From Discord on july 12, 2019
Malti: I always had my eye on Ark and Stratis next to Komodo as they are also more than a cryptocurrency (aiming for ecosystem/BaaS). Stratis used to be a top 20 coin iirc and Ark mostly floating around KMD… Looking at those now, STRAT spot 99 and ARK spot 122… KMD keeping that top 50 spot pretty consistently is an undervalued fact imo..
jl777: Considering there have been literally thousands of new projects in the last 2 years, indeed, maintaining the ~50 ranking is indeed quite an underrated achievement. Former top 20 projects typically end up on page 2 or 3 or 4, unless they have a lot of support. As poorly as STRAT and ARK seem to have done, it is much better than coins like BLK, XCP and so many others. and of course with KMD actually climbing the ranks, it is a very power sign.
Malti: Agreed, that’s why I take the example of ARK and STRAT as they are not your typical ‘shitcoins’ that actually deserve to fade away
Markus: @jl777 will there be a new roadmap on 15th?
jl777: Certainly when BTC is going up steeply, the fiat arb bots smash all the altcoin prices and it might be my imagination but the altcoins sells seems to happen a little BEFORE the BTC going up. That can only happen if the BTC pumpers are the altcoin dumpers. @Markus I am not familiar with this “roadmap” term, is it some marketing thing?
Malti: People just get locked in in KMD, they come and have a look, see what is happening and don’t leave
Markus: It’s like a picture of goals to be reached
jl777: How exactly am I supposed to make a roadmap of future solutions, like nSPV that just come out of nowhere?
Malti: I guess all will be clear in 3(!) days
Markus: Well you sure make sense, I guess, but does Kmd not have any sort of milestones?
jl777: You have to ask the big lizard. I only do the cli stuff, which most people don’t really care about.
Malti: I thought you just stood up one day and decided nSPV had to be created? 😉
jl777: Actually I was reading the Flyclient mathpaper, or trying to, and instead of deciphering what all the complex math was, it just seemed easier to create a simple solution to the same problem. Such events cannot be planned for, nor predicted. I do however have a history of solving problems.
Markus: @jl777c what is Kmd’s goal then? I mean to me it seems like Kmd is expanding in every possible corner, gaming, wallets and what not
jl777: Goal? Solving the ultimate issue that faces crypto
jl777: Achieving global adoption without being regulated to death, which requires not only tech, but the proper tech that is immune from regulations. Luckily the fully decentralized model is both. It is 1000x+ harder to make fully decentralized solutions, which is why it takes so long, but now there is enough infrastructure in place to be able to solve all the remaining issues.
Markus: I think dPoW is a really clever thing but do you ever think of a even better solution that would protect in similar way but not having to spend Btc?
jl777: Without spending BTC, you can’t get BTC transactions. Without BTC transactions, you cannot benefit from BTC hashrate. Once a problem is solved satisfactorily, then I don’t spend much time trying to improve it more, especially as there are many areas that don’t have any solutions at all yet.
Markus: True, that’s why I meant are you ever considering some alternative solution that gives similar level of protection but does not have to do with Btc?
jl777: Nothing comes close to BTC security. Nothing.
Malti: And isn’t dPoW ‘swapable’? Imagine LTC would take over, KMD can notarize to the LTC chain right?
jl777: Once all the various parts are all in place and there is a viable full spectrum solution, then the weakest link can be improved and this process iterated.
Malti: Could we notarize to a PoS chain if needed?
jl777: Yes, the destination chain won’t be hard to change as long as it is a Bitcoin protocol. But if you are waiting for LTC (or even BCH) to overtake BTC… you have many years (decades) as it is extremely unlikely. The problem with PoS chains is there is no external reference, it is all self-referential.
Malti: Anyway, the problem isn’t here right now.
jl777: So with a PoS chain, everything will be ok, until a catastrophic failure. PoW fails in a predictable 51% attack way, which are bad, but transitory. A PoS chain once compromised, stays compromised.
Malti: hmm, correct. Never thought of this.
jl777: And since the entire point of dPoW is to add as much security as possible, having a failure mode being a total catastrophic failure in the secure chain it seems unwise.
Malti: Do you get excited over the marketing campaign in any way? Isn’t it nice to see all the tech you and the team have created communicated in a new way?
jl777: The video is very cool, glad that more people can understand the scope of what is already achieved!
Malti: Cool, happy to hear.
Markus: Which other project do you think could be a competitor to Kmd?
MrLubo: No one
Lumbi: Is it not a maximalist worldview to think in terms of monopolistic ‘mass adoption’? What is wrong with a multitude of independent, parallel systems?
