Off the bat...
if a contract requires a user to stake a minimum of one token - what might we be able to infer about where token price could head...?
Many people might wanna buy hoping for huge price gains - but high token price would probably kill the user base by making the cost of contracts too high.
I might not be understanding something correctly, though that could be a significant flaw. If price was high, the service would be out of reach out of a lot of users - not exactly the best fundamentals for sustainable growth of either the user base or token price. Of course, MAYBE it’s the case that the developers of apps are the ones that have to stake the token, so it’d be a different matter. Though then again - competitive advantage would probably go to the apps that provide the cheapest service, equating to lower profits, equating to the question of how much they’re willing to / can invest/stake to keep their service running.
There’s probably some great points in the overall concept, though not confident this one has what it takes to grow out and stay for the long term. I’d think one of the most practical implementations for such a credit protocol would be in third world with micro loans - and I could foresee a lot better options coming into the market that are completely free or next-to-free to use, rather than having the token model make things more complicated and costly for users.
Of course, I could not be seeing the same they vision they do. Might be missing something. Not sure how much detail and substance they’ve got versus the broader surface-level concepts...
Good take on the matter @rok-sivante, indeed if the token price is too high it might deter any mainstream adoption, but then again the token would also have value in which people can sell off if they don't need that much bandwidth utilising the protocol. For one, if their credit rating works well then it might take off.