Kaspa Coin Giveaway

Imagine being able to move funds with full confirmation in the time it just took you to read this sentence... $KAS does that. With POW security and costing a fraction of a penny. $KAS does that.

In about two months, Kaspa’s stock-to-flow (S2F) ratio will surpass that of silver. Stock-to-Flow measures the ratio of circulating supply (stock) to annual production (flow). Put simply, it shows how many years it would take, at the current production rate, to reproduce the existing stock. In proof-of-work cryptocurrencies, the S2F ratio offers another way to conceptualize an asset’s emission schedule. As emissions approach zero, the S2F ratio approaches infinity. While S2F ratios are informative because they reflect the scarcity of a commodity money, they do not necessarily provide reliable insight into price action, particularly because fiat-denominated price action is highly confounded by numerous other variables. The least confounded way to measure Kaspa’s monetary value is by analyzing its inactive supply metrics. Inactive supply reveals the extent to which an asset is being held as a store of value. Since storing value is a core function of money, inactive supply metrics provide us with insight into how well an asset is being used as money. In Kaspa’s case, the extremely high reliability in the growth of its inactive supply over time demonstrates the extremely reliable growth in its use as a store of value. Inactive supply provides the least confounded measure of Kaspa’s monetary value, since—unlike its fiat-denominated price—it is not distorted by currency devaluation or CEX-driven price manipulation. Some recent research I’ve been conducting examines whether the reliability with which the inactive supply of some monetary asset rises over time offers insight into the degree of centralization in a monetary system. My hypothesis is that the reason Kaspa’s inactive supply has exhibited extremely high R-squared values (on both its 2-year and 3-year regression models) is because it is so decentralized. I believe it is only because Kaspa is so highly resistant to centralization that it can possibly achieve such high R-squared values. If so, this value can serve as a proxy for objectively measuring the scope of decentralization or corruptibility within a monetary system. Moreover, the fact that the R-squared value increases as the period of inactivity lengthens is also telling: it suggests that the ability of any single actor to influence Kaspa’s role as a store of value diminishes with time. Conceptually, this may suggest that as time passes, the ability of any one actor to meaningfully disrupt Kaspa (from a monetary systems perspective) declines. While the same is true for Bitcoin, the effect is even greater for Kaspa. Finally, Kaspa’s inactive supply metrics not only allow us to infer that Kaspa is not a Ponzi scheme, but that it is the most potent antidote to Ponzi schemes in existence. A distributed ledger this resistant to manipulation will, from a game-theoretic perspective, drive all other ledgers into obsolescence, because they carry trade-offs Kaspa avoids. Kaspa is, in effect, the most perfect form of money humanity has ever created. It is the fullest realization of Satoshi’s vision.

The Savior is Coming! He’s Dressed in Digital Silver! I may be jumping the gun, but thoughts: as shown in a previous article, Kaspa solves the blockchain trilemma at the L1 level. However, once smart contracts are implemented, Kaspa can also make the L2 level more decentralized and secure. This is a big deal, and for some reason, no one is talking about it. Kaspa can accomplish this by adopting either (or both) of the two smart contract implementation options proposed by Yonatan: 1) smart contacts implemented via L2 roll-ups with sequencing and settlement done on Kaspa, or 2) Kaspa becomes a sequencer for L2 Roll-ups executing contracts on Ethereum. Every L2 roll-up (i.e., Arbitrum, Optimism, zkSync) utilizes a single, centralized sequencer to order transactions. It’s important to note that they don’t need to use a single sequencer; instead, it’s a choice. Let’s examine why: roll-ups, by definition, were initially meant to be an entity for executing transactions while using the sequencing and data availability of an L1. However, due to Ethereum’s inefficient and slow sequencing, it’s more convenient for L2s to run their own centralized sequencer. Moreover, Ethereum’s data availability is too expensive, which has caused modular DA layers with less than secure systems to form (such as Celestia utilizing PoS). Thus, Ethereum’s inefficiencies are spreading to realms beyond the L1 level and making those realms, too, inefficient. Even more so, this has caused a modularization of the crypto universe, fragmenting liquidity and decreasing composability. Implementing smart contact integration option 1 resolves the issues above for Kaspa only. PoW miners will function as sequencers according to the BlockDAG ordering rules of GHOSTDAG/DAGKNIGHT. Sequencing will be fast and efficient enough (up to 100 blocks per second with DAGKNIGHT) to use L2 roll-ups for execution only (as originally intended); thus, L2s executing onto Kaspa won’t need a centralized, single sequencer. Additionally, by adopting a blob-carrying (aka payload) mechanism, Kaspa can compete against Celestia or any other modular layers, reducing fragmentation. Implementing smart contract integration option 2, however, gets juicer. Kaspa will serve as a sequencing side-chain for Ethereum or any other L1, decentralizing any L2 platform for any L1s. Thus, any L1 could reap the decentralized ordering benefits of GHOSTDAG/DAGKNIGHT (solving L2 centralization) and the energy defense system behind PoW (or as Jason Lowery calls it, a nonlethal weapon defense system). This is game-changing as a commodity-like monetary premium will anchor equity-like monetary premiums (PoS protocols). Lastly, the asynchronous nature of DAGKNIGHT could function as a countermeasure to MEV, thus providing MEV resistance to any L1 using roll-ups. Kaspa could be the knight in shining armor to save the entire crypto universe. Kaspa, as an Ethereum side-chain (or for any L1), may leave a bad taste in the community’s mouth. Moreover, many may ask why Kaspa should be the savior of other platforms — why not just focus on Kaspa’s ecosystem? I understand and sympathize with both intuitions; however, saving the world means massive and consistent mining rewards, which is especially important for Kaspa’s economic security once block subsidies are gone. However, it’s hard to save the world until your own army, so to speak, is strong and autonomous enough — in this case, Kaspa’s network and ecosystem. Therefore, adopting option one first makes the most sense, and once Kaspa is ready, it can alleviate any bad taste by adopting option two and save the world.