I do agree that some of their statements seem a bit contradictory there, but that is more an organizational issue I expect they'll get figured out over time. They'd probably be better off picking one of their devs as official spokesperson, just so we don't get mixed messages.

I'm not overly concerned about it ... unless they actually go through with the burning. Perhaps I am over-thinking it, but it's not a bad idea for them to publicly consider it here in the forums. So I wouldn't worry about it just yet.

I just hope they get dividend signups working really soon, finish up the website, and perhaps even start on some discussion of new coin features to consider. The faster that is done, the less sell pressure there should be.

There are always some that sell on 'news' regardless of the situation. The news in this case being the start of the coin, so to me it's a rather silly time to sell.

Picked up some extra at 1860 myself.

I didn't meant my comment to sound like you guys have no plan or to minimize the work you have put into the coin. I said if all you can come up with is burning coins, you have no plan.

I know what is listed on your OP. I know of things talked about. All I am basically saying is do some of those things before even considering burning/buying back coins.  I guess you took offense to my remark, and sorry if it was taken that way. Just my opinion that if a team decides to push the emergency button within a week of a coin's initial release, before even doing anything in their 'plan', that they don't really have a plan... or at the very least, they don't have confidence in it.

Busoni holding would be a logical choice... but still, nobody is ever considered a 100% trusted party. I'd still be concerned as far as trolls/fud go.  There is also a question of if the coins aren't burned, would it necessarily increase the coin's price on an exchange to a noticeable degree? Dividends would go up... so maybe. But it also ties up btc the team could use otherwise. And if the team needed to ever cash out those spare coins to buy other assets, they'd sort of tank the price of their own coin. Actually just giving away too many of them could influence the price negatively (freebie people tend to dump).

I'm against a buywall/burning coins and have said so, and would only like to see a buy wall done if absolutely needed. I don't think the coin is at that point yet, especially after just 3 days. Although I guess the devs simply talking about a potential buy wall probably does have a temporary benefit ... buys them some time even if they never implement it.

It doesn't have to be burned, but if a substantial amount, it probably should be. If not burned, the coin would get trolls/fud spread about like how the dev team is sitting on half the available coins (or however many)... equivalent to if a dev team had a giant premine. There is always a danger when one party holds too large a percentage of a coin -- basically a sword hanging over everyone's heads.

One interesting thing is, if they simply set up their dividend signup page, I expect we'd see a decent number of coins leave the exchange. That should ideally result in less sell orders, and also a greater potential for a price rise (whales hate to see tons of coins on an exchange ready to sell).

I'd much rather they focus on that, assets they plan to purchase, and possible coin developments, than this burning stuff.

My first question is, who is in charge of the coin? I assumed you were. If you are not in favor of it, then don't burn it.

The danger in a vote is that the majority could easily vote for something that is against the longterm interest of the coin. It's happened with other coins. Then, even if you don't burn, you have just created fud food ... which I expect trolls to bring up if the price doesn't do well.

And it is a quick bandaid fix. If things turn south, if the dev team doesn't release anything... price tanks... sure, do the burn then. It should be considered a last resort. But if the dev team seriously considers using a last resort within a week of their coin's release, I question if the dev team really knows what it is doing.

And would you be surprised at all if many vote for burning because they simply wanted a quick return/pump, didn't get it, and now want to dump? I remember XBC asking its community about burning coins too... and then when the dev left with all the ico money, they realized they had no funds to do anything with. People tend to vote for shortterm benefit over longterm here.

If the devs can't come up with a better plan than burning their own coin, might as well burn it and I'll cash out then. It means you have no actual plan.

Glad you were willing to discuss this intelligently and not resort to insults.

From purely a dividend perspective... perhaps.

From a coin valuation perspective however, all that 25 btc would need to do is increase the price of the coin on an exchange by a somewhat small amount.

Ex. 25 btc invested in decentralized marketplace + anonymity.

And if we said the value of the coin on the exchanges went up 25-50% due to this. That would be of greater benefit than the 50% increase in dividend -- unless the coin price remained stable for like 10 years worth of dividends, perhaps.

Something else to keep in mind... how much do you think people will be getting from this dividend anyway? I mean, actual btc returned, not percentage? Although it's a nice bonus, for those of us who have received dividends from stocks know, it's not exactly a giant windfall. It can takes years to add up to anything really. Increasing the value of the coin on the exchange should be the goal and what will matter most to investors, with the dividends thing being secondary, at least for most I would expect.

I do have a question or two for the supporters of buying back/burning ...

