to simply check if a canister running onchain isn’t rigged as only checking the source-code, if they are experienced in programming, isn’t enough on IC to be sure?
Imagine spawning hundreds of different proof-of-onchain-work coins on IC! Why didn’t they think about that??? Well, they actually did! Ages ago! There were TONS of Bitcoin forks. Only Doge has traction, perhaps a lot, these days. One or two may survive on IC, the rest will just burn the ICPs of the degens trying to get rich easily. What is not a bad thing for the ICP holders, while taking IC to its knees at same time.
It reminded me how living organisms in nature die and new ones are born/created and every single one with a different life cycle. And only those that adapt to changing environmental conditions survive and evolve. Nothing is created from nothing.
It’s fair to say that one could burn some ICP for some new token/concept to test it first and as the evidence of usefulness gets stronger by community validation (after the new created value solves previous pains or creates new aspirations) one could gradually increase the investment in the new token (by burning more ICP). If the new concept/token doesn’t gain traction it’s not worthy to burn more ICP and that project dies.
If we see the canisters/smart contracts as living organisms/agents, how can we enable the process of risk taking gradually that the canisters/new tokens have a chance to survive and then evolve/thrive, considering transparency of the features and options for community members to choose based on their risk profile/apetite!!
One of my goals is to learn more about ICP infrastructure and what Motoko enables to do.
So far, my understanding is at high level based on Dominic and other dfinity members talks on youtube.
I’m new in this forum, and I find it so enriching to learn from you guys.
This is a fundamentally flawed idea. Projects like that should launch as DAOs rather than fair token launch. The primary goal is to remove ICP from circulation, thereby giving speculative value to the token. While I agree that developers deserve compensation, it’s more effective to implement a premine option with scheduled, transparent unlocks. Additionally, a percentage from each block could be allocated to the treasury.
Or, the miner could run as a standalone application offchain. Allowing anyone to create a miner would add a competitive and evolutionary element to the puzzle solving. May the best miner win!
Allowing more devs to join in the effort creates more interest.
But, wouldn’t this mean someone can deploy a powerful GPU and get a lot of the tokens?
Sure, that is evolution for you. Next token launch someone else also has a GPU and another one spins up a mining pool for all the small folk.