Cryptonote is completely new code and would be next to impossible to implement into QBK. Either Dark or XCurrency would be the ideal candidates. I think they are both committed to open source on a time delayed basis. I disagree that we can do everything all at once. I think ICO investment strategy should come first. That is where the money will be made with this coin. Later, when it is successful and we want to try to develop some new features then that's fine. For now we have all we need and we can get what we don't have from open source developments in other coins.
Yeah, ring signatures would be extremely unlikely as a candidate to add, I agree. Drk, perhaps, just not sure how the node thing would work since this is a staked coin, not mined. I do disagree with the idea they have all they need now. It doesn't have to be anonymity they add, but they do need to add some new coin features with the ICO money. The plan shouldn't be to only add features based on profits from whatever assets they obtain. They need a multipool and they could use some wallet enhancements, for starters. A stabilization fund is needed (and I believe it was stated they plan to do this). They have to do more than buy up assets if they want to increase volume + add some buy support. |
|
|
|
The only thing that would get people really excited is if we were to get real anon like Dark, XCurrency, and the Cryptonotes have or are working on. We can't compete at that level right out of the gate and it would be foolish to try. We can add anon later when it is open source. I really don't think we should be focusing on anything right now other than a good investment strategy for the ICO funds.
Well, cryptonote is opensource. Dark.. not yet, but should be soon. There are other ways to go too, like tor or stealth addresses. With the funding they have, I think people may be looking at this the wrong way. The team could look into adding anon now PLUS buy assets PLUS do other stuff as well. They have enough resources money-wise to do several things at once, if they wanted to. If it was me, I'd get a multipool going + create a stabilization fund to add some buy support (just not a giant buy wall). And at least look at adding some new coin features, even small ones that may be quick to add ... just to show investors new things are being added. Then I'd say they should look at getting on Bittrex + other exchanges. |
|
|
|
Anon was voted by a majority of the people and should be added ASAP, whats the point of adding it if shes not going to honor it as the first feature, what do you think most people (the 42%) that bought and voted for this would feel and do? Add it and destroy DRK coin in the process
Assuming DrkSend is working (I haven't kept track of RC4 very closely), they are better off waiting a couple of weeks and just adding DrkSend when it goes opensource. I'm not sure how feasible that is due to this being a staked coin, while Drk obviously is mined ... so masternodes here would have to pay via staking rewards vs mining rewards. Sounds rather forky... I'm for anonymity being added, so long as it's a reasonable add-on. Meaning it doesn't cost a fortune nor take forever. I'd look at opensource options first. I'm sort of partial to ring signatures myself (yet strangely don't actually own any cryptonote coins), but don't think that would be so easy to implement here. We'd need a coder type to present feasible anonymity options, costs and timeframe, to really make an educated decision about adding it or not. |
|
|
|
I was in the chat. If you blame 'trollbox speculation' for the dumpage, then your team is blind to the facts. I'm not sure if im the one who should say this, since I didnt invest in the ICO, but so far this coin has offered nothing more then 'we are working hard', 'we are under attack as women' and 'the MOB did it'. Truth is you raised 100 BTC with nothing to show for. I really believe this is an honest attempt to build something special and not some quick design to scam people out of their money, but you need to stop looking for excuses. If you had anything to put against all the FUD, people woulndt be selling at a loss and would actually protect their investment and it would've shown on the orderbook. Also, the people who actually did sell at a loss, are better of today then if they held..
They should have been better organized, had their pool payouts set up differently and had a wallet working faster than they did. Otherwise... basically it comes down to people expecting a 2-4x return or more, and bailing when it didn't happen. The FUD and such was just an extra bonus that helped decrease the value of the coin, but it wasn't the underlying cause. The underlying cause was there were no whales pumping this coin from the start... which sadly seems to be a requirement for any major coin price hikes. It really takes more than a couple of days for a team to add new features to a coin, or buy up assets, or do most coin related things with the ICO money. Basically it requires some patience, which in cryptotime I guess equates to 12 hrs or so.... but that doesn't work so well in real life. Those who sold early on... yeah, they would have been better off. Those who dumped at like < 5K ... that is to be seen. |
|
|
|
that web site is run by a deceptive mass coin cloner.. beware anything remotely attached to it ! edit: and he likes his IPO's lol edit2: i see it in "poor's" sig too HAHHAhaha uggghh  What evidence is there that he's a mass coin cloner? The site itself, to me, isn't actually not bad -- some decent info there. But I wouldn't state their reviews necessarily mean a whole lot on their own, folks should do their own research. The only coin I am aware of is their srcc coin, which poloniex for some bizarre reason took ages to properly name. He also gave away all of the premine (or I should say, coins that he still held, as it was all premined) for that coin as well. |
|
|
|
|
Unnecessarily hyped (or pumped) in my opinion.
