It is not possible to make that assumption. More tokens in circulation could mean price goes down because more wants to sell.
Recommended to learn more about the what affects aggregated supply\demand in markets, if you want to make assumptions about price in a supply\demand markets
Some still hopes for a free floating supply\demand solution between farmers and clients, that would solv any price that markets wants to set.
Saying this is counter to the discussion you just had with bones where you pointed out that a split of say x10 does not change the percentage owned by any holder. It is also true that it wonât change the value of those holdings since when a split happens, everyone trading knows no value has been added and will divide the price by the multiple used in the split.
The number of tokens is all but irrelevant because the value is what matters (also a cap is one of the options which reduces the number of tokens as no more would be issues after launch - but still irrelevant to the value of holdings and therefore the inclination of holders to sell).
I make many mistakes and learn as I think out loud, such is life.
I saw this this morning and it reminded me immediately of this thread. 
Yes you are right, my bad. Brain takes short cuts sometimes which gives occatinal errors.
But the assumptions you made in pevious comment is not right and if you learn about what affects aggregated supply\demand diagrams or in markets then you will know.
It gets more complicated, it might be good to start with regular supply\demand curv diagrams.
Here is one example
Itâs not but most of it isnât predictable anyways.
My best guess based on other similar projects launching like hash graph or Filecoin, is that there is a lot of dumping/profit taking right away regardless. If we have value in a live network price will recover and appreciate eventually. If some do dump and immediately re-accumulate AND we participate in market making, all while the network has positive health/growth metrics, then I donât doubt we would see rapid price appreciation.
That is always the case in supply\demand markets, price rises until sellers wants to sell, or falls until buyers wants to buy. There is always a dance between sellers\buyers at different equilibriums, it is natural, and will occour at any supply levels.
Yes.
Dumping makes price fall, and demand might be strong, so prices can bounce at many different directions.
Also other jobs that predicts future by looking at history, weather, magic eightball and so on. But remember that economics is wide field.
Those who liked you comment better not like posts about technical analysis.
Right. My point is profit taking after launch will happen regardless of which path we choose.
I wonder if we should do a poll soon? Discussion has gone well and mostly civil! Iâve learned quite a bit and I think others have been opened minded enough to see the opposing perspectives and opinions.
Decorum as it should be folks. 
Itâs all in fun. I think both rely heavily on human psychology but you have to first remove your own psychology for you to be effective. Thatâs my assumption on why TA doesnât work for most but works great for the fewer (also they play house odds with risk/reward ratios) and why most economists arenât very accurate.
Off topic though.
Let the Maidsafe team make the economic system they see fit.
Or let other people who have a high knowledge of economics choose.
A poll donât seem neccessary because a high amount of people donât seem to know enough about economics to undestand, what the decisions they would make would mean and result in.
I respect that opinion but we all know that a community poll is a suggestion, not a decision. Ultimately it is always up to Maidsafe but it is highly beneficial to them to know where a majority stand so they know how to present their choices to the community.
This is correct but misses the point Iâm making, which is that this is different from the system we are/were expecting, where the network is a significant source of SNT provided to farmers as it inflates the supply over time. This necessarily depresses the price, hence my point that the split/cap is likely to provide a more immediate rise, countered by the willingness of holders to sell which we can expect to diminish as they reduce their holdings. So short to medium term we can expect prices to rise more with cap/split than without, until SNT are more widely distributed. Different approaches will converge over time towards the situation when max SNT are in circulation regardless of how this is done.
Exactly. So as long as the network is more secure from the get go and people feel itâs cheap enough to store and profitable enough to farm then the only differences are order and timing of similar events. So does one order or timing of events present different outcomes? Or all the same? 
I think it is actually brilliant having a network which doesnât hold coins or distributes them. Again a unique feature for SAFE.
Immediately 99% of the hackers are not interested anymore.
So only problem are the current whales. But they only are a serious threat on POS chains IMO.
So what can they do here? Dump the price? They can and could or maybe are doing this already all the time, so is this a (new) problem?
You lose some value (so what?), but on the other hand you win redistribution.
Whales are everywhere, on every chain. I donât see it as a serious problem here.
We are lucky that this project took so long 
, everybody had already (and still have) the chance to jump in very cheap.
The whales we have are probably the most committed and dedicated ones in crypto space.
In the worst case, the mass of people will decide that this initial distribution is not fair and will copy the network with a fairer economic model and distribution.
Privacy. Security. Freedom
Individual token price would likely drop if the number of coins in circulation increases. The total market cap may stay the same.
However, the implicit fear of inflation would likely lead to the price (irrationally) tanking such that the total market cap decreases also. This is why I think capping to current MAID supply is more optimal than inflating to total SNT supply.
Regardless, capping (or inflating) supply would all be meaningless (and likely detrimental) if the exchange access issues remain unsolved. For the Network to grow, the tokens must be able to find their way into new hands. Farmers will also need a way to trade (I.e. recycle) tokens they have earned. This in turn raises the question of whether the Network would actually distribute rewards or users just pay farmers for services.
Also, capping the supply underscores the need for divisibility.
yeah, maybe. I think there will be 1000 of reasons for making a fork. I will happen anyway. Thatâs the nature of these crypto open source projects.
Also every coin creator finds his economic model the most fair. But still other creators think they can do better. And so we have now around 6000 coinsâŚIt is what it is
The difference is that you give them a real reason to say that the small group of people here have taken all the money, provided that they have had the choice to give the money to a foundation to accelerate the growth of the ecosystem paying for uploading useful dataâŚ
Privacy. Security. Freedom
