Show Posts
|
Pages: « 1 [2]
|
yall should really have CMC set to indicate those units are MIOTA. and not the current price in the unitary IOTA
|
|
|
i bet it falls back down to 300 some time this week
|
|
|
lol so lets take bets on how far it will crash tomorrow tomorrow...
|
|
|
its really real now. massive ETH sell wall dump on poloniex's BTC market right now. was like 18M USD of it at the start
|
|
|
shit. the prices its going for now already has it at billion dollar market cap already
|
|
|
ethereum did it, so i guess some users/miners on BTC could hard fork off. but youd be hard pressed to convince miners to start hashing on your new chain because then ythey'd have to risk all the profits on the old chain, plus the new chain may fail. and when i say "hard pressed" i mean itll be "not likely in the least".
then, most likely with all the fallout from all this, ETH would probably emerge as leader.
so when I say "not likely in the least". i really mean "nearly impossible".
|
|
|
There seems to a be LOT of info thrown at you I undersand the X & Y axis, but we also have: ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.ibb.co%2Fb8mY3F%2Fchart.jpg&t=663&c=p0vpPKER7cDcmQ) blue line tan line grey bar graph red candles green candles black vertical bars through tops and bottoms of candles then below all there there is another X/Y axis graph and it has: 2 more lines, magenta & yellow more red and green bars. what is it trying to tell us?
|
|
|
I have a proposal on how to greatly improve the ICO to the benefit of all sides.
As was pointed out before, there is an inconsistency between the funding and receiving side. Buyers are putting money in in order to buy the currency (ehrm I mean donate to foundation), while the receiving side of the money is a loosely connected company (the DLS) receiving an investment and its founders getting a cash reward. So, in fact, total misalignment.
There is a simple remedy I have not seen proposed anywhere yet.
Put a cap on the money, but not on the whole ICO. Cap the money the DLS and founders will get. The DLS should know quite well what investment they need to run the business and that should be the cap.
Any money raised above the cap would become backing assets of Tezos, like in a DAO, under control of the shareholders.
As a result: 1) DLS and founders will not be over-financed by some ridiculous amount of money, they will get some ideal amount of $. 2) The ICO money will go where it should go by the buyers intention - into the currency. 3) Being backed by solid assets, Tezos will start much stronger and will have a real value. 4) Tezos will have its own funds for development. It will not be solely dependant on a technically totally unrelated DLS. 5) Investors will be incomparably more confident to invest when good part of the invested money will stay stored in Tezos.
This structure of the ICO would benefit everybody over the current model. Except for the founders who are looking at their uncapped cash. But I believe they would, in the end, benefit too.
Thoughts? Tezos team - if you don't like this option, can you please explain why?
The founders probably want to make more and more money so I assume this idea will be completely ignored, they might pretend that they never read it. But I hope they see it and decide to implement it, this seems like a great idea.[/quonot a bad suggestion. I have a proposal on how to greatly improve the ICO to the benefit of all sides.
As was pointed out before, there is an inconsistency between the funding and receiving side. Buyers are putting money in in order to buy the currency (ehrm I mean donate to foundation), while the receiving side of the money is a loosely connected company (the DLS) receiving an investment and its founders getting a cash reward. So, in fact, total misalignment.
There is a simple remedy I have not seen proposed anywhere yet.
Put a cap on the money, but not on the whole ICO. Cap the money the DLS and founders will get. The DLS should know quite well what investment they need to run the business and that should be the cap.
Any money raised above the cap would become backing assets of Tezos, like in a DAO, under control of the shareholders.
As a result: 1) DLS and founders will not be over-financed by some ridiculous amount of money, they will get some ideal amount of $. 2) The ICO money will go where it should go by the buyers intention - into the currency. 3) Being backed by solid assets, Tezos will start much stronger and will have a real value. 4) Tezos will have its own funds for development. It will not be solely dependant on a technically totally unrelated DLS. 5) Investors will be incomparably more confident to invest when good part of the invested money will stay stored in Tezos.
This structure of the ICO would benefit everybody over the current model. Except for the founders who are looking at their uncapped cash. But I believe they would, in the end, benefit too.
Thoughts? Tezos team - if you don't like this option, can you please explain why?
The founders probably want to make more and more money so I assume this idea will be completely ignored, they might pretend that they never read it. But I hope they see it and decide to implement it, this seems like a great idea.not a bad suggestion. but i do applaud the open ICO, thats for sure. id suggest something like this: where Arthur et al establishes moon and mars targets, then before the donations start, they guarantee some kind of future dividends in tezos, based on the actual target reached (moon, mars), to be remitted back to contributor some time in the future. if they did this, we can forget about mars, they would reach *JUPITER* pollibly also recommend them publish some target (moon, nmars, jupiter, etc) beyond which the TEZOS/BTC ratio (and fiat, eth, and so on)be cut to 500 instead of 5000? this one isnt as big a deal, IMO, just would like to keep from having some crazy inflated number of tokens out there
|
|
|
The actual distribution of the coin between VisaCoin, NEX, Free loaders and Developers have yet to be determined, but that will be known prior to any exchange.
I was a visacoin victim, please put me on that list; i presume later you will be asking for hashes proving the loss?
|
|
|
whew I beat the 2 week deadline, please count me in
|
|
|
OP, who is going to generate your custom genesis and modify the NXT source to use it instead of BCNext's genesis?
|
|
|
Hello, I need to cancel out of your IPO. Please refund my .995 BTC to 1MShXZniz7rrCy2BSDXMGLJjMajj7B5tyk
My transactionID to send .995 BTC to you was ac1da4f359a9e7175c9374ebd06db70539a2894f9b7860e7d904d8ec0fdb1ec9
Im sorry I cannot participate, Thanks, forkedchain
|
|
|
Hello, I need to cancel out of your IPO. Please refund my .995 BTC to 1MShXZniz7rrCy2BSDXMGLJjMajj7B5tyk
My transactionID to send .995 BTC to you was ac1da4f359a9e7175c9374ebd06db70539a2894f9b7860e7d904d8ec0fdb1ec9
Im sorry I cannot participate, Thanks, forkedchain
|
|
|
Hello, I need to cancel out of your IPO. Please refund my .995 BTC to 1MShXZniz7rrCy2BSDXMGLJjMajj7B5tyk
My transactionID to send .995 BTC to you was ac1da4f359a9e7175c9374ebd06db70539a2894f9b7860e7d904d8ec0fdb1ec9
Im sorry I cannot participate, Thanks, forkedchain
|
|
|
Hello, I need to cancel out of your IPO. Please refund my .995 BTC to 1MShXZniz7rrCy2BSDXMGLJjMajj7B5tyk
My transactionID to send .995 BTC to you was ac1da4f359a9e7175c9374ebd06db70539a2894f9b7860e7d904d8ec0fdb1ec9
Im sorry I cannot participate, Thanks, forkedchain
|
|
|
I don't know why gambling sites for crypto coins are so popular...
|
|
|
|