Several months ago, and not just once, they (Brian Deery I believe) said that they would appreciate testers. I don't know how many contacted them to act as testers. I did not because my technical knowledge is limited and I think a good tester should be able to give good feedback. But: They asked for it!

Updates: Of course they could give us more infos about the status. But what they've said several times makes sense. They will give updates about the important things but not more. And everybody is always free to check their github. Daily updates.




Why I say ETH is damn manipulated is because of it's volume and because of the bot-army. Most of all days there are about 5000-6000 users active on Poloniex. That's not enough for the huge volume of Ethereum. Factom is a much more normal market. Of course it's manipulated as well. Nearly all markets are. But I absolutely doubt that it's the team. Why? Because there was a time between launch and Dec 21 with very low volume and a very low price. That would have been a time for manipulations but there was no manipulation. It was just quiet and the people were complaining like they are now.

I don't believe that the Factom team does much more than follow the price without too much interest for now. And if they really would want to manipulate the market they also would use communication for that. If they would want it, they could pump and dump it however they would like to. It doesn't make much sense to believe in manipulation and to complain about too less communication at the same time. Communication would be part of a smart manipulation. And Paul Snow or Brian Deery could manipulate the price just with little hints if they would want that. No lies would be needed, just a manipulative use of language.

The most intense manipulation was the march-pump. The price jump had zero reason - besides the news: V. Buterin is invested in Factom. And for some days we had the same bot-army in Factom like we see in Ethereum and the margin-trading exploded. Right after it was shorted and the loan-interest was at 2%. I can't prove it, but I believe: Ethereum-ppl. Not saying the ETH-team. They also work hard on Ethereum. But I believe that those who manipulate Ethereum played with Factom. And if you subtract that pump and dump, the price is very stable since early January. And the volume is somewhere in the middle. Usually not extremely high but good and pretty stable.

The thing is: What we see now is the same pattern like it was between launch and Dec 21. It's just on a higher level. More volume and a higher price. It fits to the development and the news since that time.  



Even if all entries per month for now would be from customers who buy EC's on their site, and that's not the case, it would not be more than maybe $2000.

And it's not totally true what you say, because:

"For larger volumes of entry credits and enterprise level service, contact us directly about pricing."

And your "they are not in a hurry" with focus on EC's doesn't make any sense. If they would want to make money fast they would be in a hurry to get a higher EC-demand. And "They love this price" also doesn't make sense. The FCT-price doesn't matter because it doesn't change the EC-price. And the EC-price is a question of the price they set. It's always about the demand for them!

If you really try it with logic the conclusion must be: They do what they do to build a stable system. That will be the requirement for everything. High EC-demand = high FCT-price.




1. Stupid - your super smart opinion
2. still proud - interpretation
3. in need for more ppl - your super professional opinion

Substantiation? Not too many.



What do you miss on Twitter? They are very active with tweeting everything. And how hard it is to reply on simple questions? I also believed that. But even I (and I have time) was annoyed because people ask things they could find themselves in 1 minute. I wrote explanations about the relation between Entry Credit - demand and FCT price and hours later another guy with the same question. It's hilarious! And it would be crazy to waste time with that.



I'm really not sure what exactly you miss. Go on twitter and on reddit. It's true that they are not very active in this thread. But even that is not totally true because Brian Deery posts often: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=134381;sa=showPosts
Last post is from yesterday.

What they don't do is to give deadlines. And I know a Developer personally (not from Factom). He said that it's not possible to give exactly dates. And if it's done, it's near to impossible to not delay. It's normal.

Funny is that you believe in Ethereum. Several times you compared both with the "conclusion": Ethereum has such a great team because they deliver etc. But do you see the damage? I'm not talking about the ETH-price. They have to face fundamental problems and a huge loss in trust. Investors on Polo may buy or not buy. The price is no indication. Which real business-partner would use Ethereum if they have to consider that it's near to impossible to be on the safe side with Solidity? DAO was coded from Ethereum-developers.

