when the government or the bank makes its own coins I think it can be developed better, for the bank I believe it has the aim to facilitate whatever transactions you want and wherever you are so that the bank becomes more useful, while for the government I feel a little heavy because every country has very different government regulations.
Basically the odds government creating their own cryptocurrency is really low because blockchain is simply against the ideal.However they will usually still need some kind of guide if they really is trying to implement crypto to their system so that they can efficiently working on it if they really tryingto create their own currency. However for Bank I heard many times that some of them alread trying to implement blockchain system maybe it's that far off. |
|
|
|
The world economy keeps crashing with many incidence of inflation. What is happening at the moment is a clear indication of a world that has failed the minority. Although the underdeveloped countries could partly be blamed for the high inflation that exists in their respective economies. Would things turn around for good if underdeveloped countries start to add value to their natural resources themselves without selling to the countries with good economy?
Inflation occurs when the debt of their country mounting up and its same happening all over the world with no difference of developed or developing countries.Only way to reduce the inflation rate is to keep the economic steady so they no need to print more money to pay their debts.And also their economic should more depends on the export rather than importing in my opinion. Printing out money, which is what causes inflation. A vicious cycle. They should be exporting your right, the only problem is many of the things they need are not available locally and they are forced to import. There could be greed and government corruption preventing them from exporting their natural resources. That is the only reason I can think of that they would not export. I am not sure you can blame underdeveloped countries for inflation. Look at the US economy. The lack of good management is to blame for the underdeveloped country, they are exporting resources simply because that's the only way to get money fast otherwise it'd take ages to just extract all the thing and process it themselves. the inflation is I think because the economy of such country is quite fragile therefore it's still dependant on the affection of many major countries out there with strong economy. |
|
|
|
I don’t participate in campaigns that initially requires KYC. But now this requirement is founding in almost every bounty. It’s worse when after several weeks or months after work the team requires you to go through KYC.Even worse, when the KYC is rejected as a reason for the allegedly poor quality of the photo.And after then really pity for the time and efforts that are spent of the project and personal data too.
Yes, KYC should be add before we start to work, not when the payment start we have to complete KYC. So, we'll know before we start to work if we are accepted. So we won't dissapointed at the end if our KYC is rejected If the project is requiring KYC first before the bounty finished the bounty will definitely have low participants. that's why they usually put KYC at the end of the bounty which also to reduce the amount of people who can withdraw their rewards that's just a trick after all. those kind of shady project is really a pain in the ass for some people, some investors will also get their money trapped if the project put the KYC verification after the funding is done. That's why a project should always put KYC first if they really serious about their project. Personally i'm not against KYC but it's sometimes a huge gamble towards our ID because we're practically handing out our data to stranger. |
|
|
|
|
Agree with the first post, it's not like the whole crypto community is against critics even the crypto community usually counter some of accusation with logical and technical explanation regarding the problem pointed. However it seems hearing this person is like veiwing someone trying to figure out something and prove something. it's not like his opinion matter that much anyway regarding this partial store of value. bitcoin was first intended to be a currency and it will always be. the store of value is just a bonus if the value of bitcoin keeps rising steadily although there's bearish and bullish time aswell but overall it has up to thousands percent to initial price.
|
|
|
|
|
As I said in many threads earlier this is to be expected. What will you do when all the major exchanges are withdrawing themselves from getting involved into this project? definitely quit the project or cancel it. Going against the government is simply too hard and it's about a big company like facebook that has done many mistakes in the past regarding privacy that's like a dead giveaway.
When the major investors are withdrawing there will be a massive withdrawal from minor investors aswell so it's more wise to just cancel the project. why going through all the hassle for just small gain, Libra is just an experimental and FB don't know if they can really make profit out of it. It seems mark zuckerberg himself also just giving up.
