Counterparty foundation in 2019? New updates?

I hate to be so stark, but I believe there are two options for Counterparty: a long, slow slide into irrelevance, or create a treasury.

Yes, this breaks the social contract of XCP. However, I think it would be a shame for such a great project to fade away merely so it can be said Counterparty stood for its convictions.

This wouldn’t be an earth-shattering decision. Things change, and often in life it is necessary to adapt to survive. As others have mentioned, ETH did the same with the DAO. In the long run, it has made little difference. ETC upheld the social contract, and the market doesn’t care. I think they have many of the same issues as Counterparty, and I know there has been some discussion in the past about creating an Ethereum Classic treasury. Grin has developers on Twitter begging for donations. I also agree an exchange that decides to delist XCP has indirectly “debased” the coin anyway.

After closely following the work of projects like Zcash and Decred for the last couple of years, I’m convinced there needs to be something in place to ensure ongoing funds are available. I’m continually impressed by the quality of products released by Decred. Their wallet is easily one of the most polished of the larger coins, and the possibilities with politeia are impressive.

As others have mentioned in this thread, there’s more than one way to approach funding for a treasury. It could be inflationary, but fee structures are a possibility too. I’m not tied to one particular way of approaching it, and I think different options should be investigated.

Sure, there are plenty of technology issues to be solved for XCP, but I don’t believe they are the most pressing tasks at the moment. It is my opinion that everything needs to be focused on providing an economic model that can sustain development, growing Counterparty’s marketing and educational efforts (possibly through a formal foundation), and creating a much more highly polished version of the existing exchange, wallet, etc. Scalability does not matter if users are leaving for other blockchains.

If something like debasing XCP, or any of the other ideas presented here, were to be considered, what’s the process? Who needs to be involved, and how does such a decision get made? Time is of the essence, and the sooner some of this can be determined, the better.


Three things need to be done before progressing further:

  1. A reasonable lapse of time to consider opinions before taking the plunge
  2. A CIP must be written to formally present the idea with it’s subsequent “approval” by the maintainers
  3. Coding!

(1) is being done already, (2) will take place eventually and will be gradually done as more opinions are gathered here, (3) will probably get coded by me so we can use the subsequent treasury to get more coders onboard


If emissions were to be considered, it needs to be on a clearly defined schedule that decreases over time, similar to what exists with Zcash and Decred.

I know you mentioned 20k earlier in this thread. I’m not sure your thoughts on how that varies. If it’s just enough to cover the bare essentials, it’s not going to work as a starting point. The only way to create a sense of focus and urgency is to allocate a larger amount to start, and eventually reach a much lower steady-state value in the future.

If Counterparty obtains enough market share in 3-4 years, XCP’s growing value will offset the decreased emission. Potentially a model that leverages gas for ongoing transactions helps to offset as well.

Either way, I think it has to be very clearly mapped out and transparent, and it needs to be a larger amount in the beginning. That gives Counterparty a window of time to deliver marketing, education, and technology in a big way, rather than just treading water for for years on end.

In general, do it right, or don’t do it at all.


Just announced XCP is being delisted from Bittrex…

monkey, I think with today’s delisting announcement from Bittrex you are absolutely right. This is now week one of launch, or maybe even pre-week one.

Everything should be on the table at this point… emission, inflation, coin split, gas for transactions, and any other possibility. The only path from here is up.

I look forward to seeing what might be proposed, and happy to offer my thoughts on any ideas that come forth.

1 Like

I’m speaking next week with bittrex reps regarding the recent delist. We will have a call, so if anyone wants some input keep tuned.


nothing left to lose at this point.
Fork. Move XCP token to BNB or something. Something should happen. I vote yes. If there is a foundation I will vote for this too.

This is NOT a shitcoin, it’s one of the few coins with utility . Launched super fairly. There’s no masternodes, no staking. monero was a scam launch- ninjamined, well documented, dash was a scam launch well documented…Most others are ICO’s (like cosmos which poloniex is heavy promoting) or ripple which is a centralized company (and its original founder) only selling large chunks of XRP they majority own… ethereum had an ICO. with counterparty there’s no masternodes, no PoS no ICO nothing… wtf are they doing? disgusting that it has been treated like a shitcoin by exchanges… trade volume is not so bad, especially consider market cap. There are others worse that have not been delisted.

