Cool, where are you reading this? Check your ICONOMI login email address. I got this notice too. |
|
|
|
How did your trading work out bro? I didn't follow up after you wrote your Lisk selling post.
Thanks for asking. They say no plan survives contact with the enemy and that has certainly been true for me. However, overall I am up 25% from the day I sold my Lisk, so I'm OK. And here I am investing in ICONOMI, while I wait for Lisk 0.4.0d to be released on testnet. |
|
|
|
|
BTC collected by day, with weekly totals....
08-25 170.73939272
08-26 113.04201616
08-27 73.22136229
08-28 72.34022464
08-29 115.43385441
08-30 230.07932106
08-31 735.67607291 1510.532244190
09-01 553.62625017
09-02 104.18430954
09-03 22.18769825
09-04 17.07523263
09-05 57.58769283
09-06 62.73234800
09-07 120.78541970 938.178951120
09-08 73.11151300
09-09 36.30845104
09-10 16.13664710
09-11 298.91219413
09-12 54.52485562
09-13 82.65178645
09-14 73.17672000 634.822167340
09-15 48.82857572
09-16 13.34205205
09-17 18.27929594
09-18 32.12106996
09-19 21.42752539
09-20 43.11696256
09-21 81.16794226 258.283423880
09-22 110.86156244
09-23 106.15480397
09-24 118.01451967
09-25 57.60247701
26-Sep ?
27-Sep ?
28-Sep ? 392.633363090
|
|
|
|
|
FWIW, here's the top 25 BTC contributions:
Time: 2016-09-01 01:11:16 243.14565210
Time: 2016-08-31 16:34:34 236.68470074
Time: 2016-09-01 01:43:40 181.32284755
Time: 2016-09-11 15:56:49 149.99935536
Time: 2016-09-11 15:34:56 99.99935536
Time: 2016-09-02 14:54:44 77.49980620
Time: 2016-08-31 23:08:15 51.23869221
Time: 2016-09-22 20:26:24 41.89970722
Time: 2016-09-21 20:43:49 41.69970620
Time: 2016-09-24 21:11:34 41.44970722
Time: 2016-09-23 22:12:52 41.44970722
Time: 2016-08-28 22:36:57 30.09980722
Time: 2016-08-26 09:08:40 29.99980722
Time: 2016-08-30 17:15:10 27.93554649
Time: 2016-08-26 02:18:08 24.99965626
Time: 2016-09-01 02:55:53 23.64308430
Time: 2016-08-31 19:56:06 22.39620053
Time: 2016-08-31 14:54:23 21.45268319
Time: 2016-09-01 00:14:39 20.96430893
Time: 2016-09-07 13:41:29 20.81950530
Time: 2016-08-25 07:56:33 20.57743292
Time: 2016-09-25 18:04:34 20.40155677
Time: 2016-08-30 14:10:03 20.09959566
Time: 2016-08-25 12:14:42 20.02930530
Time: 2016-09-13 07:02:01 19.99980722
These 25 contributions represent 1529.8 BTC or around 41% of the total 3730 BTC donated.
1315 of the 1548 BTC contributions (around 85%) are 3 BTC or less.
That guy making 41 BTC contributions is bumping up against the $25K Polo Tier 3 daily withdrawal limit. Wonder who he is.
|
|
|
|
5.5m usd / 85,000 tokens = $.0647 approx. usd per token at present
Um...your result is right but your calculation is wrong. Should be 5.5m usd / 85,000,000 tokens = $.0647 per token. This ICO is interestingly similar to the Lisk ICO six months ago when BTC price was roughly half what it is today. Both Lisk and ICONOMI will raise on the order of $5.5M and have a launch price of 7 cents per token. However, an important point: ICONOMI has a little over 2000 participants, while Lisk had twice as many at 4,000 or so. ICONOMI is going to have 2000 fewer people wanting to dump at launch than Lisk did, and the average ICONOMI holder paid on average twice as much for their share as the average Lisk holder. More people are going to go to the exchanges to purchase their initial ICN than was the case with LSK, and thr ICO holders are probably less motivated to sell since they may have bought it as a long-term hold. <Grabs popcorn>..... |
|
|
|
|
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like things are changing significantly at Poloniex. A few days ago there was 450K Factom in the sell side order book; now there's 280K. So the amount of FCT available for purchase has dropped by 60%. Meanwhile, the buy side order book stays strong - consistently over 1K BTC, currently 1365. Anybody tracking the margin requirements on FCT and how that's changed in the past week?
|
|
|
|
Question: What's the upside potential of Factom?So let's speculate 1 billion entries per month...
i = monthly inflation, 73k FCT
r = FCT to EC conversion rate, $0.001
e = new entries needed per month, 1 billion
(e*r)/i = $13.70 per Factoid...