And Factom: They already have real business partners! They need to consider everything they can think of. They can't just release something and say: "Let's try if it really works." They need to test everything for a lot of scenarios.

And don't get me wrong. I also believe that the Ethereum-team is absolutely high-level. But if I consider everything that is needed to deliver a high-ambitious project like Ethereum or Factom, I would say: The team of Factom is more professional in every sense. And that's not just visible in what they do. It's also visible in what they don't do. They don't hype. They don't deliver something premature like DAO to get fundings for even more potential premature Ethereum-projects (slock.it) etc. They don't waste their time with high-risk-moves nobody can't predict in what bullshit-situations it might turn into. 

And, just btw: Ethereum is so damn manipulated. Just the DAO-CFC... I can't prove it, but I don't believe that it was possible without funding of the team-members themselves. That might be another reason to bail it out.

I'm glad that we don't see such things in Factom.

What we see is: A great idea, a very thoughtful design, perfectionism, skills, professionalism, honesty, hard work.

This could also be something for Factom:


US Government Issues Call for Blockchain Healthcare Research

http://www.coindesk.com/health-human-service-department-seeks-blockchain-papers/


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology; Announcement of Requirements and Registration for “Blockchain and Its Emerging Role in Healthcare and Health-related Research”
https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2016-16133.pdf

Yes: https://www.factom.com/howto/factoidpapermill/

I have no doubt about that. If your attitude would change to "restrained" and "patient" --> I would believe your account was hacked.

No sorry needed!

Not sure if I'm right with that, but I see the fact that you believe it's important to give it to others for a review as a good sign. Most likely you wouldn't see a reason for that if you wouldn't have something interesting. ;-) 

I would say "Damn, now the complaining starts again" but since you complain no matter if invested or not - welcome back!

Wasn't there a plan to publish a blog-article about the china-trip?

Because of the discussion about value a long post... tried to make it short but wasn't possible. ;-)


Value is function, it's subjective, individual and dependent on situations

If we think about value, it's about psychology. And if one keeps on questioning, there is most likely no objectivity to find. The reason is, that it first needs a basic lack of something that needs to be solved - out of an individual perspective. If there is a basic lack we try to find solutions and we already see this solutions as value. One functional solution is build on another which can give the impression of objectivity. But that is in fact an illusion. We see money as value? It has function. It can have psychological value, ppl feel more safe with money than without it, but just because it's a potential solution to solve a lack of "something".


What's the highest value humans can think of?

Most people see the own life as the highest value they can think of, but some people "sell it" to rescue the life of somebody they love if needed (basic lack). Some people even choose death as "function" to solve a lack - if there is deep suffering. Some people even give their life for an idealistic concept. But even the most talented manipulator can't brainwash anybody into a fanatic concept if there is no suffering (basic lack).

It becomes interesting when we think about the connection between "what do I see as value" and "what do others see as value".

Again one extreme example: Like already said, most people see most or at least high value in their own life. But: Suicide reason Nr. 1 is always psychological isolation (losing hope and perspective in a fundamental way is isolation). Depression as reason for suicide? It's an expression, not the real lack. Alcohol and Drugs as reason for suicide? Alcohol and Drugs had just function and lost that function, or are not available (what makes the basic suffering even more intense.). And than death can become to a "function" to solve suffering while the one and only solution in life would be to solve psychological isolation.

It may sound nearly religious or even esoteric, but that (the feeling of isolation) is the basic lack all humans want to solve and everything they believe to see value in, is first something like a very natural and deep instinct - like relations to others. That's one reason btw. why isolation is a very hard form of torture and every possible way of torturing involves at least aspects of isolation (losing hope and perspective is always an aspect).

Why I'm a little bit philosophical here is, because all values we know of are in fact concepts about functions to solve a basic lack. We build one potential solution on to another and that always has two sides: It can help to reduce the basic lack but it also creates new ones --> we need more functional solutions. And that is the basic reason for all technique we know of since the beginning of human history.

