Hey I am not trying to be a jerk, but seriously we’ve looked years ago at all those sort of ideas you are having now, and we had realized they are flawed.

For example:

As purchasing increases the koin remains available at a progressively more expensive price. This acts as a signal to the network that demand is up, and it creates more koin to curb the demand.

The Quantity Theory of Money has been dunked, i.e. price does respond to changes in money supply (^{_{and that is especially true when everyone receives proportionally more coins because otherwise there is a flaw in terms of selecting who the new supply is distributed to}}). I even mentioned why in this blog. In fact, it is more likely to have spiraling effect where your increase in coin supply causes volatility to increase as people are incentivized to speculate on hoarding more coins to amplify gains.

Koin is very different from bitcoin in that there is no competitive hashing. To take over the network one must control many full-user accounts running nodes, not hash-power.

Identity can be rented, purchased, gamed, and otherwise controlled by those with the most resources. Nothing is cheaper than proof-of-work as alternatives are economically equivalent to proof-of-work.

Let me describe what I call Simple Random -blockchain- technology. Transactions are passed over the network continuously between nodes. A random group of these miner nodes is selected, which all send each other possible lists of transactions to verify

This is analogous to a research paper on proof-of-stake.

I could debunk all your ideas, but I had already done so many times on BCT and I do not have time.

Sorry.