|
|
|
|
they are certainly aware of the potential of crypto, but they are reluctant to get involved in this field because most millennials don't want to take many risks, they only prioritize spending time on video games, because according to the millennium, video games can give them pleasure and of course they get entertainment that suitable to do in filling their free time
Some millenials use their video games and social media in a profitable way like YouTube or being an influencer, but they are too many now that it's irritating somehow since all copied and no new content or originality. They find the easiest way than take risks in some complicated activities like trading and investing. It's not that they don't want but most of them simply can't. Don't you see that in the OP post millienials mentioned to be screwed by all the things that burden them including student debt which is enormous how could you possiblity invest with all those problems in your head not to mention that the risk involved into investing is usually huge and if they can make profit with less risk like being a youtuber or start a live stream that'd be a more logical way instead of pursuing something uncertain with risk involved. They are trying to gather fortune through all means and that's definitely not a bad thing. Most of the millenials I know are really willing to invest they see this as an important thing but lacking money so you know. |
|
|
|
|
as I've seen most of the people usually keep shut about their portfolio most of them that exposes their portfolio are using anonym persona in the internet or is an influencer that's trying to build a trading community within their own circles. I do agree with your thinking that we could keep shut on our portfolio so that person we can distance ourselves from people with ill intention, it's what I'm always doing ever since I was first introduced into cryptocurrency and the portfolio is only kept by myself. It's not like we could flex to other people about our portfolio anyway because they will have no idea.
|
|
|
|
|
Altcoins that will eventually die is an altcoin with low demands that can't even fulfil the requirement of trading volume. They will eventually gets delisted from majority of exchange and will just left dying. Most of the coins that I know could hold on for so long are those coin with high demands and big community.
Even if a coin is really good and have promising project if the demands is too low they will just eventually die so in this case the trading volume is what matters most.
It's kinda ridiculous but it's the reality. I've seen plenty of promising coins that ended up become dust just because there's no one trading it and have no community base.
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately bitcoin freelancing is not a popular thing to begin with, the freelancers and the demands for project usually centered on a conventional freelancing platform and rarely I see in a bitcoin freelancing site. Back in the day when it's still a relatively new thing the project there is not that much compared to any mainstream freelancing sites. That's why because of that more and more freelancers turning their face into mainstream freelancing platform because there's just more opportunity.
One thing that just come to my mind, It's always funny when people saying bitcoin could alleviates poverty I mean it's just a currency and not charity foundation.
|
|
|
|
Even if the ratings are not paid but genuine ratings, it still adds no significant impact on the success of the project when it is finally launched. Successful token sales doesn't guarantee promising project because i know many projects that were close to their hardcap but still not doing any better on the market due to low value of their tokens.
most of the ratings are biased anyway how can a project have a good rating even before the ICO being held, maybe the ratings site considered the developers and many factors but it's all not the deciding factor as to whether the project will turns out to be a good project or not. These ratings means literally nothing in crypto world. there are plenty of exit scam there that initially having a 5 star rate ICO. People should just make their own analyzation regarding the project and find if there is any suspicion themselves rather than blatantly trusting such sites which usually could be paid by someone. |
|
|
|
I do not have problem with it. More competitors bring better quality and better user experience to the market.
But be careful, don´t be a tester and do not use new exchanges because there is a risk of being scammed.
Exception can be made for a new decentraled exchange which has the code published on github (open source) or any regulated centralized exchange that's confirmed under government. Otherwise any shady new exchange that's just pops up out of nowhere even with anonymous owner is definitely a big no. I do agree that more exchange can shape the market to be more competitive and therefore speed up the innovation as well as bringing better quality. However a shady exchange could also blend in easily if the exchange market is too crowded of a new exchange. At the end of the day it's up to the people to choose their preferred exchanges. |
|
|
|
What would happen if people didn't follow greed and projects didn't promise crazy gains? If this was not main theme of ICO craze, but instead - true and honest support?
If you support someone for example through Patreon - you give him money and you don't really think much what will happen with this money - it's lost for you anyway and you feel good for supporting someone you like.
If all ICOs went that route, sure, we wouldn't see such crazy gains but we wouldn't also see such falls. People supporting projects that would fail would probably don't scream "scam scam!" all the time.
If you give a dollar on a street to someone begging, you usually don't follow him later and check what he bought in a store - liquor or food. Yeah, you are dissapointed probably if you see him drunk next day but you simply don't give him more money.
If ICOs was organized more like that, I think it would be much more healthy environment.