And the very important point if we think about value, is the topic "others" to solve "psychological isolation". Because what do we basically see as solutions? Psychologically it's about all forms of communication which is the requirement for all kinds of relationships. Technically we often call it connections but in fact communication and connection are synonym. And there is no functional solution for any problem without communicative/connective aspects. There isn't even a way for a solution without that.

That is also important because one individual not just sees value in something (a possible solution). Because the basic value already is about communication/connecting to others to solve a fundamental lack, we also need communication and reassurance if we are not alone with our view on potential value. That's a very interesting point and we can see that everywhere. No objectivity. The technical best solution has no chance to be seen as highest value if just one person knows about it but everybody else prefers something that is inferior. More precise: Just the fact that others see more value in something that is inferior makes it superior regarding value.

The basic principle is always:

1. There is a lack, a problem that needs to be solved.
2. There is a concept about a function as solution
3. If we have trust in that concept we try it
4. If it keeps promise we have a working function
5. We see value in a working function

6. That value increases if it's time-constant
7. That value increases the more other people believe in it


And also the points 2 and 3 already involve(d) "others" (knowledge is always a result of communication). We need communication to find a concept. We need communication to reassure us if others show at least trust, or even better, if they already can show "proof of concept" because they already tried it.

Gold

Even the value of gold is based on that principle. It's seen as a basic store of value. It can have technical function but that is not the reason for the value that is seen in gold. It's the potential to have "value-function" that gives value and that is a result that others see value in it. It becomes obvious if we subtract that aspect. Would gold have the value it has if others wouldn't see it as store of value? No. Would we see gold as store of value if it wouldn't have been seen that way since millennia? Most likely not. And it's value is always just a potential. I need to sell it to have money to sell that money to buy a solution for an existing problem.

Dollar or Euro? It has function and it only has function because there is an agreement to see function in it. People call it value but that value also lays in it's potential to solve lacks/problems.

Bitcoin

And it's very interesting to think about Bitcoin with that in mind. Why do we see value in Bitcoin? We need to know where are the problems it solves or at least could solve to answer that question. Bitcoin is seen as value because of the weaknesses of existing solutions. The financial system is slow and it's expensive, it's centralized and corrupt, it's economically flawed by design (which lead to so called "solutions" that makes it even more expensive, more centralized and more corrupt). With other words: There are again a lot of problems to solve. And Bitcoin is seen as a solution: decentralized, international, fast, secure (...). It's a very interesting mix of idealism and technology.

But is the Bitcoin-price where it is because people really use it as solution for existing problems? No. Even the majority of Bitcoiners use existing methods. Most people who buy Bitcoin want to make profit. That is the function the majority sees in it for now. Bitcoin-Investors bet on the possibility, that already existing problems of the established financial systems become more pressuring (high inflation for example or even a fundamental crash) which would lead more people into Bitcoin as a solution for those problems. And that's a bet that could turn out as very profitable. But the value for now is also totally based on the question "do other people see value in it, and will more people see function and therefore value in Bitcoin in the future?".

And... Also Bitcoin as a potential functional solution has problems and needs solutions. There is the question how to keep it decentralized. A centralized Bitcoin would include all problems the established systems already have, but it would die even faster. And there is the blocksize-problem that limits it's potential and is a threat for the Bitcoin-economy, etc. The high volatility is also seen as something that limits it's potential and for some it's a reason not to trust in Bitcoin as store of value, while others see a (potentially) profitable function especially in that aspect.


Factom

And Factom and Factoids are even more interesting if we focus on it's value more basically. The basic principles of value I tried to describe above are way better reflected in Factoms functionality and design than in Bitcoins functionality and design.

The problems that Factom promises to solve, with it's focus on data, are more pressuring for more people in the present, than the problems of the financial systems. That could change any time (financial crisis could become very intense at any time), but for now I believe it's true. And a lot problems of the financial systems also are connected to data.