Counterparty supporters have been screwed more than Bitconnect or DAO investors. Total bullshit. Time for change. I vote YES for proposal to debase and yes move to BNB or other.

I’d be very interested to hear what Bittrex has to say. If their primary issue is liquidity, maybe the 100x idea should be considered. It seems like the sweet spot for most asset management-oriented blockchains is around 100-600 million coins. Multiply XCP by 100 and it’s right in the same space.

Or, multiply by 50 and then add a small inflation rate that trends to 150-200 million over a long period of time.

At this point, a price difference of 10000 sats vs. 100 sats per XCP is meaningless. Ideas need to be put forth that provide a shot at success. Having visibility on exchanges is an important part of making that happen.

Good luck on your call, hope you are able to get some worthwhile information.


You do you intend to say? :slightly_smiling_face:

XCP is a door to a big community and number of tokens, they shouldn’t just take XCP trading volume or whatever into account

You do you intend to say? :slightly_smiling_face:

XCP is a door to a big community and number of tokens, they shouldn’t just take XCP trading volume or whatever into account

Few notes regarding trading volume specifically on Bittrex and Poloniex (which in general has decreased across the board on many pairs)

[Note #1 XCP comparitively today has 22.5 BTC volume on Bittrex, and all figures used are from today 24H exchange info]

Steem Dollars. Rank #358: $8M market cap, 10 pairs, 7 exchanges

  • Poloniex- 0.02 BTC ($163) volume on BTC pairs. Significantly less trade volume than XCP has ever got.
  • Bittrex- 2.8 BTC volume on BTC pairs. Less than XCP

If Steem Dollars were delisted from Poloniex and Bittrex for low volume, Steem dollars would mainly be safe because Bittrex and Poloniex account for 13% of volume. Upbit makes up the remaining 86% of it’s steems trade volume, which STEEM holders should be concerned about,

[Note #2 XCP was about the ONLY coin NOT added to UpBit, Bittrex’s Korean offshoot which was unfortunate in terms of having channels for liquidity/exposure/discovery.]

Bancor #118 rank- $42M market cap: 149 pairs, 29 exchanges

  • Poloniex: 0.12 BTC ($869) volume on BTC pairs $134 on the USDT pairs and $2,700 dollars on the ETH pairings. Total 0.5BTC. Significantly less trade volume than XCP.
  • Bittrex- 0.86 BTC on BTC pairs, and 0.08 BTC ETH pairs. Total 0.94 BTC. Significantly less trade volume than XCP

[Note 3: XCP, added several years before to poloniex and Bittrex
did not get the benefit of a USDT or ETH pairings on either exchange, unlike Bancor and other examples below (extra pairs strengthens liquidity, giving traders more options), again another unfortunate blow]

Soo… If Poloniex were to delist Bancor for low volume (only fair, right? since it’s combined three pairs are lower than XCP trade volume on a singular pair on XCP- it wouldn’t matter… because Bancor has 149 total pairs on 29 exchanges. The same deal for Bittrex. Despite that Bancor has twice the trade pairs and a 25x larger market cap, it reports 22x times LESS trading volume than XCP. XCP delisted. Bancor online. Perfectly logical…

How about Upbit?- Bittrexes Korean counterpart. Bancor gets here just 0.05BTC volume.

But If Bancor got delisted from Upbit, Bittrex AND Poloniex, overnight it wouldn’t matter… because Bancor has 149 total pairs on 29 exchanges and volume on those Upbit, Poloniex and Upbit, multiple pairs COMBINED barely add up to 0.1% bancors total reported volume.