In their first thread, before they redid their ICO (since their first attempt was bombing out), I asked them how the coin is actually involved in the whole cloud thing they are doing. Basically it's a form of funding plus a way for users to pay for their service. Their service isn't decentralized nor really requires crypto exactly (besides as a way for them to get funding). It's like if dropbox just made a cryptocoin as a way for users to pay for their service. At least that is what they answered me early on, no idea if their plans ever changed.
But it sounds fancy, and I expect many put money into this expecting it to be similar to storj or something similar. It really isn't, at least at this point in time.
|
|
|
|
You didn't mention that before. My understanding was that this was primarily a dividend coin to reward bagholders. Finding someone who's creative enough to innovate well and competent enough to execute who would work for a low wage wouldn't be that easy, but maybe they could hire a mid-20s programmer who's between jobs or something. I'm not sure that's the direction they're taking the coin though.
There are definitely coins that have had well over 100 BTC worth of work put into them, such as Blackcoin, especially if you include Blackhalo, possibly Reddcoin, and a number of the 1M+ marketcap coins.
From my understanding the dividend thing is part of the coin, but the entire purpose of the coin. Read the OP... and the fact there is a poll up top here should have been a tipoff that the coin will be developed too. Plenty of coders for hire out there in cryptoland. I was also referring to ICO coins and meant that many devs didn't put funds into the coin itself (XLC, XBC, Harmony, DCM, etc), not every single coin out there. There are exceptions of course even as far as icos go, just that is one key reason I think throwing away 25 btc is a bad idea. |
|
|
|
Yes. My point was that it would increase the dividend, not necessarily the value of the coin, but if the dividend potential increases, so should the value of the coin. Why else are you buying it? Why does it matter if 25 BTC is thrown away when the BTC per coin rises? That's all that matters. Your coin previously was backed by .0002 BTC. Now, it's backed by .0003 BTC.
Anyway, that was the word problem. That burning coins increases the BTC each coin is backed with and therefore the dividend, not necessarily the price on exchanges; although, that would logically follow.
Well, I view the dividend as a bonus. Not the main reason to buy the coin. The main reason to me is the devs have 100 btc to play with, and if we just said they'd use 20-30 btc on new coin features, that's probably more than any dev in the past has ever spent. Remember almost all previous ICOs involved devs who ran away with the funds or never spent much of the ICO money on the coin itself. Here they are mandated by Poloniex to do so, or they won't get the btc at all. And yes, the prices on the exchanges would logically follow. But since when do people in crypto behave in a logical manner? Sometimes coins are burned, and the price of a coin actually decreases. That was my point. What I'd expect to happen if they did buy half the coins and burned them is ... valuation would go up, but only a smallish amount, not by the same percentage we'd expect. Folks would rush to sell at this minor bump. And shortly thereafter the price would be exactly the same or less than it was when the burning occurred. |
|
|
|
IMO, you aren't understanding this word problem.
If BTC held per coin increases, then the dividend potential increases. If 49.999 is used to buy up every coin but one. Then you have 50 BTC behind 1 coin getting that dividend. If you can double that 50 BTC and pay out a 50 BTC dividend, that one coin would receive it. I'm not sure what is hard to understand about this.
Maybe you just don't understand what I'm communicating. Is this any better?
Any coins they burned would not receive a dividend. Any non-burned coins would have their dividend increased by the previous dividends of the burned coins.
For instance, if the dividend was 100 BTC a year (100% profit), each coin would receive (100/500,000 =) 0.0002 BTC a year.
If 25 BTC went into burning half the coins and the dividend was only 75 BTC (100% profit), each coin would receive (75/250,000 =) 0.0003 BTC a year.
If 49.999 BTC went into burning all but one of the coins and the dividend was only 50 BTC (100% profit), each coin would receive (50/1 =) 50 BTC a year.
Okay, I'm going to drop it. I understand the premise. I disagree with the idea it'd work out as you plan. Or maybe we are looking at things in a different way. I think we are using the word 'valuation' differently. The point to buying/burning coins would to increase the coin valuation. When I say valuation, I mean what it goes for on an exchange, not the dividend. Yes, in theory by burning coins, it increases the dividend per user. Personally I'd think 25 btc being basically thrown away is too great an amount of the total asset fund to do this with. Too risky, and even if the end result is a somewhat higher dividend, it's not worth it. Remember the dividend thing is just a tiny bonus, sort of like POS, but in btc instead of coin. 25 btc could instead buy new coin features, anonymity, decentralized marketplace, veribit systems, fancy wallets... lot of stuff. To me, that would increase valuation more than burning coins would. Again, valuation = what the coin sells for on the exchange, not the dividend. |
|
|
|
Second. People have a positive reaction to announcements on this coin. Project x lifted the price slightly for a time. The whitepaper dramatically lifted the price. We need consistent news that something is being developed or worked on to inspire confidence every day, otherwise apathy will make the price languish.