And to get it in early, for the 20th time, I understand the math, I just disagree with the premise that it would benefit the coin.

Is your goal to increase dividends or to increase the price of the coin?

Spending 25 btc to buy/burn coins is no guarantee an increase in the price of the coin, so basically the entire idea I take it is to increase ROI (from dividends) 50%, correct?

One problem which has already been stated is, longterm, how can we say that 50% increase in dividends will be better than if the team simply used that 25 btc properly?

What if they end up short of funds due to some investments not panning out? Wouldn't that 25 btc come in handy then? Or what if they invest that 25 btc in other coins that skyrocket? Or coin features, say a decentralized marketplace, or something similar, that proves very popular? We can't say for certain that the dividend increase from burning will be of greater benefit longterm than if the 25 btc is spent on other things.

And as candlesticks has stated, I expect a lot of people to not even bother with the dividends thing. If the team was smart, they would have made the requirement 1K coins or higher. It would have increased dividends for those most willing to buy the coin in the first place, and also increased demand to reach at least 1K. But as it is, I simply expect a number of folks to leave the coin on an exchange since they had no plans to hold anyway... and some with 100-900 or so coins may figure it's not even worth the bother of signing up for, since their dividend will be so small.

Yeah, looks legitimate, you seem honest.

*peeks at your trust rating*

I asked that same question, as I was focusing on coin valuation on the exchanges.

He was just trying to show how dividends would increase if the coins were burned. And they would.

Although it's not subtracting 25 btc from the dividend pool, but the asset pool. And my opinion is that 25 btc would be better used for other purposes.

They are correct in the view that the total dividend would probably increase due to the coins being burned. It wouldn't be smart for the dev team to hold like half (or however many) QBK in existence. Or anyone to hold that many. So they'd really need to burn them.

But yep, that 25 btc would be gone, so it couldn't be used for dividends or future coin enhancements. Potentially that 25 btc could bring in much more buy support longterm by being used properly, than by basically burning them away.

I agree that it's a bad idea, and I'd only do it as a last resort -- like drop the lifeboats, the ship is sinking... last resort before we all die, sort of situation. There are other ways to increase buy support, including a multipool (hope one is in the works).

As for who pays for features when funds run out ... coins sometimes go with donations, or if the asset fund is making profits, the team could use some of those profits for new features if they so choose. It also depends what features are added, as it's possible after a certain point it wouldn't be necessary to add anything overly expensive feature-wise.

Anyway, your tactic seems to be that if anyone disagrees with you, they simply don't understand what you are saying?

This is getting tiresome. Contact Busoni... I'm sure he'd be happy to implement that buy wall for you, on a coin he isn't in charge of... just because it's on his exchange.

Not if it results in less assets (btc) for the dev team to use on new coin features, which I believe would increase the value of the coin (on an exchange) more than any burning + buy wall would.

It also won't do much good to increase the dividend if the price of the coin goes down after the buy wall is removed ... which is a definite possibility, right after folks go into 'dump into the wall' mode.

I always understood it... just that for some reason our definitions of coin valuation differed.

The only reasons to want the buy wall, in my opinion, would be:

An investor put more into this that he/she should have, and wants out... NOW.
An investor caught some of the low buy orders and wants out with profit .... NOW.

Otherwise, it's not good for the longterm health of the coin.

We understand, okay? I already explained previously to you how I understood the math, expect everyone else does too.

I just disagree that a somewhat higher dividend equates to a higher value of the coin on an exchange, AFTER a ton of people dump their coins into a buy wall.

I also expect the devs to have control of their own coin, so no idea why you think contacting Busoni will matter.

As I stated earlier, I think it'd be a mistake.

Dividends would increase, at the cost of 25 btc less for the asset pool. That means less new coin features.

And you can't just assume a somewhat higher dividend will automatically equate to a higher coin valuation on the exchanges. It very well may end up as a situation where the price of the coin goes down after everyone dumps into the wall. With the end result being the team just paying 25 btc for very little reason.

I haven't followed all the Xcurrency stuff, so don't know their status or if they are truly anonymous.

We'll have to agree to disagree on new coin features. Problem is, crypto people won't have patience for that. They already don't have patience and it's only been a couple of days. Folks should have just bought some mining contracts on cryptsy or a mutual fund, instead of crypto then.

Bigger dividends only matter when a coin's price is stable. It's sort of like POS. It's great to say, hey, I'm getting 10-15% back yearly on my investment. But only if the coin's price doesn't go down like 33% in the meanwhile (or at current prices much more than that). People simply won't be patient enough.

Hence why I think some new coin features will be needed.