next year Ans will be like Eth this year, there is no doubt price will be fly, but we need to wait and support developer to make strong community for Ans.
Why will ANS be like ETH? ANS is not divisible and thus cannot be used as currency. Many startups are using ETH both to build their dapps and to fund them through ICOs. With ANS its not really viable to fund? Yes, there are (or will be) ANC, but at the moment it looks maybe a little to complicated? Plus if ANS gets very expensive (and I have invested in it), it may slowdown market movements (be less accessible to purchase). Antshares (NEO) looks like it has a solid team, charts look good, some people whose analysis I appreciate like ANS and, basically, China is great and is unstoppable, thats why invested in ANS. Just recently I learned (I know I know) ANS is not divisible so probably not great option to use as currency. What do you think about that? What is the future of ANS? ANC/GAS can be used as currency and is paid out to all shareholders (ANS are the shares). You can check that here, really nice feature: https://neotogas.com/ |
|
|
|
The following is also a nice link to check your balance without having to login: https://neotogas.com/You only have to enter your public address and then you can check whether everything is still there. It also lists the claimed ANC/GAS. It does not detect the unclaimed ANC/GAS attached to the address, so keep that in mind. What might be even better is the following link: https://neotracker.io/browse/address/1You can search for your public address and look into the entire transaction history of that address. ----------------------------------------------- NEO developer community (COZ) Weekly Report #2 - 2017.07.16: https://steemit.com/blockchain/@canesin/neo-developer-community-coz-weekly-report-2-2017-07-16The report shows a lot of work is being done to make NEO better and better on a variety of fronts. That's great, thanks for the infos! Very nice to see that Dev's are interested in Antshares! P.S.: Yes, I'll continue to call it Antshares for some time because I still like that name! Not easy to say goodbye to it!  |
|
|
|
Very interesting interview with Demetrios Zamboglou (CEO of Lykke Cyprus and Chief Business Development Officer of Lykke AG) about the importance of Cyprus, regulations and Lykke in general: Lykke: Cyprus Can Become a Blockchain Transaction Hub
The crypto-secure trading company, Lykke Cyprus, is now entering the final stages of the approval process, that will ultimately establish Lykke as a fully regulated entity, authorised by the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission. “Cyprus has always been part of our strategic agenda and an important element of our global expansion plan”, says Demetrios Zamboglou, CEO of Lykke Cyprus and Chief Business Development Officer of Lykke AG. The main reasons why the Board of Directors was attracted to Cyprus were its location, rules and regulation, its established and efficient financial services sector and the availability of qualified personnel on the island. (...) http://www.goldnews.com.cy/en/professional-services/lykke--cyprus-can-become-a-blockchain-transaction-hub |
|
|
|
I suppose if there were some actually relevant news, like Lykke had received ANY license to trade other than a "Vanuatu brokerage license" the LKK price would react. But while I believe Lykke's US rep went so far as to anticipate imminent US regulation in the months ahead during the online AGM (from his laptop at the airport), I view this as unsubstantiated, unprofessional and misleading. He doesn't know IF AND WHEN US regulators will give him approval. What if they do not? What is Lykke's business case then?
This is how a lot of regulators I know work: You apply for a license. They examine your application, and if they're favourable or unfavourable they'll give preliminary written feedback, which of course is market sensitive information and will be immediately released by the company in question. Then later the regulator usually - not always - follows up with a final determination granting or not granting, as the case may be.
Lykke has "got people on it". How we get from that to publically stating likely timeframes within periods of months I don't know - or rather I do: that's what the person promising speedy regulatory approval hopes for. What you hope for isn't likely, and shouldn't be presented to investors as such. I think Lykke's hopes of licensing is an example of this. But let's look at another example, the Winklevoss brothers ETF application. It was rejected. Then a whole lot of "news" outlets in the crypto space started reporting the "news" that the SEC will "review" its decision. This isn't "news", it's a statutory obligation the SEC must offer to ALL applicants whose applications are not frivolous.
I do not like Coindesk, Cointelegraph or whatever manipulating the true nature the situation (eg. the SEC rejection of Winklevoss' ETF) to paint a picture not really aligned to reality. I like even less Lykke which claims to want to be a major financial exchange doing it. To me it's just like manipulation at every level - on the LKK price which users can't control, and then on the roadmap.
