Stablecoin Strategy for the Signum Network — A
Roadmap by Kim Stock
This roadmap captures a vision for creating a sustainable, decentralized stablecoin within the
Signum Network — a vision built from years of curiosity, care, and the desire to help others
understand technology that empowers people. It blends life wisdom with practical blockchain
strategy so that future builders, including Kim’s grandson, can learn not only the “how,” but
also the “why.”
Phase 1: Position and Prepare (0–6 Months)
The first step is laying the foundation — understanding what kind of stablecoin you want to
build and ensuring your technical environment is reliable and well-documented. Choose
between an algorithmic, overcollateralized, or hybrid model, with Signum’s Proof-of-Capacity
design lending itself best to a hybrid approach. Focus on transparent, on-chain mechanisms
that don’t rely on fiat reserves but instead balance supply and demand through logic and
participation. Pay attention to evolving regulations, especially in the United States. Use
language emphasizing decentralization, algorithmic stability, and transparency. During this
stage, also strengthen your node and wallet setup (such as using MariaDB on Windows 11),
and begin small-scale smart contract experiments simulating mint/burn mechanisms.
Document everything carefully, so future readers understand your process clearly.
Phase 2: Develop and Demonstrate (6–18 Months)
Once the groundwork is stable, start developing a functional prototype. This could include a
testnet deployment that allows minting and burning of your stablecoin, a price oracle for
external reference, and a stabilization reserve pool for safety. Transparency becomes the
most valuable asset — publish code, share updates, and educate your audience through
short videos or write-ups explaining what you’re doing and why it matters. Build collaboration
rather than competition. Seek partnerships with other Signum-based projects, and encourage
the use of your stablecoin as a utility token in their ecosystems. Explore governance through
community voting or fee-sharing, and develop fully decentralized swap mechanisms between
SIGNA and your stablecoin to avoid centralized dependencies.
Phase 3: Grow and Guide (18+ Months)
When the stablecoin achieves reliability, expand its role in the Signum ecosystem as a
practical, stable-value asset. It can serve for payments, staking, or savings functions, building
real-world-like utility. As adoption grows, establish a DAO or community treasury governed by
stakeholders to ensure continued transparency and sustainability. This phase is about
stewardship — sharing knowledge, guiding others, and maintaining agility as regulations and
technologies evolve. Kim’s philosophy of kindness and helpfulness applies here: success in
decentralized systems comes not from control, but from contribution. Encourage open
education and compassionate innovation as the foundation for a fairer, smarter economy.
Reflection and Legacy
The “stablecoin hubbub” of the mid-2020s marks both uncertainty and opportunity. By
choosing to lead with transparency, decentralization, and empathy, builders can shape
systems that endure. This roadmap is not just technical guidance — it’s a reminder that
technology, when guided by integrity and kindness, becomes a tool for good. May these
insights inspire future generations to continue learning, building, and uplifting others along the way.
Good day everyone this is one of my first articles
Record Metrics & Modest Momentum for Signum (SIGNA): Signs of Potential Stability in an Oversaturated Market
As Signum (SIGNA) navigates through low market cap territory, recent on-chain and trading indicators hint at possible building blocks for a longer-term move. While the environment is far from bullish fireworks, several fundamentals are showing signs of stabilization.
⸻
In Brief
• The current price of SIGNA is about US $0.000895. 
• Market capitalization stands at approximately US $1.9 million, with ~2.13-2.18 billion tokens in circulation. 
• 24-hour trading volume is relatively low (~US $18,000-$22,000), but shows slight increases from very low-bases. 
• After years of decline from its all-time high (~US $0.0196 in mid-2021), SIGNA remains down roughly 95% from that peak. 
• Short-to-mid term technical indicators are mixed/neutral-bearish; forecasts suggest only modest upside unless something shifts materially. 
⸻
Unpacking Recent Activity & Metrics
Although Signum is not seeing big volume surges, a few data points are noteworthy:
1. Modest Volume Upticks
Trading volumes have crept upward somewhat, with recent 24-hour volumes between US $18,000-$22,000 across exchanges like Bitget, Binance, etc. While this is still a tiny fraction compared to larger tokens, the increase from even lower baselines suggests a tiny rebirth of interest. 
2. Stable Circulating Supply & Tokenomics
Circulating supply is around 2.13-2.18 billion SIGNA; total supply is similar. Market cap remains minimal. No major dilution event appears imminent. 
3. Technical / Forecast Signals Are Weak But Not Dire
Some price prediction models project only tiny gains in the near term (e.g. staying near ~$0.000893 in 2025, with slightly higher targets in coming years if favorable conditions persist). 
⸻
Fundamentals vs Sentiment: Where They Diverge
• Fundamentals are modest: SIGNA is not showing major new partnerships, massive adoption, or protocol upgrades (at least not publicly evident) that would tend to drive explosive growth.
• Sentiment is quiet: With such low market cap, SIGNA tends to fly under the radar of big investors and many retail holders. Media coverage, social mentions, and broader crypto interest seem minimal.
