Thanks for the replies, @Dotrego. 

Some of that info disagrees with what @agent725 said. 

E.g.:
agent725: "A: For HYBRID we will not be adding 1M tokens per cryptocurrency. "
vs
Dotrego:  Future chains for other systems (preferably supporting multiple cryptocurrencies) are not planned as of yet. We did have some initial talks with interested devs (i.e ETC), but for now we focus on the current existing 7 types. A new type should have enough to match the others for liquidity, so 1 million (divisible) makes sense.


Liquidity and 1:1 exchange rate
I'm not understanding how liquidity for 1:1 swapping could be guaranteed while the coins are not technically fungible. 

Since the hybrid do live on their respective chains, they are distinguishable, so not totally fungible.  E.g. if Bitcoin were to fail entirely, in the sense of no nodes running anymore, my HYBRID on the BTC blockchain would have to become worthless.  It's pretty basic economics that in a free market with fixed supplies of money (as hybrid and ETH and BTC are), you can't both fix the exchange rate and guarantee that markets clear (1:1 conversion at any volume).

From what I understand, the plan is that Hybrid creates a mechanism where if I want to swap my hybrid-BTC for hybrid-ETH, then I should be able to do so at 1:1 for any volume I posses.  Since the system isn't going to force a hybrid-ETH holder to swap them for BTC against their will, there must be some incentive structure in place to convince them to do so.  You mention fees for liquidity provision.  That could help.  But who pays the fees?  If the person wanting to swap does, then effectively the value of hybrid-BTC need not equal the value of hybrid-ETH, because the fee for trading the former for the latter would not necessarily equal the fee for trading the latter for the former.  A difference in fees would be necessary to keep 1:1 conversion possible all the time, which is effectively not 1:1 conversion but (1 + fee1) : (1 + fee2) conversion.  If the fees come from taxing the system at large, it seems like some type of skewed incentive structure and free lunch would be created.  Consider again the example of a chain threatening to become defunct.  No one wants to hold that chain's Hybrid, but IOC provides fees to encourage individuals to do so.  But if the holder doesn't have to pay the fee directly to trade their hybrid for one on a more viable chain, then they will immediatly do the 1:1 conversion.  The Hybrids will be passed around like hot potatoes, while the whole hybrid system is taxed to provide the fee for liquidity incentivization for the next user to catch the hot potatoe.  The taxes will cripple the system.  This can't work.

So I'd really like to see all the details of how the liquidity incentivization will work.  As things have been explained currently, it seems like you are trying to violate basic economics by fixing an exchange rate and guaranteeing markets clear, which can't work.  There's something not right here.


Inflation
If there is a 1:1 exchange rate, then adding 1M coins per chain will create inflation.  The inflation would just be nominal, not real, if those coins were 100% distributed to the existing hybrid owners, in proportion to the amount they own.  But ow you are essentially selling new shares of the IOC system at large.  As more chains are added to the ecosystem, it makes sense that the ecosystem would become more valuable, but the expansion in coins is linear at 1M coins per chain, while the expansion in value would be sublinear bc adding not-particularly-useful chains to the ecosystem is of less value than adding ETH, BTC, etc.  Hence there will still be real inflation if those aren't exclusively distributed to the existing Hybrid holders.

It makes me pretty nervous when I think about investing in hybrid when hybrid's inflation is completely at the whims of the developers adding 1M new coins whenever they want.  Especially without any explicit promises about how this release schedule might occur over time.  Can you address this concern?

Thanks for that info, @agent725.  A few followups, if you don't mind:



Q: I'm confused about the tokens being associated with a cryptocurrency, re:fungibility.  If I have hybrid on BTC is it guaranteed to be equal in value to hybrid on ETH (for example?)?  If so, how would parity be maintained over time?

A: On Internet of Coins all HYBRID tokens on any chain will be only swappable 1:1. This means that even if prices differ on exchanges, the swap market in the IoC wallet makes sure you can swap your HYBRID to another chain.

How can a 1:1 swap be enforced AND liquidity be maintained?  If the market were to net want to swap hybrid on one chain for another, and the exchange rate of 1:1 is imposed, where does the liquidity come from so that all those who want to swap can swap?

Q: Suppose all the BTC hybrid owners want to sell their BTC hybrid and buy ETH hybrid?  Is there an arbitrage trade that will keep the values at parity?  

A: Yes. Arbitrage opportunities would abound such an extreme case, and eventually pull the market back into equilibrium.

What are the specific trades that can be made to instantiate the arbitrage?

Q: I'm concerned about the potential for inflation.  IOC seems eager to implement (and add 1M hybrid) to as many cryptos as possible.  Won't this produce massive inflation?  How will those new issuances occur in practice and be allocated?  If they will be for sale, who receives the cryptocurrency for them?  

A: For HYBRID we will not be adding 1M tokens per cryptocurrency. We are first focused on developing a functional market of seven decentralized token asset systems. After this has been achieved, we may expand HYBRID to other well-functioning token asset systems that have their own DEX. This will be done in way that makes HYBRID more fungible. I.e. liquid markets bring in new users of HYBRID. We expect this to make the token more functional towards new chains and thus more interesting for a larger user base two years down the road.

How many HYBRID tokens will be added per new crypto?  If any, how are they to be sold and to whom do the revenues from the sales go?  Or maybe you mean no new HYBRID tokens will be issued, i.e. there will always be 7M?  But then how would other chains be included within IOC's weave-based DEX?

Q: Minor thing - on the front page of this ANN you say there will be 5M coins in the crowdsale, but on the crowdsale site it seems like its 7 cryptos for 7M coins total.