With other words: If Factom or a system like Factom would already be finished and working since  3 years (for example), it's likely that it already would be used more than Bitcoin is used. And because a system like Factom doesn't record and store just the past of "cold" transactions, but data, it also involves a more intense incentive to continue with that. Data is more meaningful. The past of all kinds of data involves deeper identifications, even if it's more about business-data. That principle becomes even more intense if data is connected to other data. Potential barriers to use Factom are lower than in Bitcoin. The "establishment" still sees Bitcoin as kind of shady and if Bitcoin should become mainstream it would be seen as a real threat. And it's very common to attack everything in many ways that is seen as threat for existing interests. There may be scenarios that Factom also could be seen as threat for existing interests, but it's true what Paul Snow often says: Honesty is subversive. Factom's low barriers make it possible to be much more subversive than Bitcoin is. That makes it more possible for Factom to find it's way into already established system to change them to the better, while Bitcoin is like an offensive attack against an established system.

And it's economical design is also a better reflection of potential value than Bitcoin. The conversion from Factoids to Entry Credits gives additional trust. Plus: Maybe Factom is a better mix of control and decentralization at the same time, which could turn out as more time-stable.


The point is: If we think about the value of Factoids and if it's possible that FCT's become a store of value or would be used even as payment beyond the system itself, there are some reasons why the answer could be yes. The basic reason to see value in something is trust in time-stability - that "others" believe and continue to believe in it's value as well. And a recorded past of data gives a more of trust because it gives high incentive to continue with that. There is also more potential for a network effect or with other words: Factom is, (because it's about data) more "communicative". It connects in potentially many ways and therefore "deeper" than Bitcoin. It's all subjective of course, but it won't be machines who will make a decision to use or not to use Factom or if they continue using it or quit.

Btw: That principes are a little bit similar to Facebook. I know some people who say that they wouldn't make an account and use FB if they wouldn't already have one. They already "recorded" a past and that gives some incentive to update it. They are already connected to others and that also is a high incentive not to leave or to switch to another system. It's possible that there are social networks that are better in some or even many ways than Facebook, but nobody will use an alternative if others stay in Facebook. The identification with Factom is more intense because of the past and because of the connections. That is the basic value of Facebook for it's users.


And Factom's (and therefore Factoids) basic value will be - if successful:

1) ...there are a lot of existing and very pressuring problems for many people without an easy solution yet
2) ...Factom (hopefully) will be seen as a functional solution to solve those problems
3) ...if "some" use Factom "others" will see that as proof for that functionality
4) ...if "some" use Factom it can be an incentive to use it as well to connect with others

5) ...a already recorded past is a high incentive to continue with that instead of shifting to another system.
6) ...if there should be even connections of data between X and Y and Z, it will be an additional and intense incentive to continue instead to shift


With a focus on basic principles of value, it can be superior to a system like Bitcoin in my opinion, because it's a better reflection of all of those aspects and therefore more effective. The same can be true for a system like Ethereum. But even if "smart contracts" seem to sound more "special" for many than Factom's use case, that concept could turn out as wrong.  In my opinion it's superficial. Factom's use case will most likely turn out as superior to smart contracts, because it's more basic and the problems to solve are more pressuring. And because of the complexity, it will be much harder to establish a smart-contract-system on a blockchain than a data-recording-system on a blockchain. And while I believe it's not just possible what the Factom team wants to realize but also possible that it will be really useful and find it's way into the "business-world", I don't believe that Ethereum has much chance to become the system that really realizes smart contracts to become established. That is about Point 2... It will be most likely way easier to see a time-stable solution in Factom than in Ethereum.

Long story short: In my opinion and with a focus on basic value-principles, Factom is pretty perfect because it's the best combination of

1) "high incentive" to use it because of already existing and high pressuring problems without much alternative yet
2) hopefully high functionality to solve existing problems
3) low barriers to use it
4) high potential for a network effect,
5) a lot of potential for a first-mover advantage
6) and if established at one point: high incentive not to switch to another system.