• Risk persists: Low liquidity, risk of exchange delistings, price manipulation, and lack of strong developmental milestones are all simplified ways SIGNA could stay stuck or decline further.
⸻
What It Would Take for a Break-Out
Here are some catalysts that might help SIGNA move from merely stable to gaining:
• A clear technical upgrade or roadmap announcement that materially improves usability (e.g. new decentralized apps, integrations).
• Growth in real on-chain metrics: more active addresses, transactions, staking or usage outside speculative trading.
• Listing on more exchanges with better liquidity and visibility.
• External macro or sector tailwinds: perhaps interest in low-cap / under-appreciated blockchains, energy efficiency (if Signum’s proof-mechanism or sustainability claim gets traction).
⸻
Caveats & Potential Headwinds
• Low market cap is a double-edged sword: It means small flows can move the price a lot, but also that down-side risk is high (whales or exchanges can have oversized influence).
• Competition is stiff: Many newer blockchains and tokens advertise sustainability, modularity, etc. SIGNA will need something to distinguish itself.
• Visibility: Without strong community or developer activity, a token like this often gets ignored or forgotten.
⸻
Outlook
If SIGNA continues on its current trajectory, things to watch in the coming months:
• Any spike in daily transactions or active addresses
• New partnership or dApp launches
• Upticks in social sentiment or media coverage
• Whether volume grows beyond current small levels consistently
If those things happen, we might see SIGNA moving toward US $0.0010 or higher in the medium term. But absent that, SIGNA may remain in its low-price, low-visibility range.
HDD Mining the easy way….
Title: Understanding Signum’s Nakamoto Coefficient — And Why It Doesn’t Tell the Whole Story
By Kim Stock
As blockchain networks continue to evolve, discussions around decentralization remain as relevant as ever. One way to measure decentralization is through a concept called the Nakamoto Coefficient — a metric designed to quantify how many entities would need to collude to compromise the core function of a blockchain network, such as block production. I recently looked into Signum’s Nakamoto Coefficient and, in doing so, uncovered some surprising insights — not only about Signum, but about the limitations of the metric itself.
What is the Nakamoto Coefficient?
The Nakamoto Coefficient, named after Bitcoin’s mysterious creator Satoshi Nakamoto, represents the minimum number of entities (e.g., miners, validators, developers, exchanges) that would need to collude to disrupt the network. The smaller the number, the more centralized the system is in that particular domain.
For example, in the context of mining, a Nakamoto Coefficient of 1 means a single entity controls over 50% of the network’s block production — making it highly vulnerable. A higher number indicates more distributed control.
Signum’s Nakamoto Coefficient (as of April 2025)
After checking data from PoolBay.io, here’s how Signum’s mining power is distributed:
• signapool.notallmine.net: 57.2%
• pool.signumcoin.ro: 25.6%
• spacepool.btfg.space: 5.7%
• Other smaller pools: ≈11.5%
To find the Nakamoto Coefficient, you sum the percentages from the largest pools until you surpass 50%. In Signum’s case:
• signapool.notallmine.net alone has enough capacity to exceed 50%.
• However, to err on the side of fairness (and because block production can vary), adding the second largest pool brings us well above that threshold.
Result: Signum’s Nakamoto Coefficient = 2
This means just two mining pools control a majority of the network’s block production, raising valid concerns about centralization — especially for a chain that prides itself on being community-oriented.
How Does Bitcoin Compare?
Surprisingly, Bitcoin isn’t much different. As of early 2025, the Bitcoin mining landscape is dominated by:
• Foundry USA: ~29–33%
• Antpool: ~21–25%
• F2Pool/ViaBTC: ~10–15%
With Foundry and Antpool alone, you’re already at or above the 50% mark. That puts Bitcoin’s Nakamoto Coefficient at 2 or 3 — not far off from Signum’s.
The Limitations of the Nakamoto Coefficient
While eye-opening, the Nakamoto Coefficient doesn’t tell the whole story. It’s just one piece of a much larger puzzle. Here’s why:
1. It only looks at one vector — usually mining or staking — ignoring the role of node operators, developers, wallet providers, or exchanges.
2. Not all entities are equal — some mining pools, even if few in number, may be widely distributed across many users, reducing actual centralization risk.
3. It lacks context — a network with a low coefficient might still be resilient if its community is strong and governance transparent.
As I reflected during my research:
“I’m not sure it means everything.”
And that’s a fair conclusion. While a useful tool, the Nakamoto Coefficient is far from the definitive measure of decentralization.
Final Thoughts
Metrics like the Nakamoto Coefficient are helpful for spotting risks and patterns, but real decentralization is more complex and layered. It lives not just in data, but in how communities behave, how software is developed, and how resilient a network is to pressure — whether social, economic, or technical.
For Signum, staying vigilant and encouraging distributed participation is key. For the rest of us, it’s a reminder: even giants like Bitcoin still walk a centralization tightrope.