What you post here, is (again) misleading. Michael Klena has explained the process that is about several steps and levels, different regulators with different rules in different locations. And of course, the process is not fully under Lykke control and time frames are hard to predict. He expects limited approvals in certain states by end of the fall. He doesn't say that Lykke will have it all in the next months. So if you want to give the impression Lykke would have promised SEC-approval any time soon to say that would be misleading and a manipulative attempt - nobody said that. Please check again what Michael Klena said during the meeting: https://youtu.be/ELG8HpRCHu8?t=13m45sThis is his comment in a blog-post about regulations: Michael Klena, Director of Lykke U.S.
The United States has a fragmented regulatory environment, in that different products are overseen by different regulators. Each regulator, in turn, has different levels of approval, depending on regulatory history and segregated capital.
Lykke’s approach is like climbing a ladder. We will get approval for the lowest levels first. Then we can progress to higher and higher rungs. This takes time, but it’s the best way to achieve our goals.
Applications have already been submitted to the SEC, the U.S. Treasury, and the IRS, with the CFTC and OCC to follow shortly. We expect our first approvals for a very limited set of products by the fall. Each quarter, we expect to add more and more products as approvals come in. By the end of 2018, we should be able to trade everything that Lykke offers.https://www.lykke.com/city/blog/lykke_heat_from_the_global_streetAlso in the blog-article he says that he expects approvals for "a very limited set of products" first. So what has Lykke done wrong here? Shouldn't they talk about the process at all? |
|
|
|
|
For me it's unclear if...
1) BitcoinABC/Cash will only be created if BIP91/Segwitx2 will not get enough support, or
2) if BitcoinABC/Cash will split in any case
Does anybody know for sure how it will be/what will happen?
Second question: Is it meant seriously or just a strategic move to support the NY-agreement, to avoid support for an UAHF?
|
|
|
|
Lykke Cofounder Receives Grant to Study Impact of Intraday Interest RatesLykke cofounder and Chief Science Officer Anton Golub, together with Professor Ser-Huang Poon of Alliance Manchester Business School and Rachel Lidan Grossmass, a postdoctoral researcher at University of Dusseldorf, have won a FinTech seedcorn grant for their project entitled Managing Currency Crises in the Blockchain Era: New Tools for Central Banks. The purpose of this study is to explore the disruptions caused by blockchain technology in financial markets, specifically the introduction of intraday interest rates. (...) https://www.lykke.com/company/news/lykke_cofounder_receives_grant
|
|
|
|
Coinmarket cap gets to decide what to include in a coin's marketcap. It chooses coins in free float. Whether this is right has been argued at length all over Reddit and Bitcointalk. I have my own view, but that's not important, what's important is coinmarketcap's view, and I think they're entitled to it. Ie. they're not breaking any law or regulation by doing it their way.
I don't see why everyone is so keen to see LKK's full value list on coinmarketcap. XRP people used to demand the same thing (coinmarketcap didn't oblige). Also don't see why people want the full value of LKK including the super-majority not in free float in the owners wallets published. A lot of people have bought into LKK thinking it's a "bargain" at the $50-something million mark. If they saw it was close to $400 million, it wouldn't look like such a bargain.
This is what I've written about the CMC-topic on reddit today: "There is a difference between a project like Lykke and Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, Ethereum or nearly countless others: Cryptocurrencies are in a mining or staking process what means: There is an already existing supply and a max supply (like the famous 21 million Bitcoins). In Lykke (but also several other projects) there is already existing supply that is theoretically on the market, because technically it is not locked up, but because it is in the hands of founders, team-members, board-members, seed-Investors, practically it is not on the market. That makes things more complex for a site like CMC of course, especially if they try to find the one rule that fits for all (to differ between circulating and total supply). And like in some other projects that have different economical designs than Cryptocurrencies, that can lead to some controversy. Some are critical because the total valuation of Lykke is higher than how it is calculated on CMC with circulating supply, some are critical because the majority of supply is not in public hands, but I'm very sure that some also would be critical if that would be the case, because that would seem as if company and founders simply want to sell LKK fast to make money. To make a long story short: Important is... - to understand that LKK represents Company-ownership and is not a typical Cryptocurrency
- to do some research and to be informed, not to make important decisions based only on single informations from external websites
https://www.reddit.com/r/lykke/comments/6nsac1/why_all_this_chaos_on_circulatingtotal_supply/ |
|
|
|
Look tempus and mtnsaa leave the Richard Olsen thing alone. Who started talking about him?
