Activation idea for new cities

[pstan26]

Wanted to write down some thoughts on growth and get the community helping to think through how we can grow the ecosystem.

• Decentralize: Have cities claim custody of their own wallets. Make it less relevant which city gets "voted" on if at all, and keep focus on growing City economies.
• Globalize: Activate 21+ Coins to "own" more territory. There is a first-mover advantage in claiming token tickers, geography, and growing the robustness of the CityCoins ecosystem. Not all cities are created equal, we should want the biggest cities that are crypto-forward first, because they are more likely to be robust in many dimensions.
• Legitimize: Ideal to get cities endorsing their CityCoin as early as possible with as little risk as possible. Remove overly focusing on the next city and instead spread the focus to the next set of cities so the community can focus more on building.

Draft proposal (def needs to be punched up, but is a start):
The community chooses a couple of dozen cities that are critical to have coverage on. The community then activates them all. Until the city claims their wallet, have 100% of the funds go directly to the city itself (which could be a smart contract wallet that refunds money if the city doesn't claim after XX,XXX blocks... other trigger/threshold suggestions welcome). After city claims wallet, then default to 30/70 city/stacker split.

City claiming process (this part is tricky, but doable, and we really need thoughtful community feedback):
Option 1) Cities sign in to an app (that they can download) with their official Twitter account. They then get a multi-sig wallet setup and the 30/70 city/stacker split begins immediately after they send a transaction from a private key. Maybe the private key is encrypted for them initially and they can rotate it into a multisig within a week. Additionally, miners may choose to vote with their coins during that week to indicate that yes in fact this is the city based on their best guess.

Option 2) Cities quote tweet or RT a specific tweet that shows their city listed. They then sign in to an app showing their quote and have their key decrypted for them, with a week to rotate into multisig.

Option 3) Send a multisig combo of ledger hardware wallets to every city. Instructions are to tweet their keys signing something.

Option X) Please suggest another way for cities to claim their wallets and activate 30/70 split.

Thanks for any thoughts in advance.

[JakeBlockchain]

I think this idea is super interesting.
Now that CityCoins is out in the world and people are slowly becoming accustomed to some of its unique value propositions, Theres some new variables to be brought in.

Currently CityCoins has a monopoly on this style of crypto use, No other blockchain has anything remotely like it.
But that wont last forever so theres a balance to be weighed between optimizing each CityCoin that gets launched and ensuring each specific city does well, compared with what it mentioned above, doing a land grab for essential infrastructure in the top 12-24 cities and claiming them all at once.

I would be interested in the community figuring out the technical sides of this issue and launching the top dozen cities and letting mining begin on all of them simultaneously.
The free market would begin to play out and we can see what happens.
There is some dangers in hype, interest and liquiditiy being spread too thin.

What does everyone else think?

[pstan26]

All good points, including the liquidity and focus. From a technical standpoint, @judecn and others have mentioned that 20 more cities wouldn't bog down the Stacks chain, but after that perhaps each city would need its own app chain.

There def is a balance with ensuring a city is off to a good start vs losing mindshare if competition in other cities. A balance of both of these could look like reducing the number of new cities to maybe 3 new ones per quarter.. that way theres 12 new cities over the course of a year. Perhaps the selection criteria for each new 3 city selection is determined in some on-chain way. Just throwing ideas out there. lmkwyt

[JakeBlockchain]

Hmm, My knowledge on app chains is limited. Gotta explore that more.

I really like the idea of launching a new city every month, It keeps a constant cycle of excitement and engagement for everyone involved.
That means were already past due lol.

[StevenLongCFO]

Hello Everyone,

Here are some thoughts for consideration:

1. "The community chooses a couple of dozen cities that are critical to have coverage on" - 100%.

If we don't capture enough of the 'City' market other blockchains with larger whales, marketing, and corporate backing may perceive a 'CityCoin' as an incredible Co-op opportunity.

