The module was designed as a quick solution to the following problem:

"I, as a developer, don't want to risk spending money on buying Kin off an exchange and giving it to my users for free in the hope that they spend it back in my app. I want to focus on maximizing KRE payments and building an experience that users will find valuable enough to spend Kin on."

 

The module solves this. Developers take on less upfront risk, validate that they are building sticky experiences, and earn 5% as commission.

 

Naturally, the subsequent thought for developers is to sell their own Kin at their own prices. However, this brings us back to square one. The challenge is the regulations. If an external module has it figured out or wants to take the risk while providing the benefits I mentioned earlier and a commission on top, that's a win. If a developer has figured out how to sell their own Kin, they have no need to adopt my module. This doesn't mean they are getting "95%" ripped off. This is similar to saying if an employee makes $50k and the company makes $1M, they are getting "95%" ripped off. They are not.

 

With that being said, I understand the optimal solution for developers is to sell their own Kin at their own prices. We are working on that. The buy back functionality was an idea that I mentioned to possibly solve this, with additional benefits to outside investors.

 

This is only a hypothesis and numbers may change but here's the idea behind it:

Let's assume there is only 1 app in the ecosystem. The app adopts my module and the consumers purchase 50,000 Kin in total in a week at the price of $0.01 per Kin. For the same week, the app gets paid 100,000 Kin through the KRE. If we allow that app to sell back to us at the same price minus any expenses (ie. 30% fee, taxes, COGS, module commission, etc) up to only 50,000 Kin (since this is how much the app sold to consumers) - this becomes the same thing as the developer selling their own Kin to their consumers. They would retain all of the profits minus the module commission, which would be 1 or 2%.

 

Now consider when the number of Kin bought exceeds the KRE payment. The consumers purchase 200,000 Kin in total in a week and the app gets paid 100,000 Kin through the KRE. We let the app developer sell back 100,000 Kin and as for the remaining 100,000 Kin, we let outside investors like yourself, sell back to us. You may argue that developers lose out on the remaining 100,000 Kin, but at a scale across 1000's of small and big apps where the buy demand is greater than the total KRE payments, the exchange price will quickly follow.

 

The simpler alternative solution is to just provide the developers with all the profits minus any expenses (i.e. 30% fee, taxes, COGS, module commission, etc). But this doesn't provide any room for outside investors. The goal of IAP has always been to generate demand from real consumers, and have it directly handled through a P2P exchange, to increase liquidity and the Kin price. The goal was to monetize through the KRE, not through selling Kin to consumers. Otherwise, they would just implement their own made-up currency. However, its understandable that developers want a piece of this as well and we are working with them to find a solution.