Tron Black, the lead developer of Ravencoin and co-author of its whitepaper, has recently summarized one of the major remaining challenges of Ravencoin: establishing its asset issuance cost. Via Medium, Black summarized the problem along with various proposed solutions.
The problem centers around the best way to establish the cost associated with issuing assets through Ravencoin. A cost needs to be established in order to prevent against one person reserving all unique asset names and consequently rendering Ravencoin assets futile. Understanding this problem requires a basic understanding of Ravencoin, so let’s first be sure we’re on the same page there.
What is Ravencoin?
Straight from the title of the whitepaper, Ravencoin is “a peer to peer electronic system for the creation and transfer of assets”. It’s token, designated as ‘RVN’, doesn’t aim to serve as a cryptocurrency which maintains a certain value and is transferred in a manner similar to financial transactions. Instead, Ravencoin is essentially a protocol which enables the digital representation of assets, i.e. tokens, to be issued by a variety of entities.
A main theme of Ravencoin is its ease of use. In this sense, RVN is nothing like an ERC-20 token with smart contracts or a second economic-focused token like GAS. And despite its developers having shown some serious enthusiasm for Bitcoin (Ravencoin’s mining un-coincidentally began January 3rd, 2018— Bitcoin’s nine year mining anniversary), there are some essential differences between the two. Here are a few technical details unique to Ravencoin:
- Total supply: 21 billion RVN
- Circulating supply: 1.2 billion RVN (as of September 2018)
- Code fork of Bitcoin and an open source proof of work project which utilizes the X16R algorithm to guard against high powered mining pools and mining centralization
- Block reward: 5,000 RVN
- Block time: 1 minute
The Need for an Asset Issuance Cost
The real issue with asset names is simply that they are a limited resource. There will only be one asset with a specific name, thus we see a system of unique naming. As the whitepaper itself states, “token names are guaranteed unique. The first to issue a token with a given name is the owner of that token project”.
Such circumstances then require some level of cost to be associated with naming an asset. Why? Simply because if this were not the case, then theoretically, one person could reserve all unique names. As Black himself says, “there must be a cost associated with reserving these unique names, otherwise one person can reserve them all, rendering the Ravencoin assets useless”.
Black’s article included various potential solutions, most of which were proposed by the Ravencoin community and featured Black’s own comments and analysis. Ultimately, it is unclear which solution will be implemented in the future, though the two general themes which seem to have received the best feedback from Black center around either a fixed RVN burn rate with various halving models or an adaptive RVN scheme based on different factors (asset issuances, mining hash power, etc.).
While the exact details are yet to be decided, what we do know— at least for the time being— are the following ratios which have been a consistent threshold throughout 2018:
- 500 RVN for asset issuance
- 100 RVN for sub-asset issuance
- 100 RVN for asset reissuance
- 5 RVN for unique asset issuance
Ultimately, the first to meet such requirements will subsequently have the first opportunity to claim their asset name through the Ravencoin protocol.
What do you think should be implemented to the Ravencoin protocol regarding the cost of asset issuance? Will a RVN burn policy with a certain halving model suffice? Let us know what you think below!
Images courtesy of Ravencoin.