We have had the topic maybe half a dozen times...
Other blockchains are doing it all the time (here are some informational links):
- https://www.reddit.com/r/OsmosisLab/comments/reh2bb/clawback_ion_needs_to_be_redistributed_heres_why/
- https://www.mintscan.io/osmosis/proposals/32
- https://snapshot.org/#/badgerdao.eth/proposal/QmUeTvf8gdBijJTEgDmThQQqkM6vmYHRHbs88GCCyk5ykB
- https://docs.evmos.org/modules/claims/01_concepts.html
But what about Blurt?
There are over a hundred million unclaimed Blurts lying around!
Burning these would really rev up the Blurt price! Extremely!
I want to know what YOU THINK! ☝️ LEAVE YOUR OPINION IN THE COMMENTS!
Please take a moment to vote for my witness! 🗳️
https://blurtwallet.com/~witnesses?highlight=outofthematrix
It's probably a good idea to leave it alone. To me it's a jerk off move that would create enemies for no reason. It would not help the blurt price and hurt this chain's rep among the broader crypto community. Blurt still has important ties with HIVE via the HIVE/BLURT LP pool and it's best to avoid accidentally stepping on any whale toes.
Inactive stake gets slowly diluted out through inflation anyways. Yes it's a slow process but it's the most fair process.
Ok, thanks for the insight! Why doesn't the burn affect the price?
You missed my long response to you below. Here it is again:
The tokens that would be deleted are not in circulation. By very definition, they are not being used, and expected to NEVER be used. That means they are not available on the market, and not impacting prices. I don't believe deleting tokens that will never be used can have any effect on the price.
Perhaps deleting tokens that ARE in use, like on exchanges, being used in trades, or sitting liquid in a whale's account, would have an effect on the price. This assumption is the basis of the push to send HIVE tokens to the "null" account to be deleted. There have been numerous campaigns and requests and incentives to get users to delete their own funds, promising them an increase in the value of their remaining tokens. I have yet to see this really pan out. Doing that with tokens that aren't even part of the ecosystem and not on the market in any way is certainly not going to have any positive effect.
Ok, I understand 👍
bingo
Can you explain what do you mean by unclaimed?
If there are just lying in accounts and no one is using them, then they cannot be burnt definitely 😁. If there are any tokens in foundation wallets, then they can be burnt if foundation wishes to.
There are some accounts that never claimed their Airdroped Blurt amount. You can check here.
https://ecosynthesizer.com/blurt/richlist
Hi!
This is richlist which means tokens are already credited into users accounts. Correct me if I'm wrong. If tokens are already credited, tokens cannot be burnt. Because users have access to their account through private keys.
Below are some of the ways i suggest :
Recruit Ambassadors and push for mass onboarding of users from various social platforms. There are tons of users who want to monitize their time. If possible implement a lucrative referral program. More the users, less is easy Blurt.
Inflation to be controlled . @rycharde may have some ideas.
More partnerships andn more support on partners.
Seperate fund for Developers
I think it has something to do with if they have never logged in...
For 1.5 years, I did not log in to Blurt either, only doing it earlier this year. I'm glad I did before any deleting took place. If my tokens had been deleted before I decided to try this blockchain, I probably would have decided to never do so. I think doing this would permanently ensure many people will stay away from Blurt.
increased censorship = check
Suggestions to move accounts to COAL list for personal butt hurt reasons= check
Suggestions to freeze accounts = check
Suggestions to take other people property by force (the burning of unclaimed tokens = check
Yeah, this site is reeeeeeally shaping up really well...
....if you love being controlled. And if want butt hurt morons with no clue about about basic economics and business, and think that pesky free speech principles just get in the way of expediency.
I wonder when the idea of down voting, will be tabled...? ..lolol
The person who promised to leave blurt and to never read comments still feels like interjecting his moronic self into conversations. If the site is sooooooo terrible, it certainly has enough appeal for your narscasistic self to keep visiting and using, and to keep knocking it. It fits, that the idiot investor @ctime and his alt account promote your crap, idiots and parasites.
You're not on any coal list... Never were and never will be! No one gives a 💩 about you....
.....megadrive suggested that I be coal listed (first time aorund)
Then he sugessted free zingmy account along with big account holders. (personally butt hurt, ego vengeance - you know all about that).
Exhibit 1
If no one gave a shit, things wouldn't be done to censor me - this is according to your bum buddy wtp - I was THE reason for the new censorship rules. (are are you calling him a liar?)
You can't EVER get out of the matrix , not when you can't even face up to reality.
But you just keep on doing do you, matey - you really do seem to excel at it !...bless.
I posted articles above with so-called clawbacks... It is an absolutely wide spread practice...
Then why ask for opinions if you already made up your mind and don't want to discuss it?
I don't decide it, but can I have an opinion too?
just because violating individual accounts is common practice (banks do it all the time) doesn't make it a great idea
well, they can be "hard-forked" and erased from the chain, not technically "burnt"
Hey buddy, these are accounts that never logged in to claim their tokens... Till today...
I think it's a good topic to revisit. I'd like to see more what others think before jumping to my own conclusions.
Re -Blurted!
I'd love to see the spreadsheet on the 100 million unclaimed BLURT, and the associated accounts. Just like ude like to see the Legal Names... Of all the people who got behind Sam.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/ftx-bankruptcy-judge-says-creditor-information-can-be-redacted-e2-80-93-at-least-for-now/ar-AA14qqjL
I smell smoke.
I sent messages to friends on Hive about their Blurt when it was high and not many moved to claim it. Years passed and there was ample time to claim the airdrop. It's time to burn.
Oh my flabbergasted!
All the shit you need "IN THE KNOW" or "IN THE HOLE".