I hardly thing calling a successful businessman a "ruthlessly successful businessman" would give someone an action against me, anonymous or not. The whole point is I never post factually inaccurate things, or personally attack people. (...)
Let's try - you said: (...) LKK started selling off earlier and faster than the altcoin market as a whole. (...)
Is that factually accurate? And you didn't personally attack? I don't want to copy it all but take a look at all what you've said about Richard Olsen, including:
Personally, my sense is that the top echelons of Lykke (including Brother Number One, who is very rich and certainly can inject liquidity) of Lykke are intervening to try and hold LKK from crashing. You can see it in the high volume and sharp drop off, that has been temporarily leveled.
Is that factually accurate and not personal, especially in the context what else you said about him and Lykke in general? Regarding him being the biggest Investor: He said that himself once on telegram. Unfortunately I didn't make a screenshot. But thing is: He started Lykke out of nothing so I don't have much doubt that it's true. |
|
|
|
Yes, I tend to agree that in the leadup to Segwit 2x downside risk probably isn't fully priced, so below 15 cents would be a buying opportunity.
What I've said about Richard Olsen is Lykke is a "make Richard Olsen richer scheme". This is patently obvious given that he owns most LKK. It is not even a criticism of him, I think he's a genius. But I don't like this pretense that he's all a lovey-dovey, hug-the-tree, let's all be fair to each other, kindly Scandinavian uncle. If you didn't notice, he's a ruthlessly successful businessman - that's not a bad thing, but pretending to people that this man who owns most LKK is not in it for his own profit is a bad thing.
Regarding Bitcoin: I'm not so sure that things will go wrong. Reason is: A huge majority wants segwit and I know of nobody with authority and skin in the game who would want a split. What is likely to happen: Segwit will hopefully (my opinion it's likely) be activated pretty soon and then we will see if the hardfork to 2mb will happen. That is controversial for sure but it will be some time in between. And that absolutely could lead to a rising price because the pressure on Bitcoin is caused by all the controversy and the frozen fronts-status and the lack of progress - not just since we see the price going down but even earlier, that it didn't move up much more. But, we will see how things turn out. Bad scenarios are not impossible of course but will most likely hit the whole market. That's why I think your focus on Lykke is so interesting. ;-) Like I've already told you: It's never smart to state personal theories as facts and to speak about people you don't know in such a way. Whatever you might think about Richard Olsen doesn't matter. Of course it's easy to come up with accusations like you already did, that he would intervene on the market, because the price didn't drop like you wanted to see it (and let's not forget: You just need to take a look at the volume and you know WHO buys. That's a great skill!) And of course it's easy to say things about R. Olsen how you do it now, using words like "ruthlessly" etc., while being hidden behind a pseudonym. But from us both here, you are the one who doesn't know him. I have never met him personally but we've talked several times on phone. And we both can't look into his head, but I never had the impression that he started Lykke to make money and he is in no way ruthlessly but the opposite. And since many many years Richard Olsen is known as Innovator, as somebody who is a combination of economical expert, business man, philosoph, and yes... he really wants to change how financial markets work - that's not an attitude to make money. He is absolutely serious about that and not just since Lykke. So, if you really want to write bullshit about him I can't stop you but maybe ask yourself why. Nobody has ever tried to force you into buying LKK. Your problem is that you want it cheaper. And when it's about Richard Olsen's supply, let's try it with logic: - Richard Olsen is the main-founder of Lykke, the one who started it - He is one of several people behind this project who works hard for it every day. - Richard Olsen is the main-investor - LKK is not a cryptocurrency but represents ownership of the company So why the hell shouldn't he own most of it? It's really simple: If an Investor believes in the idea and has some trust into the team, he might recognize it as an opportunity and a potential win-win-situation to buy LKK - all risks involved. If somebody doesn't believe in Lykke and/or the people who are working on it is free to stay away. And if somebody considers LKK as good investment, like you already said that: (...) You picked a good investment early, (...) ....but believes that it's overvalued: Simply wait. If you are sure that the price will go down, just wait to get it cheaper somewhere in future. But if you believe that you have to talk it down with all what you come up with - that is really revealing. That shows much more about you than about Lykke or Richard Olsen. |
|
|
|
Will you stop demonising me for mentioning an inconvenient truth? It is not an outrageous thing to say in the lead up to Segwit 2x I think all altcoins including LKK will drop. I think Bitcoin will drop too but less.