A: We initially planned to start with 5 asset systems, however, at the start chose to work with 7 instead. Where do we still mention 5?

Looks like it's corrected now.

Wondering if you could answer a few of my questions.

I'm confused about the tokens being associated with a cryptocurrency, re:fungibility.  If I have hybrid on BTC is it guaranteed to be equal in value to hybrid on ETH (for example?)?  If so, how would parity be maintained over time?  Suppose all the BTC hybrid owners want to sell their BTC hybrid and buy ETH hybrid?  Is there an arbitrage trade that will keep the values at parity? 

I'm concerned about the potential for inflation.  IOC seems eager to implement (and add 1M hybrid) to as many cryptos as possible.  Won't this produce massive inflation?  How will those new issuances occur in practice and be allocated?  If they will be for sale, who receives the cryptocurrency for them? 

It would be helpful to augment the FAQ with some of these details.  It's really hard (for me at least) to figure out the value of investing in this ICO without clarity on these issues.

Minor thing - on the front page of this ANN you say there will be 5M coins in the crowdsale, but on the crowdsale site it seems like its 7 cryptos for 7M coins total.

Thank you.

Also concerned about this.  How is this coin ever going to scale with these type of sync times?  Obviously lite wallets are possible, but still... this would be a pretty heavy burden on full nodes if/when usage is many orders of magnitude higher.  Is there evidence that this can be made (much) more efficient? 

I can't find any info on the dev(s?) of this coin.

Is it a dev team, or just one? 

Any ID or completely anonymous devs?

Weirdest coin ANN Ive ever seen.

Seriously, is this a spoof? 

I love it anyway

With an escrow system like that, it seems to me that the main need for reputation (beyond the escrow agent,s which is obviously important) would be reputation of buyers rather than of sellers (since buyers get the goods before sellers get the SYS). 

I know very little of reputation systems, other than defense against sybil attacks is a basic concern.  There was a very detailed discussion on a recent Beyond bitcoin.  Fruitful ideas coudl probably be drawn from that.

http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/beyond-bitcoin-9-a-new-breed-of-exchange
The discussion I'm referring to is about http://bitsquare.io/

I tried searching this thread and the whitepaper, but couldn't find much discussion of any reputation system for the syscoin marketplace.  What good is a markeplace without a rep system?  Any plans for one?

I wouldn't go that far, but it's certainly a type of price-fixing that benefits the devs at investors' expense.  

At the price of 0.00000465 BTC/SYS you are pricing at an implied market cap (when all coins are released) of 4.65x10^(-6)*2x10^(9) =  9.3x10^3 BTC, i.e. around $5.75m.  This doesn't leave much potential upside to investors, at least not enough to compensate for the severe risk we take in IPOing an altcoin.

You are trying to hardcode in a market cap by setting a fixed IPO price for the presale.  IMO this is not preferable to e.g. setting a cap for the presale (and hence the price) and allowing a smaller syscoin price if less presale funds come in by distributing the entire 15% of the presale coins to the IPO funders proportionately.  This allows for price discovery.  

Devs, what is your logic for price-fixing the IPO? How is this better for investors?

Just remember that it's not set in stone yet.  Since refunds are possible, investors could leave if they don't like the project's development in the interim.

I was wondering if someone could clarify a few aspects of the transaction fees.  From the whitepaper:

"Transaction fees will be 1% of the total transaction amount, paid by the merchant. If you transfer 100 Crypti from your account to another, you will charged a 1 Crypti fee to process the transaction. "

It seems that there's a tx fee even when a merchant is not a party to a tx. If so, the above should be rewritten, as the fee obviously can't be paid by the merchant when no merchant is a party to a tx.

The whitepaper goes on to say:

"The other 50% [of tx fee] depends on whether or not the transaction was a purchase activity to a validated merchant, or simply a traditional transfer to another user or non-validated service (i.e. an exchange). If the transaction was a purchase activity (i.e. you bought something from a validated merchant), then this 50% of the transaction fee will be awarded to the merchant account that you purchased the goods from."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like the system takes 1% tx fees, except when the receiving party is a merchant, then tx fees are 0.5%.  It would be a lot clearer to describe the system that way, than to include this proof of ID notion, which really functions nothing like a PoS, as it's on an atomic tx-by-tx basis.  It seems needlessly complicated the way it's presented.

The link to the zip file for the Linux wallet on the Anoncoin DL page is dead.  https://anoncoin.net/index.php/downloads

Is there any way to include tracking for balances that we hold in exchanges?  Will you be adding exchange API support in the future for automating exchange balance updating?

You might want to change this first line of your first post.  It's not a temporary situation, but one that can't be undone.  You can't request that all trading of NEMStake stop (for how long?) on account of this.

Can someone please explain how the coin recycler actually works?  Basically are the devs making their own market?  How competitive are the exchange rates offered?

My XCP deposit has now been credited to my account.  All is well, at least for me.

Looks like they realized there was a problem with XCP deposits, and claim to have corrected it. From Poloniex Twitter:

"XCP deposits and withdrawals are now working. Please do not use your old XCP deposit addresses."

Needless to say, test with small amounts first.  I'm still out my XCP, and still haven't received a response on my ticket in days.

You would think that but. . .in my case, a large deposit of XCP simply didn't show up in my account. I created a support thread, received an initial response stating they had no record of any history for my account (yet somehow the system does, as I logged in!).  Further inquiries into the thread have received no responses, and its been over 3 days now.  I come here in the hopes that someone from Poloniex sees it, and also to warn everyone else.