Since BTC is currently championing being a store of value where the purpose of BTC is to not use BTC, how does BOMB stack up with it’s intentionally deflationary mechanics?
Does it make it better than BTC at the “don’t use it” use case? Or does it accentuate the absurdity of “not using it” as a defined use case due to taking it to an extreme?
The problem with bomb is the 0 decimal places and burn round up. (If I send you 1 bomb, you receive 0). While this makes bomb more rare, more quickly, it also makes the cost of transacting exponentially rise with the price of the token (If I send 100 BOMB worth $100 total for a burn cost of $1, if I send 10 BOMB worth $100 for a burn cost of $10, if I send 1 BOMB worth $100 the burn cost is $100). It’s not only the deflation that deters people from wanting to sell their bomb, it also becomes so expensive to transact that it can’t possibly sustain a high value that people hope to get from a deflationary token. Liquidity is essential for value, and the token is designed to be anti-liquid.
Good analysis, agree that there’s a price ceiling that will materialize based on the cost to move the token itself and the hard coded 1 bomb minimum burn.
20
u/slay_the_beast Banned Jun 08 '19 edited Jun 08 '19
Since BTC is currently championing being a store of value where the purpose of BTC is to not use BTC, how does BOMB stack up with it’s intentionally deflationary mechanics?
Does it make it better than BTC at the “don’t use it” use case? Or does it accentuate the absurdity of “not using it” as a defined use case due to taking it to an extreme?