Solution, no more secret projects. It may be sad to think that project x did not raise the price at all. Personally I think that the effect was that people's expectations wee unnecessariy too high and mayhave been disappointed by a simple android wallet, even though it was a good feature.
I can commit to working on a website this week and consulting with the community each day. that should be the second goal of the week.
I'm not trying to hijack the project, just simply do not want to see a great idea fail. Bosman needs help and I'm stepping up this week to try. Mothermole out
Agreed. Secret projects sound great in theory, but people will always have expectations greater than whatever that project is. People do the buy on rumor, sell on news thing, even when it doesn't make sense. But by being secret you sort of negate whatever benefit you'd get from that to begin with ... people won't buy much on rumor, because they have no idea what the real rumor is ... and they still sell on news regardless. The idea should be to have consistent news. I don't even mean major things, but that there is continued work on the coin. A couple of things I suggested earlier in this thread, which could help at least maintain value a little bit -- get the coin listed on coinpayments and up for voting on at least one chinese exchange (I'd choose bter). Coins used to do the MP voting/promo thing to help maintain value, but that is off the table right now. So go for a chinese exchange instead. |
|
|
|
?
If we bought 250,000 coins for 25 BTC, we would have 75 BTC left over and only 250,000 coins would be left.
If we bought 499,999 coins for 49.9999 BTC, we would have 1 coin with 50 BTC left over, meaning that one coin would technically be worth 50 BTC.
I don't understand why you guys are getting this. Buying up and burning coins might not work if the price is over the IPO, but when it's below, it makes perfect sense.
You keep repeating these same arguments as if people can't understand the math. We do. The problem is, it's not assured that the math will equate to actual exchange prices in the end. In your example above, you bought all of the coins except for 1, and that one coin would technically would be worth 50 BTC. But it wouldn't. Nobody would buy 1 coin for 50 BTC. Remember that these are all made up values to begin with. Simply saying if we destroy a certain percentage of coins, the value of the coins as a whole will go up by the same percentage, is just a guess. It's wishful thinking and no guarantee it would occur. There is also the little problem of 25 btc being taken away from the asset fund, so even if there are less coins about, so a greater percentage of a payout per coin, it's negated by less funds to pay for assets to begin with. And a vote would be meaningless. Every coin that runs a poll to destroy coins always votes to destroy. That's because people have a short term view and want immediate profits. |
|
|
|
If they had an actual company with a proof of concept that actually worked, then you'd be making some sense, but they're going to use most of the funds to trade. Well, right now, they have a fat 100% for 2 days work lying right in front of them.
It doesn't matter if they have less money. They'll have more money per coin, understand? With 500,000 coins, they now have 100 BTC or 2 BTC per 5,000 coins. If they buy up half the coins for 25 BTC, they will then have 75 BTC and 250,000 coins or 3 BTC per 5,000 coins.
Do you get what I'm saying now?
Actually they plan to use a lot of the funds for real assets, like that btc atm machine and such. It's not all just for trading. And I understand perfectly what you are saying. Except they won't have 75 btc + 250K coins. They will have 75 btc + 250K burned coins. We are assuming the valuation will increase at the same percentage of what they just spent ... but that isn't a certainty. |
|
|
|
The valuation would go up if the investments they make generate money which would be paid at a greater rate per coin than if they did not burn any coins.
Yeah, but just remember whatever they pay for the buy wall means less money to use for investments. So it's probably no real net gain there. There would be a greater rate per coin, but less being invested to begin with, so less profit in the pools. If it gets bad enough, then a buy wall can be used as sort of a last resort. I'd like them to try to stabilize the price using other means first though. |
|
|
|
Right. They have to burn them. That way each coin receives a greater percentage of the dividend. So it's good for bagholders, which is the whole point of the coin.
Yep, but we can't assume burning them will increase the valuation enough to make up for the 25 btc (or however much they'd spend) buying the coins in the first place. Simply reducing the number of coins should increase the valuation... but who knows how that could work out. |
|
|
|
Ehh... this is not a smart way to look at it in my opinion. I do think syscoin is a good gamble and have money invested in it, but it's just that, a gamble. Buying up as much of QBK as possible at 50% price is a guaranteed 100% return on that money as it was already sold at .0002.