Not a good idea though. Leavin' the money you set to invest and not even worrying if there's a guarantee of return. And there will be no one supposed to be responsible when it came differently than expected because the investor are okay with that. It is more like sending tons of donations. Healthy surroundings of investors but the projects itself are more like a charity rather than so-called project. Even if it lessens the complaints it will just serve as a turn point for scam projects to lure around, and do their thing because the benefit is big. it feels like solving problem with an ineffective solution I mean people are screaming or shouting "scam" because they usually the one who get harmed and this could be considered as a social punishment so that no one will get lured into the scam project. crowdfunding is simply ridiculous are you really expecting to throw away your money for "support" to a stranger, there will always some people who don't give batshit about other people's wellbeing and if not for the regulation and law they'd have done crazy shit. this supporting thing is just ridiculous and stupid. |
|
|
|
The idea behind KYC is a good one because it is meant for verification purposes. It only turns out to be negative when bad actors on the market decides to gather the data of participants and sell for their personal gains on the dark web. This is why KYC participants must be certain about the authenticity of the project before submitting their personal details.
I agree but still the scammers can able to penetrate the crypto market and successfully steal the money and the data of the participants therefore i think the existing KYC or the regulation need to be amended to ensure that the KYC procedure will fully protect the investors from the bad people. That's why the implementation of KYC needs to be intervened by the government if they really serious about it. Can't really entrust the KYC procedures which involve handing out your important data to every company existed just that easily. Government need to step out making organization that handle KYC directly and if there's an exchange or such thing asking for KYC verification they can simply ask the result from that organization.The government can't just make such regulation and then leave it be because there are so many strangers out there with harmful intention. Even handing out ID is already insane in the first place. |
|
|
|
I think that depends on the cryptocurrency exchange listing IEOs. If the majority of cryptocurrency exchanges are using Ethereum for IEO crowdfunding that will help boost the Ethereum price but if the major of crypto exchanges are using bitcoin or any other crypto for IEO crowdfunding, the IEOs will have zero effect on the Ethereum value.
And what happens now is that the IEO conducted by the average exchange using their Token / Coin Products because it is very profitable with the program the price of the altcoin will experience a significant increase. some even up to 2x the price . And ethereum's impact is totally absent in this matter Definitely, the massive demands that comes alongway the emergence of IEO usually hosted by popular exchange is not something that could be wasted or in the other word it's an opportunity. For the exchange themselves they would definitely think to direct the demands into buying their own token rather than Ethereum. Why? when the price of their token goes up that means their assets too and creating their own blockchain& mainnet is a piece of cake anyway if they have so much employees behind the exchange. It's not a hard thing to know that IEO will hardly gives anything to ETH. |
|
|
|
About Bitcoin as a currency, the problem is that the government would not allow Bitcoin to be used as a legal currency. Except something "big" happens, fiat would not disappear anytime soon. Also, improvements (technical) need to be made before Bitcoin can on-board the majority of people on earth.
That big event is coming, we do not know when or what will be the exact causes of the next economic crisis, but what we know is that the system is unsustainable and sooner or later it must fall, at that point it will be irrelevant what the government wants or allows, people will be in survival mode and if that means using this weird currency called bitcoin they have been making fun of for years then that is what they will use regardless of the wishes of the government. We don't even know whether when the crisis happening or the entire economic system collapses bitcoin will still hold the value or not. Bitcoin is always indirectly affected by such event and the Central bank saying Gold will be needed to start over is because they believe that gold will hold its value since it has always been like that since the ancient times. But, in my opinion when crisis happen that's when food worth more than gold I guess. So gold will be practically useless. |
|
|
|
In this kind of bad altcoin market i am still surprised that some new projects are giving out 50% price tag for their tokens, this is a project killer if you ask me, this move is only good if altcoin season is out and surging, 50percent is way too much in this kind of market we are in presently, tell me i'm wrong
It is a strategy for them to promote their project. A 50% discount is kinda the maximum discount for me; any higher than that will be a big loss to the project. And with the amount, I hope it is only for the first 20 or so investors or like the first week or so of the project. There is no problem with them giving discounts as long as it is not too good to be true or else, the people will start to doubt them. It's discount we are talking and not profit afterall. Giving discount is nothing better than without discount what I mean is even . if they are giving away 200% discount it is not like that the coin price will remains the same or not cut off or less estimated because the discount. It's already happening so much time and proven that giving discount means higher chance of token price dumping. Most of the project that giving away discount are those project that wants to reach the target even though the demand is underwhelming or those money grabber anyway. discount just doesnt make sense. |
|
|
|
China wants its citizens to have bitcoin or crypto available on the market today. it seems they are very serious about membaned all crypto currencies. but I have read that China will make its own digital currency but that currency is the same stable as USDT and has the same value as the CNY currency.