You are invested again?

I don't believe that will happen any time soon. Reasons:

1. HF - it's something (not just) the market fears.

2. DAO-Investors will be able to get their DAO-Ether back and that will most likely make some more pressure on the price

3. Bitcoin-price is likely to go up more.


During the DAO-ICO the ETH-price increased because some bought ETH to buy into the ICO and all those ETH were taken away from the market and locked into The DAO. After unlocking that value and after all the bad news of the last weeks - some may dump it, maybe many.


The most likely scenario in my opinion is that it will go down more, and maybe it will be really extreme if Bitcoin should shoot up (not sure if that will happen but it's not unlikely). If BTC should even find a new ATH, wherever it may be, the bubble will burst at some point - like late 2013.

And that could be the beginning for the ETH-price to come back and if the dust has settled then, it's maybe possible that it will see old highs again or maybe even new highs. But that will depend on the situation. Under the line I believe that wouldn't be a bad scenario for Ethereum, even if it would be a hard road in midterm. The situation is serious and it will need some time to get over it.

It's the topic we speak about since some pages, but maybe it's really hard to get an overview for those who are new. I tried to explain it here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=850070.msg15433671#msg15433671

...and maybe also this post could help:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=850070.msg15465248#msg15465248

 

The $ 0.005 is to make profit. It's not the conversion rate which is still $ 0.001 if I'm right.




300 Mio EC's would be $ 300,000 and a price where burned and new created Factoids per month would be equal would be at: $ 4.1

So, I agree: Wouldn't make sense that the price would skyrocket to $ 1500.



It wouldn't even rise that irrational high with such a demand. Wouldn't make any sense.



You draw a picture of a total weird scenario. As if the price would explode without good reason to $ 1500. And sure, it couldn't stay there. But if there would be really a demand for Entries like Dropbox has uploads, it would definitely shoot up at least to above $400.

This is the calculation:

1 bn per day, 30 bn each month: $ 30 Mio into Factom.

The equilibrium would be at $410

I don't know if that is a realistic scenario and even if that should be potentially possible, it won't happen any time soon. Maybe in years, not sure. But in general your theory, that the price of Factoids doesn't need to rise, even if the demand for Entry Credits explodes, is simply wrong. I mean, you even had the theory it could be and stay at a level where 1 FCT is equal to 1 EC.



The current situation is:

1 FCT = $ 1.45

That's enough for about 100 Mio Entries each month. So, it's true that there is a lot of room for an increasing demand without that the price needs to rise. But, what I believe about Factom is that it won't be about a way in the middle. I believe that it will be a huge success or not, without much scenarios between those both extremes. And if I should be right with that and if the success-scenario should realize, I'm pretty sure that a billion-demand each month is possible and likely. The reason why I believe that is: Factom is open for so many use-cases we can think of and maybe even more that we are unaware about, in all kinds of different areas, from private persons like you and me to big companies. Factom can help to reduce costs for potential customers, it can help to connect data of different companies etc. And we speak about "Big Data". If you look at the number of transactions of just one single bank has each day, or trades of exchanges or how much data is produced in laboratories for example (...)  - it's unbelievable. And I like the cloud-service-example, even if it's a different use case, because cloud services also have all kinds of customers. From private persons to big companies.

And that is Factoms potential as well. Kim Kardashian can factomize her millions of selfies to prove it's really her, Hillary Clinton could promise to factomize her mails to avoid problems with the FBI, people can use it to hash testaments and other important documents, or the process of creating all kinds of arts. A country can use Factom for land title registry, all kinds of institutions could use it to secure important documents, a bank could use it to record transactions and all kind of data. It can be used to track and record the way of all kinds of products. It can be used for smart cities and so on. The potential is most likely bigger than we can even think about.