2. As Jake stated, "There is some dangers in hype, interest and liquiditiy being spread too thin."

• Liquidity concerns are largely perceived around the number of current miners present; rather than, a future vision that onboards entire communities (new users).
• It would seem wise to have a dual approach to launching a CityCoin: 1) public excitement by residents and possible Mayoral endorsement 2) onboarding new miners from the communities that have a proposed new CityCoin

Modified Proposal:

Let's "declare" which CityCoins we are going to roll out (maybe it is 24), put together a timeline of when we will roll them out (I like 1 per month, we can always escalate), then work alongside communities to onboard individuals and gov stakeholders into the ecosystem. I see this as a strong proposal for several reasons:

1. It gives us the public adoption and marketing of "these are the cities where we will launch a CityCoin."
2. It allows for orderly and steady growth of the ecosystem and onboarding entire communities.
3. It gives cities time to navigate internal issues and propose use-cases in advance (except the early launches)
4. It allows for the development of a DAO to form, create, and launch education/messaging on the value of CityCoins
5. It mitigates some of the perceived liquidity concerns that are likely a non-issue as new users onboard.

Thoughts?

[Tim-Butterfield]

Perhaps the cities themselves can vote we want a citycoin. That may let us find out how many of the residents already support the idea.

[jmt008]

Anyone can tell me what happens to the custodied wallet and the treasury if the city doesn’t claim the citycoin?

[khanatkahan]

1. If more than twenty cities on CityCoins as a smart-contract breaks Stacks then the adoption of a CityCoins on a competing blockchain is inevitable. That clearly vouches for CityCoins on their own App Chain.

The payoff for CityCoins future is in the value of it’s coin as a gas:

 - For ubiquitous innovative utility, for    derivatives of exchange value, and as funding collateral. 

That will require valuable block space for which should be unique to each city or groups of cities. App Chains unique to cities valued in STX and settled in Bitcoin will make any competitor hesitant to tackle that challenge.

2. The consensus mining mechanism of committing or bidding for a coin with VRF predictable probabilities over large numbers without a meaningful burn allows for diminished stacking rewards.
   • More Stackers = less reward per stacker
   • Which decreases the coin value and a negative mining incentive
   • We have seen that decreasing the mining reward (designed for future scarcity is also negative mining incentive.
   • Suggest we positively incentivize earned coin scarcity. For example using MIA as a gas for mining and stacking MIAr that sends 30% of the MIAr stacking reward to an official Burn Wallet and 70% of the MIA to MIAr Stackers. MIAr acts as a citycoin independent central bank owned and operated by the community

[khanatkahan]

Do Proof of Transfer stacking profits depend on cumulative miners commit value?

Does miner commit hinge on mining profitability?

Would City services that exchange that service for CityCoin burn create scarcity & drive more mining & stacking & create a bigger CityCoin wallet?

[StevenLongCFO]

To date, we haven't had the issue. However, before a city officially claims their wallet, the funds sit in a multi-sig wallet so no one person has access or acts upon the wallet (I.E. NYC now). If for some reason a city decides not to accept their wallet - indeed votes against accepting the wallet - I would assume a future CityCoinsDAO would hold a community vote on what to do with the funds.

[StevenLongCFO]

1. If more than twenty cities on CityCoins as a smart-contract breaks Stacks then the adoption of a CityCoins on a competing blockchain is inevitable. That clearly vouches for CityCoins on their own App Chain.

The payoff for CityCoins future is in the value of it’s coin as a gas:

 - For ubiquitous innovative utility, for    derivatives of exchange value, and as funding collateral. 

That will require valuable block space for which should be unique to each city or groups of cities. App Chains unique to cities valued in STX and settled in Bitcoin will make any competitor hesitant to tackle that challenge.

2. The consensus mining mechanism of committing or bidding for a coin with VRF predictable probabilities over large numbers without a meaningful burn allows for diminished stacking rewards.

   • More Stackers = less reward per stacker
   • Which decreases the coin value and a negative mining incentive
   • We have seen that decreasing the mining reward (designed for future scarcity is also negative mining incentive.
   • Suggest we positively incentivize earned coin scarcity. For example using MIA as a gas for mining and stacking MIAr that sends 30% of the MIAr stacking reward to an official Burn Wallet and 70% of the MIA to MIAr Stackers. MIAr acts as a citycoin independent central bank owned and operated by the community

Given yesterday/today's stagnation of Stacks (cannot create transactions) due to a free 10,000 Wasteland Apes giveaway, you may be right on the need for another APP chain using Stacks code as the foundation. We may have significant issues when 200+ cities are onboarded into the CityCoins ecosystem. Stacks needs to upgrade their nodes to ensure days like yesterday/today do not repeat themselves in the future.