Loom #98 Rank- $55M market cap: 53 pairs, 39 exchanges

  • 2.41 BTC ($17,100) volume on BTC pairs, $481 on the USDT pairs and $29 dollars on the ETH pairings

If Poloniex were to delist Loom for low volume (only fair, right, since it’s combined three pairs- again are lower than counterpartys trade volume on a singular pair, despite a 32 x larger market cap)

it wouldn’t matter…Because Loom has 53 other pairs across 39 other exchanges. Poloniex amounts to less than 0.5% of Looms total reported volume. The same applies to Bittrex trade volume- again Loom has lower trading volume than xcp (xcp has more nearly 50% more volume today, for example) but if Bittrex too were to delist Loom for low volume that wouldn’t matter because Bittrex only amounts to 2.9% of total reported volume and to state again there are
53 pairs across 39 exchanges.

SNT. #68 rank $88M market cap, 87 pairs, 72 exchanges

  • Poloniex: 1.06 BTC $7,704 volume on the BTC pairs , $1,168 on the USDT pairs and $598 on the ETH pairings. once again significantly lower than xcp volume on it’s singular BTC pair alone.

Doesn’t matter if Poloniex was to delist SNT for low volume (only fair right? since it’s combined three pairs have lower trading volume than XCP despite a 51 x
larger market cap) it wouldn’t matter. Because SNT has 87 markets on 72 other exchanges and Poloniex accounts for only 0.07% of total trade volume. Also again, volume on XCP on Bittrex is higher than volume of SNT on Bittrex but a delist from there would hardly matter either for reasons stated above.

MaidSafeCoin Rank # 79 - $73M market cap: 7 pairs, 4 exchanges

  • Poloniex: 4.82 BTC across two pairs. If Poloniex was to delist Maidsafecoin, it would be slightly problematic because there aren’t many other exchanges with volume. In fact most, have 0 volume. Only HitBTC saves them with 83% of volume (they should be concerned about that) However Poloniex still only represents 7-8% of it’s volume, so no need to worry there.

Gas Rank #162 - $26M market cap: 46 pairs, 29 exchanges

  • Poloniex: 0.42 BTC volume on the BTC pairs , 0.11 BTC on the ETH pairs Yet another coin reporting significantly lower trade volumes than xcp on it’s singular BTC pair alone but still active, if Poloniex was to delist it, it wouldn’t matter, it’s on 28 other exchanges with another 44 pairs and Poloniex represents just 0.05% of it’s total volume

could go on…

1 Like

Thanks, I agree. Requests for commentary have been invited across multiple channels, not that many people have piped up so far. Maybe they’re all a little sad for now. I hope we can see some more input, more ideas or insight floated. Some of the contributors with the most thought out proposals in this thread are people already putting in some of the most work.

Also I know all that ranting about exchanges is a non-technical complaint but I hope people can see the point being made… which is A) There are plenty of coins with little volume (less than xcp) on Bittrex and poloniex still listed, they get way more volume elsewhere and the same can happen for counterparty. The only reason it hasn’t happened YET is because counterparty hasn’t yet been listed on a bunch of other places. Now is the time to start putting in effort on asking why and fixing that

B) many people moved away from Bitterex and napoloniex as they became less popular few years ago they’re only getting more unpopular with recent news of disabling or delisting sys,burst,xcp- dcr,lsk and so on- ethically launched community coins whilst encouraging crowdsales. Or listing coins with unethical, rigged/backdoored launches etc, there’s plenty of coins not listed on those two exchanges at all where most of the volume is (albeit inflated) that are doing great… So not the end of the world

C) The reason for the price dip was nothing bad about counterparty, had no bearing on fundamentals. Simply exchange decision scaring holders… There isn’t wide liquidity pools, if there was did the price would not have dipped hard, it would of been shrugged off.

whilst Bitterex and Polo are not individually important, exchange presence or liquidity avenues (even if those are dexes) in general are. Integration on new exchanges has been /severely/ lacking compared to other projects. , which had impacted counterparty greatly, it has been growth and discovery stunted all this time to many observers and market participants as the market has expanded and the concept of tokenization which counterparty pioneered has taken off, all this time it hasn’t had visibility, no exposure. How can you research/hold/invest/build on a bitcoin asset platform if you don’t even know it exists? if all you see is NEO, XRP and eth tokens… now that this is recognized, that’s positive. Action can be put in place to ameliorate.

sure; there are other valid concerns like funding ongoing development and outreach… but there’s multiple other projects that are unfunded/asking for donations right now. Others with developers that quit, but still the chain is operational or tokens still liquid or whatnot. Even projects that haven’t gone past the whitepaper stage yet.

it’s not as if coins only get liquidity BECAUSE they’re good & there’s some of the inverse too IE simply because of low liquidity, stagnation in growth on that front people (all sorts, not just traders) abandon good projects and this creates massive negative feedback loop.

almost ANY other coin other than XCP. Seriously… pretty much ALL have significant exchange presence, All of those are liquidity/discovery channels- liquidity begets liquidity and liquidity is security and comfort to anyone interacting with it- at least in this markets seems to be a sign of a ‘solid’ foundation.