China is one of those countries that admires wonders of technology and believes in its power. I believe China is not against the concept of crypto currencies but only bitcoin as this can cause them a lot of problem if its people start investing in bitcoin. The simple rule is, who controls money and market, controls the world. Bitcoin is a big threat to everyone who is against freedom of economy. Regardless whether they admire technology or not if it's decentralized that's a bad thing for most of the government around the world and that includes china anyway. Can't expect china with such strict regulation even I heard recently there's social credit implemented to the society to accept anything that is out of their reach which is blockchain system and cryptocurrency. As a matter of fact they already have digital payment processing created by their own local company and is quite popular there I guess cryptocurrency already lose its way if it want to penetrate chinese market. |
|
|
|
Hey everyone. Yesterday I've read an article about European countries opinion on Facebook's Libra. There are a lot of negative statements about it. (Not without Trump's tweets, of course). What's interesting - there were no official responce from Libra yet. But they still planning to launch it in 2020. My question is - will launching Libra change the statement 'cryptocurrency is not money' in better way or it'll make worse? I think people in Europe are just playing safe because Libra is a part of Facebook, which U.S. government would be involved in launching this project in 2020 that there would be a havoc in cryptocurrency, that is why a lot of people has doubts and do not agree in this project. maybe they worry about their privcy.although there is no correlation between this projects with privacy.but the company behind that affraided .actually libra will be good representation from giant company that participate in blockchain developtment.market should be optimism while there is good sign for top company. there IS a correlation between this project and privacy. I'm pretty sure that to own this coin they will definitely requires a data verification not to mention that there are something Facebook has done in the past which is considered as stealing data unbeknown by the user. It's not about Facebook as a giant company participating in blockchain development that actually didn't take most of the people attention at the very least but the fact that Facebook has compromised and violating its user privacy in the past. It's totally understandable if Libra is facing against the regulation backlash, they also attracting so much attention and that could be a good thing and a bad thing in this case. |
|
|
|
I believe that JPMorgan is only offering their blockchain services to their corporate clients, no wonder that this giant company is under their fence. This company is really much more focus about their companies welfare and could bring crypto adoption to different institutions and large businesses.
That reminds me a lot when their CEO if i'm not mistaken saying cryptocurrency is a fault although there are no news about JP Morgan developing cryptos but a blockchain system when JPMorgan's name mentioned in any news relating to blockchain that thing just always cross my mind. I'm pretty sure that company like JPMorgan just after the profit and not really trying to bring crypto adoption, people are just expecting too much from such company. It's always like that since ancient time and this token launching on their blockchain I guess is purely for profit. |
|
|
|
I can’t wait for the moment when state structures and various corporations working with data start using blockchain in their work.
This will be especially useful for countries with a high level of corruption, where officials steal money from ordinary people on a massive scale.
Blockchain can solve this problem and deprive thieves of their feeders, which in turn should free up a significant amount of capital that will give the economy a boost.
Why do you know corporations and governments don't work with blockchain systems? Many sources have reported that this blockchain system may work in some transparency but it is too difficult to manage and fix, besides, many other technologies allow governments and corporations to better handle their data, that is why blockchain does not appear more in the fields. Activating the economy is only ideal for those who hold bitcoins and prefer to make rumors about blockchain technology to enhance the value of bitcoin, actual efficiency is very poor Kind of agree, blockchain doesn't really suit well if it's used for government. Its decentralized nature is quite the opposite to what these so called government expect. They want to keep in hand of your data while blockchain won't allow that. Sometimes centralized system is also important and for this case government will need such a thing to be able to control their economy. Blockchain is not a magical things that could turn a wrecked economy into something massive just because it is implemented. quite opposite if some cryptos are taking over a country economy that means the economy will crumble because the money is escaping from there. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
