cap - no!
Does increasing the supply add value to the project - opposite effect.
Does burning add value to the project - yes!
Should the rate of staking value decrease - no, as the result is less value staked on the network, however... reducing the staking rewards would still incentivise staking pool. Also, this would reduce the overall value lost in market cap and attract more investors due to the fact they aren't bound by the idea of a falling market cap or face being bound by an unstaking period of 21 days.
I know I raise a logical argument for what can work for the project.
I think we would all agree that every partnership formed thus far in the last 9 months has led to a fall in value of the market cap. The argument against what I'm saying right now is this is all due to market conditions however, if this is the only argument to use against my logic, then what is the increased value to the project of such additional partnerships being formed I ask?
You are reasoning purely from a price action standpoint, but not from a value investment standpoint. Also, i think this discussion does belong in the price channel. "Does increasing partnerships add value to the market cap" - value and price are two different things. Adding partnerships adds the most important value to the project, namely more oracle demand/requests/fees. You don't 'add' to a market cap, since it is nothing but the total outstanding supply * average price. "Does inceasing the supply add value to the project" - have you consired why Band's supply is inflationary? etc..
Обсуждают сегодня