If they don't take a guaranteed 100% profit, it's bad management imo.
It only makes sense for them to do that if they then turn around and burn the coins. Otherwise, people would complain of the devs basically sitting on a giant stash of coin, similar to a premine. You don't want any single group holding such a large percentage of the overall coins. So yeah, it could increase valuation... maybe. Or maybe not. If they simply treated it like a regular investor would, perhaps it'd be a good bet. But then people would complain they are sitting on 250K coins (or however many they buy). |
|
|
|
You're not thinking about it correctly. It is a 25 BTC profit. They short sold their own coin at .0002 and are buying it back at .0001.
You don't get those opportunities that often. It's a good one.
Also, a multipool might work if there are a number of supporters, but judging by how quickly people are jumping out the window to get away from this, I'm not even sure it will pay for itself.
I'm thinking of it as: They don't buy any coins at all, they made 50 btc. They buy back the coins, they made 25 btc + coins. It's only a greater profit if they can then sell those coins for more than they paid for them (.0001). Or if they burn them and then valuation increases. It is possible, of course. Again, I wouldn't just jump into doing that right now if it was me. And a lot of people are so eager to dump because they went in with the typical ICO mindset. They wanted 2-4x profits right away, and when that didn't occur, decided to bail. I'd at least give it more time before considering the wall. The devs could get their act together, buy up some more assets + start on some new coin features and get the coin on other exchanges, which possibly could increase valuation enough to not require a wall. Throw in a multipool + some price stabilization... it might be enough. |
|
|
|
Are you kidding? If they could get 250,000 coins at .0001 (which they won't be able to), it would only cost 25 BTC. That's a 100% profit on the 50 BTC given to them. How can you turn down 100% profit? Maybe syscoin will generate more than that, but who know? Then only 250,000 coins will remain so you will get double of every BTC they generate. Understand?
I understand. But spending 25 btc for coins worth 25 btc on the current market (set by the buy wall) isn't exactly profit for the asset fund. It is profit if looking at it from the perspective of the initial money given them, of course ... although it's more profit if they simply didn't buy any QBK at all with the buy wall. Burning them like proposed is an interesting thought. But you are just assuming that will equate to a higher valuation of the coin afterwards. I agree in that it should result in a higher valuation due to rarity being increased, but we can't say for certainty that will occur. It just seems like too big a chunk of their ico money to spend, at least in my opinion. I'd go with a multipool and perhaps some stabilization using funds, but I wouldn't go crazy with it just yet. A buy wall could always be used as a last resort. |
|
|
|
Thirded, and I would ask that you send the qibuck to a burn address. At .0001, you could buy up the whole coin for a little over half the ICO. Eventually, the price will start to rise. After this is put into place and a bunch of qibuck has been burned, all the holders can tweet bittrex, which is currently the biggest exchange.
If I recall correctly, they will create a stabilization fund, although not so sure it'll be quite as extreme as a wall like being suggested. Instead of the wall, I'd go with a multipool. It should provide some volume/buy support hopefully. And ideally as the team gets things going, including adding other exchanges, the price will rise. Although I think they should do something to support the price, I wouldn't want them to go through a huge chunk of their ICO money just to buy up coins from early investors who expected quick profits. It'd sort of kill the plan for the coin ... where would they get money for assets + future coin features then? |
|
|
|
I think it's pretty obvious now that the pump group has dumped this coin. Now we are down to 25th on the coinmarketcap. Wish I got out a bit earlier. All the top coin holders kept saying cheap cheap cheap. Bunch of friggin liars. Telling us to buy/hold while they are dumping on us.
To be honest, I am not sure why anyone would be surprised. The simple fact that Bob was pushing this coin so hard should have been a big tipoff. And when he took a 'cloak break'... sort of a big tipoff that it's time to get out. If the devs deliver, the coin may still do well. So this isn't meant to be a fud type of post. I'm just surprised that some people didn't see what was eventually coming. |
|
|
|
QIBUCK team, maybe a self moderated thread is a better choice to manage/delete the baseless FUD. People with legitimate questions have the right to ask but trolls have the right to **** off and should be dealt with accordingly. The syscoin looks like a pretty good move considering the mining payout modifications that have been made. In the end, it's all speculation.
Except then we get slammed for *gasp* censorship. Can't win for losing  Personally I'd rather face the FUD head on. I'd probably agree too, leave it unmoderated. I actually think the FUD hasn't been that terrible in this thread so far. Perhaps it's been bad in the trollbox, but here it's basically par for the course. Many other threads have insane trolls, giant red letters and fonts... that is when I wish the thread was self-moderated. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
