Response to Telegram User’s Centric Challenge
Hello all, CryptoKeeper here. Telegram user “J B” had posted this and asked for a response. Here is my breakdown and response.
J B: “DISCLAIMER I might get banned for this but I prefer to be proven wrong with healthy arguments as I am truly intrigued with the concept; so much so, I had the concept analyzed by my friend whoms job it is to analyze, monitor and audit ico’s, ipo’s, etc for some major investment firms.
In short the conclusion was that there is absolutely no reason consensus guarantees coin stability either for CNR or CNS.”
CK: CNR is not a stablecoin. CNS isn’t either. CNS is a synthetic-stablecoin which means price will rise to the protocol’s target price of $1, which is protocol consensus.
Protocol consensus, what does this mean???
It means everyone in the market agrees on the face value of CNR, not some, not a few, not 98% of people, EVERYONE.
The economic model of Centric is designed as a double paradox, the harder it dumps the faster it burns (there is cause and effect built into the protocol). The burn is cumulative which ultimately means its never coming back and forces protocol consensus. The inflation is distributed to holders fairly and evenly based on market share which incentivises price action and motivation for buying in earlier vs later.
J B: “As the coin is designed and claiming to to mitigate the issues of price instability in crypto, governance is needed and even then its hard as is visible with existing stablecoins and other conventional ways of storing value.”
CK: Pre protocol consensus (the current stage we are in now) is determining the holders list and their percentage of CNR, there is going to be wild rides up and wild rides down, then ups and probably many downs before we reach protocol consensus.
J B: “Without centralized governance and with the two-coin idea the problem is just moved from one coin to the next: the bridge from fiat to CNR is CNS and you can call “CNR” stable, but as long as it derives its value from CNS, and CNS is on the free market without any governance and solely relying on “consensus” being assumptions with regards to market trust and stability, CNR will never be stable.”
CK: CNR doesn’t derive its value from CNS. CNR isn’t a stablecoin either. It’s price is controlled by the price blocks on the blockchain, which moves to the next price block each hour. Over time, the rate of CNR’s price increase, actually decreases. I believe the one thing you’re misunderstanding is the link between CNR and CNS. CNS supply is contingent upon CNR’s supply, and price. The more CNR burns, the more CNS is potentially taken away from being minted. Supply and demand is literally written into the protocol and controls the actions that create the genius tokenomics that is Centric.
J B: “The inflationary nature of CNS at the expense of deflationary CNR supply will always and to infinity keep the CNS price down and thus keep the value of CNR down. It does not matter what you call one “CNR” — $5, $10, $1000, it will always depend on the value of a freely traded asset in a free market.”
CK: CNR’s price is merely a conversion metric. CNR supply X CNR price = CNS amount. See previous answer.
J B: “Appreciating CNR’s value by reducing supply will just inflate CNS but does not assign any specific value to the token itself. CNS being subject to whatever the market thinks, as the incentive to yield which is assumed to be a factor in stabilisation, in turn also depends on the value of CNS, therefore destabilizing itself at any minor disturbance, if it ever reaches that point.”
CK: CNS burns away as it’s converted to CNR. If in the future CNR’s supply is low enough to only allow 1B POTENTIAL CNS on the market, it will take much less market cap as more and more people convert and hold CNR.
Basic supply and demand is literally the driving factor behind protocol consensus. Personally i think we probably need to 10x holders of cnr in a short period of time (12 months) & burn a couple hundred million CNR out of circulation & lock up 300–400 Million CNR through 3rd party utilities.
Ultimately, the community is a very important factor in “when” we will reach protocol consensus. The reality is its inevitable and will happen due to the cumulative burning of CNR every hour.
J B: “What he said is that the idea is based on the assumption that the market behaves idealistic rather than opportunistic, which is a big risk to take.”
CK: Assumptions are also risky.
Someone prove me wrong without empty phrases like “the protocol is designed to do so”, or “when we reach consensus everything is fine”, or “with a big marketcap the value cannot fluctuate that much”, because we all know that wont cut it in a public debate.
SECOND DISCLAIMER: NO FUD HERE JUST CHALLENGING THE COMMUNITY IN ORDER FOR EVERYONE TO BE ABLE TO DEFEND (Y)OUR INVESTMENT TO ANYONE WITH A CRITICAL AND ANALYTICAL MIND. I SAW SOME WEAKNESS IN UNDERSTANDING ON TWITTER AND HERE, NOT TO BE COCKY BUT INVESTING IS NOT A GAME. “TOMORROW MEWN” WONT GET YOU ANYWHERE. Thanks for reading❤️
I appreciate the challenge, J B!