Any giffy response to this is not safe for work.
I like that 👍
It should be hardforked to burn because I do not know why it is not being forfeited considering those large amounts can also be weaponized against the price of BLURT.
Some individuals are against burning because of their own reasoning but we all know that the airdropped tokens are a privilege and not a right so it should not be forced to someone who do not want it, plus most of the owners of these airdropped tokens are against Blurt in its entirety. @outofthematrix
Posted from https://blurtlatam.intinte.org
I like your views buddy!!! 🙏🍀
175 million tokens is not enough to "hijack" the chain
deleting "inactive" accounts is what banks do
the entire concept of crypto is that individual accounts are sacrosanct
nobody can vote your bitcoin out of your wallet
"There are over a hundred million unclaimed Blurts lying around!
Burning these would really rev up the Blurt price! Extremely!"
Can you (or anyone who is interested) explain how deleting unclaimed tokens would increase the price?
Also, exactly what makes a token "unclaimed"? What account(s) are the tokens in, how did they get there, etc. Thanks :)
Unclaimed means that the account with the air dropped tokens has never been logged into. When yoz reduce the amount of coins from let us say 400 million to 300 million by burning, you have a price increase in that case of 25% just through the burn...
Hmmmm. To me, that would be theft, as those tokens belong to the owners even if they haven't been using them.
Deleting tokens from private wallets also sends a message to users (and potential users) of this blockchain: "Your funds can be deleted or taken if the owners want." Just knowing it's possible, which you and I now do, is not a good thing. If we actually went through with it, there would be no denying it can be done. Such a message would drive people away, permanently, which could only have a downward effect on the token price.
"..reduce the amount of coins.. you have a price increase"
The tokens that would be deleted are not in circulation. By very definition, they are not being used, and expected to NEVER be used. That means they are not available on the market, and not impacting prices. I don't believe deleting tokens that will never be used can have any effect on the price.
Perhaps deleting tokens that ARE in use, like on exchanges, being used in trades, or sitting liquid in a whale's account, would have an effect on the price. This assumption is the basis of the push to send HIVE tokens to the "null" account to be deleted. There have been numerous campaigns and requests and incentives to get users to delete their own funds, promising them an increase in the value of their remaining tokens. I have yet to see this really pan out. Doing that with tokens that aren't even part of the ecosystem and not on the market in any way is certainly not going to have any positive effect.
So unless I'm missing something here, it's a "no" from me. No offense intended! It can't hurt to discuss.
I notice the biggest accounts on this blockchain (socialgraph, initblurt, megadrive, etc) contain a lot of BLURT tokens that were not earned through content-creation. Perhaps some of the tokens in those accounts should be deleted, under the assumption that deleting tokens increases the price and helps the blockchain.
100%
This has been explained before to him, and others, that since the tokens aren't in circulation, they intrinsically don't make the price increase. One has to wonder why people suggest such idiotic things which by a cursory consideration would obviously be deemed retarded, do they really not think about the things they say?
How do you know that? Who says they don't make a price increase?
Logic, Common Sense, invariably you!
If the coins aren't claimed then they aren't on the market therefore they cannot make the price increase, if you start fucking with people's money I can see them coming out of the woodwork to dump it all, as was mentioned above if you would have stopped for a moment to think about it. In a debate you make a claim, such as 'burning the tokens increases the price' and you proceed to list the reasons and the method that substantiated your claim, if you don't your opponent will simply denounce it as nonsense, without reason or way to be sound or substantiated, try it before you open your mouth and make declarations that make you look retarded because you couldn't have considered what you're suggesting, like a moron.
This was meant for outofthematrix.
He's correct. The market typically has a couple of hundred dollars volume daily, the majority of Blurt for sale sitting there as most buying have purchase orders waiting to exploit the low demand and desperate hands.
If there were a velocity of millions daily such as Hive has, it could be arguable. The fact that there is many days a demand of a few hundred dollars or less means those tokens sitting unused in accounts have zero bearing on the value of Blurt.
Possibly in the future of Blurt, but there is nothing so far to indicate it is heading that way as of right now.
I was assuming, that those tokens also show up in the overall token number...?
So what if you assume that? Do you not recognize the obvious implication that if the coins aren't on the market or traded they don't, and cannot effect price?
yep
He's correct. The market typically has a couple of hundred dollars volume daily, the majority of Blurt for sale sitting there as most buying have purchase orders waiting to exploit the low demand and desperate hands.
If there were a velocity of millions daily such as Hive has, it could be arguable. The fact that there is many days a demand of a few hundred dollars or less means those tokens sitting unused in accounts have zero bearing on the value of Blurt.
Possibly in the future of Blurt, but there is nothing so far to indicate it is heading that way as of right now.
Ok, I still don't quite understand it, but thank you very much for the insight!
the market price of blurt is purely a function of how many tokens are currently for sale and how many buyers want those tokens
the "grand total of all tokens in existence" is not part of that market value calculation
The emotional dork you are engaging with has you (as well as many of us) on mute. Even if he didn't have you muted, logic escapes him as I've exposed for some time.
https://blurt.blog/blurt/@practicalthought/rlu7z1
exactly
BINGO
I've just upvoted @outofthematrix's content.
Log in issue was fixed & Google Play Store version was updated with the fix.
I will be promoting the @BeBlurt app !!!!
Thanks for bringing the subject up. I agree with @drutter but also have one point to add.
While the tokens not used won't affect the price, the burn will affect marketcap.
If the market cap was inflated like Hive over 100 million USD the burn might have lured more investors with a more adjusted market cap. But Blurt is already only 2 million dollars market cap. Changing the cap to 1.5m$ won't do much or even do worst since simple investors might tend to avoid too low marketcaps.