[khanatkahan]

The app chain in fractional reserve utility backed by bitcoin is key to economic freedom and not a new thought. George Selgin described it years ago and Hal Finney agreed it would be needed in a free society. https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/white-the-theory-of-free-banking-money-supply-under-competitive-note-issue And George Selgin confirmed it in this tweet thread: https://twitter.com/georgeselgin/status/1370198524604907523?s=21 We know that he is describing Stacks App Chains and Subnets … one of these hopeful days when app chains are ubiquitous the rest of the crypto community and the world will know as well!

…

On Jan 15, 2022, at 5:38 PM, StevenLongCFO ***@***.***> wrote:  If more than twenty cities on CityCoins as a smart-contract breaks Stacks then the adoption of a CityCoins on a competing blockchain is inevitable. That clearly vouches for CityCoins on their own App Chain. The payoff for CityCoins future is in the value of it’s coin as a gas: - For ubiquitous innovative utility, for derivatives of exchange value, and as funding collateral. That will require valuable block space for which should be unique to each city or groups of cities. App Chains unique to cities valued in STX and settled in Bitcoin will make any competitor hesitant to tackle that challenge. The consensus mining mechanism of committing or bidding for a coin with VRF predictable probabilities over large numbers without a meaningful burn allows for diminished stacking rewards. More Stackers = less reward per stacker Which decreases the coin value and a negative mining incentive We have seen that decreasing the mining reward (designed for future scarcity is also negative mining incentive. Suggest we positively incentivize earned coin scarcity. For example using MIA as a gas for mining and stacking MIAr that sends 30% of the MIAr stacking reward to an official Burn Wallet and 70% of the MIA to MIAr Stackers. MIAr acts as a citycoin independent central bank owned and operated by the community Given yesterday/today's stagnation of Stacks (cannot create transactions) due to a free 10,000 Wasteland Apes giveaway, you may be right on the need for another APP chain using Stacks code as the foundation. We may have significant issues when 200+ cities are onboarded into the CityCoins ecosystem. Stacks needs to upgrade their nodes to ensure days like yesterday/today do not repeat themselves in the future. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe. You are receiving this because you commented.

[StevenLongCFO]

The app chain in fractional reserve utility backed by bitcoin is key to economic freedom and not a new thought. George Selgin described it years ago and Hal Finney agreed it would be needed in a free society. https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/white-the-theory-of-free-banking-money-supply-under-competitive-note-issue And George Selgin confirmed it in this tweet thread: https://twitter.com/georgeselgin/status/1370198524604907523?s=21 We know that he is describing Stacks App Chains and Subnets … one of these hopeful days when app chains are ubiquitous the rest of the crypto community and the world will know as well!
…
On Jan 15, 2022, at 5:38 PM, StevenLongCFO @.***> wrote:  If more than twenty cities on CityCoins as a smart-contract breaks Stacks then the adoption of a CityCoins on a competing blockchain is inevitable. That clearly vouches for CityCoins on their own App Chain. The payoff for CityCoins future is in the value of it’s coin as a gas: - For ubiquitous innovative utility, for derivatives of exchange value, and as funding collateral. That will require valuable block space for which should be unique to each city or groups of cities. App Chains unique to cities valued in STX and settled in Bitcoin will make any competitor hesitant to tackle that challenge. The consensus mining mechanism of committing or bidding for a coin with VRF predictable probabilities over large numbers without a meaningful burn allows for diminished stacking rewards. More Stackers = less reward per stacker Which decreases the coin value and a negative mining incentive We have seen that decreasing the mining reward (designed for future scarcity is also negative mining incentive. Suggest we positively incentivize earned coin scarcity. For example using MIA as a gas for mining and stacking MIAr that sends 30% of the MIAr stacking reward to an official Burn Wallet and 70% of the MIA to MIAr Stackers. MIAr acts as a citycoin independent central bank owned and operated by the community Given yesterday/today's stagnation of Stacks (cannot create transactions) due to a free 10,000 Wasteland Apes giveaway, you may be right on the need for another APP chain using Stacks code as the foundation. We may have significant issues when 200+ cities are onboarded into the CityCoins ecosystem. Stacks needs to upgrade their nodes to ensure days like yesterday/today do not repeat themselves in the future. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe. You are receiving this because you commented.

I just read Muneeb's post regarding the last congestion event on Stacks back in Aug/Sept 2021. In my limited understanding, it may be good to move toward a CityCoins subnet of Stacks, given the growing competition of transaction-to-fee space on the mannet. I would think scaling up to 200 cities would require such a change in our immediate future.

https://forum.stacks.org/t/framework-for-stacks-scalability/12359