Instead of entering into fair dialogue, you throw a bunch of personal insults at me, someone you've never met, for expressing an opinion. In response to your false and unfair allegation, I bought LKK at 6 cents and I thought it was good value at that price.
It's unfair to demonise all dissent.
I don't demonise you. I don't even take it personal. But of course I didn't appreciate your several attempts to talk the price down with claims like "LKK started selling off earlier and faster than the altcoin market as a whole", your accusations the market would be manipulated, even personal against Richard Olsen, and your price-talking on several threads on reddit. It's really simple: You come up with things like that, I reply on it. Nothing personal, nothing special. |
|
|
|
@playingpoodles, you didn't get any grip on the official thread and reddit, so you try it here again? ;-) I called it a good investment when you bought it at five cents. Why does that surprise you? Unlike you I don't have a wheelbarrow to push except transparency. If you cashed out now you'd have made 5 times your investment. Yes that's a good investment in my books. But no, I don't think it would be a good investment for latecomers who buy high from early investors and face much more downside risk.
Finally someone admits Richard owns most LKK, after all the stonewalling. You don't think that confirms my suggestion that Richard stands to make most of the profit, or that it is a make him richer scheme? Okayyyyy...
Anyway, short term Richard can totally manipulate LKK price to stop it going down, thanks to an in-house "algorithm" which I noticed last night favoured price going up: in other words, the larger the LKK sale the fewer USD per LKK you got, but the bigger the USD purchase of LKK the more LKK you got per USD. No price transparency at all, very heavily manipulated, and I can't see a US regulators having a bar of it. I also think as we get to the sharp end of Segwit 2x activation there's a limit to how much funny business with the "algorithm" determining the LKK price will be able to stop people running for the doors.
What surprises me, or actually I'm not really surprised, is the inconsistency of your argumentation. On one side you come up with hard accusations. You talk about Lykke as a "scheme", you claim the market would be manipulated, Richard Olsen himself would intervene on the market, and so on. At the same time you speak about Lykke as good investment. And sure, I get your point because that is the only one that is consistent: The price. And that is the constant message you spread on two threads here and several topics on reddit and THAT shows consistency. And one more time: I don't want to say that there shouldn't be different opinions about total value and price. It's the way you combine things and spread your message that is revealing. Another thing is: If one wants to attack a project, that is always possible, especially if done with theories like you come up with. - price goes down: that is about Lykke only underlined with the lie LKK would have went down before others did - price goes up: Richard Olsen manipulates the market Or supply and distribution: If founders and team-members wouldn't have so much skin in the game it would be easy to attack that, to come up with the claim they would only care about selling LKK to make money. If they hold a lot, and we are speaking about ownership here, you see a problem in that. So let's not forget your priority: Cheaper price because after all your accusations you still consider Lykke as good investment. That intention is the only consistent reflection in the way you communicate. The Little Poodle just tried to talk the price down by spreading nonsense FUD with his bulldog persistence so that he can buy at a cheaper price. He is bitter that we (early investors) got in early at $0.05 and he is super jealous with us. No body is so free to talk about something that he is not concern with. Enough said. |
|
|
|
I really wish coinmarketcap would display the true market cap instead of the free float, it's very misleading since pretty much the entire crypto space uses that website
If we take the stock market for example the marketcap is composed of public available shares. CMC has to list so many projects with so many different and nuances that I don't understand why it's always under fire I don't see it that way. The stock market is not the cryptomarket. You don't have regularly released shares every X minutes, you don't have shares "lock up in smart contracts". When shares are held by founders or original investors, they are considered in the market cap calculation. Shares are standardised. Coins aren't. That's why they should go with the total current supply = market cap, not free float. Free floats up for interpretation anyway as you can see with Lykke. There's tonnes of other coins out there where the "founder coins" are counted, but LKK coins aren't. To me, it makes no difference, but I really dislike how misleading it is for other people who rely on coinmarketcap. It makes valuations crazy. Look at something like BITOK. I have no idea what it is, pretty sure it's just a scamcoin, but it's value is utterly stupid because coinmarketcap hasn't given it a circulating supply value and thus it's ignored in their calcs. If you did the total supply market cap it's value was $100,000,000,000. Somebody figured that out 2 or 3 days ago and the price cratered from $50 to $0.16. But this is the madness that happens when values aren't calculated properly. I also was surprised to see BITOK on number 1 by marketcap on Bravenewcoin some time ago. Also not sure what it is but yeah, doesn't look good. Bravenewcoin is better than CMC in my opinion, also gives more details about charts etc.: https://bravenewcoin.com/market-cap/ (sorted by volume but by clicking on marketcap it's possible to get that overview as well) https://bravenewcoin.com/lykke#Trading-PairsThe problem is always that Crypto-projects are indeed not standardised, there are many different economical designs out there and it's not possible for sites like CMC to find the one way that is precise for all. But either way I think that it's always best to learn enough about a project, the team behind, economical structure etc. and out of multiple sources. |
|
|
|
Lykke told CMC about the transfer supply from old coinprism-addresses to the trading-section before, but once it happened, CMC back-updated and displayed the old number. I don't know if there is a new status but yes, in their opinion only the supply that was sold to the public should be displayed as circulating supply. But, the most important aspect about that is transparency about the total value (total supply multiplied with price), because Lykke first got some critique that only what was sold to the public was displayed as "marketcap" (CMC changed that later to circulating supply) and then there also have been some critiques about the transfer. And on the Invest-page, independently on what is in the trading or private section or coinprism addresses, the total value is displayed as marketcap now so that everybody can check on one look. Man, I triggered the settlement today: that means I frozen those lkky1 for one year from now? Or have more implication? Yes, it means that you'll get LKK in 365 days (1:1 for LKK1Y). If you go on settings --> history you should see an incoming transfer plus date of settlement (July 16, 2018). |
|
|
|
Lykke told CMC about the transfer supply from old coinprism-addresses to the trading-section before, but once it happened, CMC back-updated and displayed the old number. I don't know if there is a new status but yes, in their opinion only the supply that was sold to the public should be displayed as circulating supply. But, the most important aspect about that is transparency about the total value (total supply multiplied with price), because Lykke first got some critique that only what was sold to the public was displayed as "marketcap" (CMC changed that later to circulating supply) and then there also have been some critiques about the transfer. And on the Invest-page, independently on what is in the trading or private section or coinprism addresses, the total value is displayed as marketcap now so that everybody can check on one look. |
|
|
|
Any news on adding Lykke? Either as an exchange for buys/sells or just as the plain old coin token (LKK)? Perhaps just adding LKK prior to adding it as an exchange would be easier?
We've reached out to Lykke regarding integration of their exchange, we're currently waiting on them to provide us an API key and additional end points so we can integrate them to Blockfolio. Will check (ask the team)! |
|
|
|
Sardasa, just if I understand it right: Two BTC-deposits, enough confirmations on the blockchain but not displayed in your account? Sometimes it happens that the wallet doesn't detect a deposit properly. Please write to support@lykke.com and provide account details (mail-address your App is connected to is most important). Once done, and if you shouldn't get a reply in a timely manner you can message me your ticket number. |
|
|
|
There have been some delays recently, especially that the Limit Orders release takes longer than expected has lead to some disappointment, what is understandable of course. That is a reason why everybody is carefully with giving ETA's but the team is aware that also the web-based-terminal is eagerly awaited.
I'd rather they go slow and make sure everything is well tested before going live with either web or limit trading. That's the way to keep people happy and make the best product. Also I think those two will bring in a lot of new users which will be an added stress test. Yes, couldn't agree more. Limit orders are more a "basic feature" but important of course. Web-based-terminal is likely to get more attention, also to shift the way Lykke is recognized a bit more from "small" to "big". The more important it is that it is as good as possible once released. And right, everything that attracts a lot of new users in a short time frame is a bit of a stress-test.  |
|
|
|
Really liking the practice margin trading. Good for messing with some currency pairs. Also looking at the roadmap it looks like web based trading might be soon-ish? https://trello.com/b/IV0PH2gs/lykke-roadmapOf course happy to wait til it's 100% ready to go There have been some delays recently, especially that the Limit Orders release takes longer than expected has lead to some disappointment, what is understandable of course. That is a reason why everybody is carefully with giving ETA's but the team is aware that also the web-based-terminal is eagerly awaited. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