I don't say that I'm totally sure about Factoms future success. They could fail at one point. There could be a huge set-back like a hack or whatever, in worst-case with the result of a lack of trust in Factom. Or there could be a really big competitor who overtakes nearly the whole market, like Google or Facebook did it in their areas. But for now all signs I know of are very positive. And even if I can't know Factoms future I know how markets work. And markets always trade the future and very often they just trade a collective short-term-dynamic. I mean, Ethereum is still near to a 1 billion marketcap. Impossible to explain that with objectivity and a rational market. It's the result of hype and manipulation and my prediction is still that it will come down much more while a lot of ppl already say it's "cheap". The same is true for some others. In comparison to those projects, Factom is the best Investment I can think of in Crypto right now and for all aspects.

Yes, that's indeed a very interesting scenario and I agree. In best case, if Factom becomes a huge success, it may be possible to say that Factoids would be a value that is kind of backed by the data that is connected to Factom. There wouldn't be a way to evaluate it. But the more Factom will be used, the more incentive will be there to use it more - for a single customer and for others. And that can stabilize over time and lead into a network effect which would give a lot of trust. Not only into the real use-case of the system but also in Factoids as kind of a currency.


It's kind of funny to think about it. The team repeated more than once that it's not about that aspect, but if people would begin to sell goods for Factoids or buying it because they fear an Euro-Crash or whatever... who knows. My new favorite-scenario for Factom is that there will be a day in the future Paul Snow says to Brian Deery: "Damn, Amazon accepts Factoids as payment!"

 

Just calculate it with only two informations:

1. There are about 8.7 Mio Factoids in existence plus 73k FCT's every month as payment for the federated server.

2. Every time somebody buys Entry Credits, Factoids are converted into EC's and out of the system --> "burned".


What would happen if there is a demand for 10 Mio Entries each month and the price of 1 FCT would be = 1 EC?


The supply of Factoids would be at zero after 8.7 Mio Entries (plus 73k).


Now imagine that Factom becomes a huge success with a lot of customers and millions of Entries each day, maybe even billions each month. And again my favorite example, even if it's extreme:

"People save 1 billion files every day to Dropbox's online storage service, Chief Executive Drew Houston said today at the Mobile World Congress show here."
http://www.cnet.com/news/dropbox-clears-1-billion-file-uploads-per-day/ 

And yes, a cloud-service is a different use case than Factom but it gives an impression about data-volumes. And dropbox is just one cloud service of many and it's just one use-case, while Factom is open for all kinds of different use cases - also in combination with cloud-services btw.

Factom already has promising partnerships and it's very likely that they are in negotiations with many more. And that's the case even while Factom is not a finished system yet, what makes it very likely that the number of partnerships will increase drastically after Milestone 3 and the number of entries will most likely explode exponentially.

Of course, that will only be the case if Factom will be a useful and stable system. If there should be flaws or even problems that are impossible to solve, it would turn out as failed and others would overtake Factoms position. But there are no signs that this worst-case-scenario is likely. I believe they will work on it until it's what they want it to be and my impression is that the team is a nearly perfect combination of skilled coders with a lot of experience, business-people, marketing-experts etc. It's really impressive. Kind of funny is that some believe to see a lack of PR because they don't understand that guys like we are not their target. They do a lot of marketing and PR, but they focus on potential customers, not Crypto-Speculators.

Long story short: If Factom will be realized as it's planned it will become successful. I have no doubt about that, even if there should be other high-quality competitors. And for now it seems as if Factom is leading. If Factom will become a success there will be a constantly increasing demand for Entry Credits and the price of Factoids will have to rise to meet that demand. That would be true even without any speculation.

Because, again: If the price doesn't rise while there is a high demand of Entries, the total supply of Factoids would go down to zero. And that... is the most perfect economical design I've ever seen and it also has a lot of positive implications for the market and speculators.


 

Yes, he made a mistake with the 73k EC's. He means FCT's.