We were already in a bear market, vol, price down everywhere- xcp one of the hardest hit. but things were looking up- Counterparty works great, had been stable, until these two entities practically simultaneously made a delist decision, the price crashed a further 80%. It’s distorted as a result of the uncertainty & panic that has been instigated by those two exchanges. To be quite honest, I’d say as a result of it’s lack of broad presence for years, it’s always been very underexposed relative to the rest of the market. One bit of good news is especially with DEX’s you don’t necessarily need permission (or even payment) to get some kind of exposure.

But it is sad… one of the whole points of crypto was to try and escape from singular centralized entities that can manipulate market. A huge mistake here was that all the power and immediate fate was in the hands of two . Doesn’t matter how good counterparty is, how promising, how much development is ongoing- when exchanges announce they close down or delist and and they dominated the volume the price will crash, morale falls… that’s why xcp fell 80% when it was already at lows (but otherwise stable till then) Other projects have risk distributed between 20,30,40,50 zones so if they get hit from one, two sources that decides they’re not earning enough anymore it doesn’t matter…

everyone talks like the sky is falling and gets depressed just like happened with btc and gox, which also crashed the price… except here is better because A) nobodys actually lost their xcp and B) now there should be optimism about marching onwards and upwards.

So just want to (restate) my personal opinion so far on the best way forward

  1. Launch unofficial foundation or oversight group for focused discussion, feedback from community and implementations of changes going forward. This is obviously no one persons job, I will be happy to try and help in whatever capacity I can.
  2. Propose changes- e.g vote by burning or sending old XCP tokens if you support the changes. e.g committing to a tail emission for funding ongoing work. (IMO people need to commit with ‘skin in the game’ to take the most seriously)
  3. A percentage of burned/sent old XCP is allocated to a multisig/foundation for initial bootstrap/ development. This is the foundations immediate grant and initial incentive for funding the move forward.
  4. Perhaps open up the distribution of NEWXCP beyond existing holders?
  5. New token goes live and becomes swappable for old token for those that commited to the social contract at 1000:1 ratio.
  6. new token finds it’s use in the Counterparty ecosystem.

Third parties- for example those that want to swap a particular counterparty token- let’s say Bitcorn for XCP would simply swap $theirtoken for NEWXCP or whatever it is called instead of XCP within the counterparty ecosystem (e.g DEX) the same way they do now, when it goes live without disruption.

Agrred upon emission would be used to support development, outreach, PR, the same thing other projects do.

And if the new ‘base’ token ideally could, in any way be added/managed by external entities easier than the existing process for XCP (presuming that’s why so many are avoidant to integrate) AND/OR be more liquid-- idk, like the ripple gateway bridge Robby proposed, or an ERC-bridge I think that could help massively directly with anyone who uses the DEX, anyone holding or just anyone anyone who wants to build anything with XCP in general. Not all tokens would have to have the same properties, just the base token itself.

I couldn’t see where any objection would come from on these changes unless someone is REALLY commited to holding a fixed % of an decaying project vs agreeing to own slightly less of something now suddenly more promising with a brighter future, something that has genuine possibility of revitalization. If there is absolute disagreement about this “social contract agreement”, being violated, then perhaps there might end up agreement for steps 1-3 but with a total new community imagination of XCP. Exactly like NEM did with decrepid NXT or XMR did with Bytecoin, even LTC was a relaunch of a previous fork, FBX. All took something that wasn’t working or had issues and started again positively with a strong community,with promise for the future. That new energy was very important.