MrLubo: When is winblows competitor to open source like linux?
jl777: I guess it isn’t so unexpected but it seems a majority of people still view Komodo as just a Zcash fork privacy coin. So when the rebranding takes effect and people realize that Komodo has totally transformed itself, we could indeed see a totally different market perception of it
@Lumbi when did I ever say mass adoption would happen with a single system? Clearly global mass adoption cannot rely on a single blockchain, else its failure is like a centralized cloudfare blocking 42% of the internet. With Komodo, unlimited numbers of systems can be created to both allow mass market scaling, while at the same time be immune from any single system failure. We do need to get more source level forks for true immunity, but there are already a few such networks and once there is a proliferation of such chains, then it truly becomes unstoppable. Any single component could be disabled at any given time, but not across all the systems. It is open source and a lot of projects are already copying what we do. In the larger sense that is a good thing, gives the crypto ecosystem more resilience, while solving the mass adoption problem in a practical way.
Markus: What would it take to overload the Komodo blockchain and can it be a possible threat in the future if millions of people start to transact on Komodo daily?
jl777: And all the traders wanting some KMD tax to monetize this… I guess some long term ecosystem explanation doesn’t make sense to them? Yet, how many silicon valley companies run at losses of billions for years, just to build up userbase. So think of KMD as in the building userbase stage. Once we have a sufficient number of users, then monetizations can be added in ways that don’t affect the user experience too much, we can always spin up KMD sidechains if the KMD usages becomes too big and blocks are getting full (after doubling blocksize again).
jl777: What about Google? How much did they charge for searches?
Malti: Is it?
jl777: Imaging their current marketshare if each search cost money
Malti: How long were they making losses?
jl777: Uber is still losing billions
Malti: And they IPO’d
jl777: Google spent many years without any revenues
Malti: Blows my mind
jl777: The model of Komodo is to gain userbase as much as possible, and then figure out ways of monetizing in the optimal way. Like for AtomicDEX, we give KMD a 10% discount on the dexfee so it is a benefit for using KMD instead of a tax for using KMD.
Malti: So during the tech development, you are actively thinking about the monetization question as well?
jl777: When you are driving across many countries, do you worry much about what parking spot you will use after you are done driving the thousands of Km?
Malti: LoL, how do you come up with these comparisons :laughing: but okay, true
jl777: You asked, it is what came to mind. Likely colored by the earlier roadmap question. What is monetization? It is just adding some fee to an action that users perform, right?
Malti: That’s one way or selling data
jl777: So the value of monetization is sum across all time of useractions *fee
LocoMB: I think Google did have a rather low burn rate in its first years (can’t cite numbers right now)
jl777: Clearly we won’t be selling the data that we are not gathering
Malti: I know, but fees are not the only way to make money, that was just my point :smiley: (can I take that bit to make a tweet?)
jl777: So the difficulty of adding monetization is the difficulty of adding a vout -> fee address to transactions that users make, in a way that users can accept as reasonable and not reduce usage. It is literally a few hours work to add and test compared to the years of work it takes to build userbase and if you add fees before there is a big userbase, it most likely will prevent you from getting any big userbase.
Malti: That is true
jl777: This is why EOS gets the usage it gets as it is free for users, but they charge the developers an arm and a leg or two. With Komodo, the users might be charged fees or not, it is up to each project, but usually whatever fee would be denominated in a relatively low cost coin
and out of all the various projects, the best ones will rise to the top.
Malti: So basically the strategy is: get as much people as possible on board and then you’ll figure out how to monetize
jl777: In the gold rush, the only guaranteed way to make money is to cater to the gold miners. Some gold miners will strike it big, most won’t. No way to tell ahead of time. So we make the platform that allows people the best chance of success and in turn the ecosystem will get the big successful projects. With 5% rewards that actually gives a negative inflation rate, during the user acquisition phase, not sure why people want even more monetization. The more fees, the less users. So saying you want more fees to get more cashflow is backwards. Less fees until you have millions and millions of active users, then start adding fees in ways that don’t hurt the usage. This CANNOT be designed ahead of time before you have many active users to verify that indeed adding some fee doesn’t hurt usage. So, no, I don’t worry about what parking spot in Paris I would use, when I am still driving on the highways in Spain.
Malti: Awesome conversation. Thanks!
jl777: I know the lambo/moon crowd is very confused by this long term thinking and many “investors” are sure that more monetization now is the best thing ever, which actually works to our advantage as these fees are paid by users and what users (who are used to all the free stuff on the internet) will start paying for blockchain stuff? For things that have an established price, like trading commission, we undercut it and then discount it. For basic usage, we make faucets to cover the txfees needed. Such a model is required for ANY chance of mass adoption. Anybody that thinks otherwise is also believing that a pay-per-search strategy should have been used by Google, when it was competing against Yahoo and other search engines. Imagine where Google would be now if they used that strategy? Probably some subscription services at public libraries. This is why I am very happy with the nSPV development. It will allow a 3 second onboarding of new users, as that is another requirement for mass adoption. Nobody will be putting up with a gigabyte download to do transactions.