But of course he is right. You can theoretically say: The price doesn't need to change in "realtime" to a higher EC-demand. But let's think about it what would happen if there would be no speculation that would drive the price up as a speculative reaction on a higher demand:

The demand for EC's increases but the price for FCT's stays where it is. And of course, there is a total supply of about 8.7 Mio and that can potentially decrease for some time without that the FCT-price necessarily needs to change. There is still supply to meet the demand. But what would happen over time if the value for Factoids would never increase? The supply would go to zero... 

That makes it economically impossible, even without any speculation on exchanges, that the value of Factoids would not increase.
 

Deutscher Artikel über Lisk:

Lisk Boom: Die digitale Währung zieht`s auf die großen Handelsplätze

Lisk, die Open Source Blockchain Plattform aus Aachen wächst derzeit in einem atemberaubenden Tempo. Die digitale Währung LSK wird ab sofort auch auf ShapeShift, Yuanbao und CoinPayments gelistet. Zudem erfreut sich die digitale Währung steigender Beleibtheit bei Online-Zahlungsabwickler und Online-Händler.
http://bitcoinjournal.de/lisk-boom-die-digitale-waehrung-ziehts-auf-die-grossen-handelsplaetze/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Ah, ok. Now I understand.

Entry Credits have a fixed price: $0.001

The value of Factoids is variable and fluctuates, so it's always also about the current FCT-price.

At this moment:

10 FCT = 10 * 0.002114 (price now) * 678 (BTC-price now) = $14.33

14.33 / 0.001 (EC-price) = 14,330 EC's (would you get for 10 FCT at this moment)


But for most customers (companies) most likely the best/usual way wouldn't be to buy FCT to buy EC's, but to buy Entry Credits directly with Dollar in an Entry Credit Store (of Factom for example). The Company/Customer knows how many EC's they want, they order it and the system  sends an amount of Factoids to their EC-Address that is proportional to the EC-supply they want.

Maybe that sounds a little bit complicated, but the thing is: It's not complicated for a potential customer who doesn't even need to know about the FCT--> EC - conversion. For them it's just an order and they don't need to use any kind of Cryptocurrency.


*******************

It's possible that this design could change, because there are (or were - not sure) also scenarios that would be similar to "gold-fixing". The federated server would set a price for Entry Credits. Their incentive would be the focus on the value of Factoids which would increase if most-possible Factoids are converted. And that's a very interesting concept because: If they would set the price to high, the use of the system would decrease and less Factoids would be "burned". If they set it too low, the use of the system would increase while the burning rate also wouldn't be perfect (as high as possible).

And their incentive to find the best potential price would be high, because they are paid with Factoids. That's why I believe it's kind of a great idea. But: I'm not sure if a company that exactly knows how many EC's they need per month would like to handle with changing prices. And: For different customers it would basically make sense to have different prices. If I just want to use Factom for 10 photos and 10 documents per year even $0.1 wouldn't be much = $2. If Dropbox would want to record all uploads into Factom even $ 0.001 would be a lot = Millions of Dollar per month.

With that said: I don't know what exactly is Factoms plan for the future and if the price will stay at the fixed rate or if they realize the "EC-price-fixing" and if yes, how. But I'm sure that there is a potential solution which would be most perfect. It's just important in my opinion that it also will be about high demand and low demand of a potential customer.

It is all on their official website:

https://www.factom.com/howto/

Neucoin is like a parallel reality in Crypto:


May 9:

Is some of NeuCoin been eliminated already?

If it is, the rich list need to be updated as soon as possible!!!



Today:

I hope to see this rich list becomes real soon and very soon!!!


Today:

I hope to see this year for sure...!!!
http://forum.neucoin.org/t/neucoin-rich-list-unofficial-explorer/2315/39


In other projects it's about big releases in a relatively short time frame. In Neucoin they hope to get an update of the rich-list "this year". That's not just Crypto. It's Zen-Budhism, lessons in patience. It seems to work.