“Have 97% of the worlds miners pay for your development costs.”



When something sounds too good to be true.



It probably is.



The reason for this is that the negative impact is hidden. Either it’s not so obvious to the common miner. Or. You’ve unknowingly sacrificed the future.



So.



Let’s take off our captain obvious glasses, and put on our prescription glasses for short sightedness. What do we start to see? Once you look past the “0.5 exahash goes to equilibrium, and gets shared equally, I’m so smart cos I figured that out and nobody else did” then you start wondering why any other sha2 coin never tried this. And yes. There’s been sha2 coins vying for the hashrate before in this style, not just us. It was 2012 when altcoins finally gave up on their multiple attempts at mining shenanigans. It’s nothing new. People just forgot because there aren’t many eight year old OG miners bothered to tell the tale.



But it doesn’t take a history lesson for us to figure out why this is too good to be true. The negatives are endless. I implore you to think for yourself, but offer the following for your contemplation:



1. You’re offering to pay miners less



The name of the game is to offer the best rewards for the best security. The reward is a function of short term block subsidy and long term tx fee growth. BTC sacrificed the latter. Now we’re offering to sacrifice the former? Before we’ve proven we have the tx volume to back our claims as p2p cash, we freely give up our bread and butter?



2. You’re losing altruistic miners



BCH has the best altruistic miners. Best for two reasons. Firstly, because they know to maximise profit to stay in the game and only being altruistic when it matters. Secondly, because we have the most experience. We’ve been forked TWICE. And it’s been the same group of miners that stood up and delivered. Profit maximising miners are a dime a dozen. Altruistic miners are those that have your back when shit hits the fan. Why would you willingly create a rift and discontent within the ranks of your most loyal troops?



3. You’re creating extra volatility



Introducing new economic rules in the sha2 game will always allow us to reach new equilibriums due to profit maximisation behaviour. The downside of relying on equilibrium is introduction of volatility. And volatility always plays to the benefit of the incumbent more secure coin while being a detriment to the newcomer. We’ve seen this with EDA. We’ve seen this with DAA. We’ve seen this with BSV. Equilibrium always wins. And the by-product of volatility never hurts the incumbent. Only ourselves.



4. You’re losing consistency



12.5 now? Less later? Or more? 6 months is real? Or fake? Who cares? Good miners care. Over time, miners that survive have honed the ability to forecast. By virtue of mining, they are invested in the next two years of bitcoin production. So they are invariably long bitcoin, and short the hashrate. So. They wake up everyday and think about two variables: What is the future price of bitcoin? What is the future hashrate? These two factors determine their actions every day. 365 days a year. It’s the hardest job in the world. We’re talking about the most volatile asset class for the past decade. That’s why we need every other variable minimised via hardware. Consistency is key. Introducing a third variable via human inputs at the whim of a handful of individuals makes the job of the miner near impossible.



5. You’re forcing pools and miners to take sides, while offering nothing in return and taking out from entire ecosphere.



Erm. Nuff said? I don’t need to explain this. How can anybody think they look good doing this.



—-



At the end of the day, all of the above boils down to one thing: moral high ground. You can’t just take and not payback. And by the looks of it. We will be paying back and then some.