I can’t, I’m not a lawyer, especially in the US. It’s just common sense. Another example is how Storj migrated from SJCX to STORJ. As far as I understand, you can’t just abandon already issued tokens; there are rules and requirements (which I’m not aware of).
I don’t know about your country, but issuing, say, gift cards, which are the closest equivalent to tokens in my opinion, and then terminating their service without an expiration date is considered fraudulent in almost all countries.
In the case of Polygon, tokens weren’t created. You basically burned Ethereum tokens in exchange for Polygon tokens. The number of tokens didn’t increase; they remained exactly the same.
The same mechanism doesn’t work when changing payouts. You don’t burn existing tokens, but acquire new ones (in addition). This also disrupts the ecosystem: if a token isn’t used by at least two parties—the buyer and the supplier—they become meaningless. So, to change a token, you need to burn an equivalent number of the original tokens. In this case (since we do not own a favorite token of Jammerdan) - the full loss.
However, I repeat—the problem of changing the payout method doesn’t even exist. We’re just treading water. Until there’s at least an economic need, nothing will change.
No, it requires much more efforts. Not all of them are technical. I would say most of them (99.(9)%) are not technical.
The discussions here, even though they aren’t followed by a change, are usefull just to get the whole picture why is this and not that, explore solutions and calm the spirits. Many of us SNO are not so expirienced in running a business that pays parteners in crypto across the entire world, we only see from our end.
In EU we can use USDC and EURC, and maybe oyhers. I know USDT is forbidden.
For stablecoin payouts I’m thinking at one more variant, that dosen’t take into account clients participation.
Offer SNOs the stablecoin payout as an opt-in option, along with the current token, but with some drawbacks:
5-10% payout reduction, that will cover the transfer fees and pay for the extra paperwork;
or
payout transfers only if a threshold of 50$ is bypassed;
or
payout transfers only once per 3 months.
If the majority of SNOs opt in, then we can consider ditching the token entirely, or it can remain as a second option forever.
If there is no serious adoption of the stablecoin payout in a year, then we can ditch it and settle this debate forever.
Prior to this, there should be a poll sent by email to all SNOs, to choose 5 of the top 10-15 stablecoins which they preffer to be payed in.
Then, Storj chooses 1 or 2 or 3 coins that are the most accepted.
If Storj reaches profitability this year (so they can afford to consider alternatives where they don’t have to rely on their pile of treasury tokens)… they could use the option of stables to roll-out lower payout rates. Like say if a SNO continues to choose STORJ payouts then they get the regular $1.50/TB/m. But… if a SNO wants stables… then only offer $1.25/TB/m?
Right now they can’t afford payouts that don’t use STORJ. But perhaps switching to lower payouts could make different payments happen sooner?
If I were Storj, and the current payout system was failing or causing losses, I’d likely choose a payment provider rather than handle stablecoins myself, especially considering I’m unfamiliar with the laws of the countries where my contractors operate. Especially considering they operate in 124 countries.
However, the current system has been working smoothly since 2014. Why should I, as a businessman, change anything?
What will this give me (well, besides additional problems, higher expenses than before, and God forbid - problems with the law)?
Yeah, I’m so thankful the current system has worked so well for so long. And every month more and more nodes come online chasing STORJ payouts! Don’t consider changes until a) the company is in-the-black and b) 100% of payout coins have to be bought-from-market (and the treasury is bare).
Basically squeeze every penny from tokens in the corporate inventory… then (maybe) pivot
I just send out ideeas for when the time comes, if ever, to not forget them.
Thinking about stables, it seems they are under
more gov scrutiny than common tokens, and they “benefit” of more regulations than others. Central banks put pressure on govs to knock them more often even than the big coins, like BTC, ETH etc.
So yeah, starting dealing with them could be a pain. And you have less certenty long therm.
Storj token is so small that nobody cares to regulate it. It’s survival only depends on daily trading volume, CEXes and DEXes not to delist it.
Not fully true. Storj takes effort to make sure token is used in a way that would not make it fall under specific categories like securities or commodities, which is already a form of regulation. Some examples: 1, 2.
Don’t consider changes until a) the company is in-the-black and b) 100% of payout coins have to be bought-from-market (and the treasury is bare).