I’m no developer, so only thing I can do is commit to try and help in getting behind a new foundation/ new movement, funding grant with % of tokens as specified, and misc other bits and pieces- but fully behind trying to help revitalize in any way as a grass-roots community project…

Interested to hear any further suggestions



take the “create tokens” idea of counterparty, move it to its own independent blockchain
so it avoids those ‘interoperability with btc’ and ‘security of bitcoin’ features ,
get rid of useless cruft like the DEX (pfftt who would want use one of those anyway? :slight_smile: )

get rid any app, game or collectible built on top- (no need for a token ecosystem) just make a Bitcoin fork that lets people squat assets. users don’t need an interface to exchange tokens/assets trustlessly & securely; they can just get in touch via email and send first to the buyer. Finally, make token registration much more costly to discourage people creating art, cards, in- game assets etc. Forget about scarcity, let the supply of the anti-spam token inflate massively.

I think this be a could be a billion dollar idea

Edit: Turns out this is a billion dollar idea called Ravencoin

Jokes aside the point I’m trying to make again is counterparty only crashed 90% because of this decision in the past 30 days, low exposure, low liquidity, low outreach. Not because it’s a bad idea. Not because it has poor fundamentals. Not because tokenization and Dexes don’t make sense. We should have the same energy RVN had from the early days, RVN just over a year ago was not present on a single exchange, practically were we are now. now it’s a billion dollar project minting xcps total cap every week. The market supports the concept. .
XCP, with a community, a decentralized exchange, a suite of projects built on top of it is 1.5M market cap after 5 years of blood, sweat and tears is arguably more fleshed out, but with next no presence, it shows.

I cannot be the only one who sees how warped that is. Not even hating on Raven specifically- they are some good folks there with great ideas but that discrepancy in valuations, as a representation of utility is just not grounded in reality. Liquidity and exposure that have been lacking here so counterparty has not even had a fair shot. Counterparty genuinely has some ‘edges’ some niches, unique selling points and advantages they just haven’t been communicated.

There’s so many ways forward from here- some controversial but probably all steps in the right direction. Is everybody just going to give up? I noticed there still isn’t much in the way of input from others. We are at day one, ground zero. - positivity can take us places, right now there should be optimism.

Maybe the world’s first DEX can have some kind of interoperability with the world’s newest DEX?


Basically, Launchpad is a place where we want to help good projects raise money, but it’s not only about raising money. We want to help them raise awareness and exposure.

Every time a project goes through Launchpad, many people know about the projects. Some projects are well known, for example, BitTorrent, everybody knows what it is. For some of the other projects we’re putting through Launchpad, Fetch or other projects in the future, many people don’t know about them.

So the rise of awareness and exposure, and also credibility, is a very strong thing for any project. We also help them raise liquidity. Usually after the Launchpad initial sale, if nothing goes unexpectedly, they have a very high chance of getting listed on Binance. It’s not guaranteed, but most projects will have a pretty good chance.

On Binance chain/dex

Basically, if you run an ERC-20 token only for the ERC-20 token, you’re not using the smart contract for any other thing, then migrating to Binance Chain makes total sense. We will reduce the fees for issue tokens and even for listing for the initial coins. We will subsidize some of those coins to move to the Binance Chain. And there are many other many strong benefits for moving to the Binance Chain.

Once you move to the Binance Chain, you will get Binance as a partner. We will help you to do marketing. So we will get the Binance marketing engine working for you, we’ll help you reach our audience, which is a large audience and very active as well. And you can associate your brand with our brand credibility.

You become a Binance long-term partner and early projects will get a disproportionate amount of benefits because we will spend the time to help the early projects that migrated to Binance Chain. So start early.

These are eight projects that already have market caps, that are already trading on Binance.

And we’re inviting more to join. There are many other projects who are not listed on Binance yet and we will ask them to consider moving to Binance Chain. Also, if you issue a token on Binance Chain, you will get priority consideration for Launchpad and priority consideration for Binance listing reviews.

We do not guarantee you will get them, but you’ll be reviewed at a higher priority than if you’re not using the Binance Chain to issue a token. So, we will fully leverage our influence to help people move. And if you’re using the Binance DEX or Binance Chain to issue a token, it will be much easier for us to add your token to our wallet, because then there’s basically no additional development work to be done. You would just be ready.

[30:35] Can you provide any details on Binance Chain gateways/on-ramps for depositing non-Binance Chain assets onto DEX, or if you allow third-party gateways to issue peg tokens on DEX besides yourself.

We don’t have to be the only party to peg them. Binance may provide the pegging facility ourselves, but we don’t have to be the only one. Anyone can provide pegging facilities, but we want to make sure the pegging is done in a much more transparent fashion. Ideally, we want to see where there is an address which holds the peg tokens or peg coins. For example, if we someone wants to peg BTC, it should be a very simple mechanism where there’s one address which holds the BTC, and everybody can view it. And there should be an order book of that full amount of one-to-one ratio so that when people want to convert back, they can convert right away. And we want to make sure that the full liquidity is there, so as long as other people can do the same process, be transparent, and do the pegging, we are fully for it.

What are the biggest considerations for projects to choose BEP2 token over other choices? Any early learnings?
On the other side, for the earlier projects that migrate to Binance Chain, will help push them and we will do joint marketing programs. They will get visibility. They will get a lot of exposure.

Right now it’s quite easy to get listed on Binance DEX. As more projects come on to the Chain, the review process done by the community, it’s done by a thread. Any voting feature will be manipulated, so we didn’t like that. The goal is to have at least 10 times more coins on the Binance DEX than on, so that we can select from Binance DEX the more popular coins on DEX and we will list them on That’s kind of the goal. There’s a lot of incentives on that front.

When do you aim to have a cross-chain bridge (for Binance Chain)?

We want Binance Chain to get some momentum first, so we want to get a number of real projects with real market caps to issue on Binance Chain first

Cosmos is trying to do the cross-chain bridging part. But right now they don’t have a lot of projects live. They don’t have a lot of blockchains live on Cosmos. So once they have a lot more projects, it should be quite technically feasible for us to connect with Cosmos. So we’ll see how that works out.

Breaking the social contract because of centralized exchange delisting is desperate and pathetic.

Rebrand and move to litecoin. Leave counterparty on bitcoin as is. It works, even if the price of XCP is zero.

edit: to be clear I don’t want to hurt anyone feelings. Just saying how it looks.

1 Like

I’m not suggesting counterparty moves away from Bitcoin, (although a fresh start, move to litecoin or any kind of rebrand would be my ideal preference-- even with an entirely new set of stakeholders-- it would almost certainly start out from day one in a better place,with better chances as a new project unencumbered by the past just like ravencoin did)

I’m suggesting above only that the XCP token itself, as what is supposed to be a base liquid asset (or stake in the protocol) particularly the DEX spreads out to an alternate chain (as others have done) . In part to improve liquidity- enabling the token to be broadcast on other decentralized exchange channels, to make it so centralized gatekeepers (who apparently, claw their eyes out wrapping their heads round metalayer like integrations might give it more of a chance- because we wouldn’t be in this current mess if there was more presence on centralized fronts) and perhaps a side effect would be greater visibility. I see it more as realism than desperation.

ERC20 or BEP2 would have access to their own set of liquidity, and tokens could be swappable for XCP usable on the Bitcoin based DEX on an ad-hoc basis, for instance, just like XCP had swapbots and has tokenmarkets there are vending machines like this

proposals for cross chain swaps etc

XCP on Counterparty itself, beyond being a “stake in the protocol” like every other token is, has necessary utility as a base token on the counterparty DEX, as a vanity registration fee- and other proposed but currently unimplemented applications. In theory, it should be desirable- (or at least not undesirable, either case should be more stable than to crash 90% in weeks.). I mean, there’s not $400k worth of them being printed per day like RVN for starters… But a lot of that utility is diminished when it becomes broadly inaccessible or illiquid, not before more people move away from counterparty in part for those same reasons.

First of all, the hardcoded anti-spam fee is already pretty low- right now the XCP side of the anti-spam fee costs less than the necessary bitcoin tx fee side, . second, how do you incentivize people to make use of XCP with extreme price volatility, (worse in the downwards direction, obviously people are a lot more content when somethings going up than down) thirdly- with funding denominated in XCP, it’s not in the best interest of the project nor anyone who uses it in any capacity to have it zero, nor to have any outlet to be able to convert, nor is it anyones best interest to have no real on-ramp to acquire XCP. (yes I’m aware there’s BTC pairs on the DEX) It’s also unwise (for any project that hasn’t got deep pocketed backers/or large ICO warchests or already rich rockstar altruistic developers who haven’t got to put dinner on the table other ways) to reject ideas of long-term funding,- ongoing development, node, wallet hosting etc that all costs fiat.

It works, even if the price of XCP is zero.

true…but at the same time it’s very stunted, If the price of XCP was zero, and I wanted to sell/or buy something on the DEX (let’s say sell a concert ticket that was supposed to be valued at $15) how can that be done? Why would I spend more in the BTC tx fee to make the transaction than what I could get back from the amount of XCP I receive (any amount). That’s one reason XCP is supposed to have a “price” > 0. DEX won’t work well if there’s zero concept of pricing and counterparty on bitcoin works now but won’t work forever if there isn’t some means of ongoing incentivization.

I get where the arguments on breaking contract come from…but at the same time I really don’t get where this stubbornness to adhering to a one-time irreversible social contract that guarantees inevitable collapse comes from, perhaps those that aren’t currently a part of the social contract/consensus (IE they don’t hold any stake?) - The social contract is about decentralized consensus, for instance: I never agreed to many things that have happened in bitcoin itself, like the blocksize limit- but consensus won over, and If anyone didn’t like the fact consensus won over, they could sell the stake and fork, like they did.
I’ve followed this for 5 years. I agreed to the idea behind it, decentralized exchange, a bitcoin based asset platform, liked the launch, (which Is why I came here instead of ethereum, I’m sure others are similar)… would never agree any contract that meant idly standing by and watching something that has so much potential run into the ground needlessly out of firm resolve to do nothing while solvable problems go unsolved.

With the debasing proposal specifically it’s hardly alike the DAO or something… people would actually be volunteering to SHRINK their stake for the health of the project (even though many have also seen their fiat representative stake shrink 99.9+% anyways) . surely that’s positive social contract amendment?

1 Like

Correlation does not imply causation. The current issues have been building over a long period of time, and maybe the exchange delistings can be the impetus to generate action.

I think there are a lot of good nuggets in monkey’s feedback that should be seriously considered. At the end of the day, the core problem is not enough funding to support ongoing development, marketing, and education.

One of the ways to generate positive marketing and mind share is through exchange listings. There are many coins I’ve only learned about because I saw them on an exchange. It is an easy way to have continuous marketing of your platform to the broader world without a significant marketing budget. I completely agree Counterparty should be on many different exchanges, and there should be a huge effort to make this happen.

You’ve stated developers need to have “skin in the game.” That’s a fine opinion to have, but I’m fairly certain that will lead to the eventual end of Counterparty. I also believe they already have skin in the game by devoting as much time and energy as they do with currently minimal possibility for upside.

It only works because there are people who are willing to provide technical services to keep it running. Once that is gone, so is everything else.


Spot on. Consensus won over regardless of the opinion of others. Is BTC the same coin I thought it was 5 years ago? Not at all, but it still moves forward based on what consensus says is right for it.

This is Bittrex’s XCP and COVAL address. Nearly 1/3 of all XCP are held by it -841,000 tokens!- yet only 90,000 are up for sale right now. Their policy is you have 14 days to remove your coins. Perhaps they can donate the remaining tokens to the foundation on June 15th?


Counterparty is insteresting because it is a Bitcoin 2nd layer, and it’s backed by Bitcoin PoW.

If it moves away from Bitcoin, the value of the whole ecosystem will drop to zero, because it will still be easier to use ETH or something else to create tokens.

What are the scaling solutions that have been thought for Counterparty ? :thinking:

1 Like

Token on LN.

Moving to BNB is kinda dumb. It a token blockchain(ish). Blockchain that don’t have it tokenization yet like Litecoin is something.
Or use number 1 of what i suggested and be a sidechain with some of sort of debasing controlled by the DAO.