After M3, at 1 billion new entries per month, factoids need to be priced at least at $13.70 to prevent deflation. Of course people speculating on future use will hodl and add to deflationary pressure.
The main-factor will be the demand of Entry Credits. And besides an increasing attention that already happens and will continue, the market will react on all signs for a high demand in the future. And there are already some indications for that. More between the line, but still... David Johnston said in the interview that potential customers ask if Factom could handle a billion entries per day. And his intention was to explain Factom. I doubt that his intention was to hype the market, otherwise he would use a megaphone. But why should they (potential Customers) ask that?
At a billion per day instead of per month, we get 30 * $ 13.70 = $411.00 per Factoid...Think that's unrealistic? Meet The CAT. https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/stein-statement-open-meeting-cat-042716.htmlhttp://www.pwc.com/us/en/financial-services/regulatory-services/publications/assets/sec-consolidated-audit-trail-2016.pdfhttp://www.debevoise.com/~/media/files/insights/publications/2016/05/20160517b_the_sec_propose_%20the_cat_plan_but_at_what_cost.pdf"The CAT Plan may become the most robust and complicated financial database in the world." "CAT Reporters will be burdened for at least two-and-a-half years with both their existing $1.6 billion annual reporting costs and the $1.7 billion annual costs of reporting to the CAT, according to initial estimates by the SEC. The CAT will also carry a one-time implementation cost estimated at $2.4 billion." Note that Factom M3 inflation is right at 2400 Factoids per day. If $411 per factoid will support a billion entries per day, the daily Factoid hashing and data storage costs for a billion entries are 2400*411 = $986K per day or $360M per year - only 20% of the estimated CAT annual reporting costs. SEC Consolidated Audit Trail (CAT) needs Factom.CAT+Factom = $  per Factom...
|
|
|
|
Interesting numbers deduced from https://factoid.live/: There are currently 8.749M factoids in circulation, contained in 2471 accounts. 2.550M of that is apparently at Poloniex (29.1% of total). The top 50 accounts hold a total of 6.782M Factoids (77.5% of total). The bottom 2421 accounts hold a total of 1.967M Factoids, or an average of 812 Factoids each. The # 50 account holds 19.7K, so the bottom 2421 obviously have a significant number of accounts greatly over or under 812 Factoids.... |
|
|
|
I wonder if the Factom team is aware of this idea? Might be worth emailing them.
I have been emailing Factom all of my posts on HFT / Nanex, and will continue to do so. |
|
|
|
I've said this before and I'll say it again. A connection between Nanex and Factom is the Holy Grail.
Wow, I hadn't heard of Nanex but just did some research and yeah, I 100% agree. But knowing very little about them atm ... You need to read Flash Boys by Michael Lewis to get an understanding of just how much of a mess Wall Street has become. We don't need to time stamp and Factomize Wall Street stock prices, we need to time stamp and Factomize EVERY SINGLE PROPOSED BID AND ASK TRANSACTION. Like....billions per day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_Boyshttps://www.amazon.com/Flash-Boys-Wall-Street-Revolt-ebook/dp/B00HVJB4VM#nav-subnavIf you don't have time to find and read the whole book, at least read this executive summary / book report of Flash Boys... https://www.theinvestorspodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/FlashBoys.pdfThe prime mission for Factom should be cleaning up high frequency trading on Wall Street. Which would require more ECs, and a higher Factoid price, than any of us can imagine. "While Lewis can only estimate the cost to investors of the abuses, he believes it is over $5 billion per year, perhaps as much as $15 billion per year or even higher". |
|
|
|
I've said this before and I'll say it again. A connection between Nanex and Factom is the Holy Grail. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-man-wants-to-upend-the-world-of-high-frequency-trading-2016-02-02"Hunsader says a belief in fairness and transparency underpins his concerns. Current regulations are sufficient to ensure protection for investors, he says, but exchanges and market makers don’t abide by the rules, and regulators don’t hold them accountable, in part because they’ve been slow to adopt technology that would help them. High-frequency traders, he says, get away with practices that “are killing the diversity of participants. As [they] get a larger and larger share of trades, you are going to get more and more of these damaging market events” like the one in August 2015. He laments the lack of a consolidated audit trail, or CAT, a stream of time-stamped data on virtually all quotes, orders and executions, as well as customer information, that would represent unprecedented transparency into stock, future and options trading. It would help regulators monitor for anomalies that precede swings in asset prices, Hunsader says. Without it, he says, the SEC lacks credible evidence of wrongdoing.
Some agree with Hunsader. “As speed and complexity have become almost insurmountable forces in our marketplace, effective oversight simply cannot happen without the CAT,” SEC Commissioner Kara Stein said in September. The SEC declined to comment for this article. “Markets have gone light years ahead while the surveillance system is outdated,” said Joe Saluzzi, co-founder of Themis Trading and a critic of high-frequency traders. The SEC ordered the CAT’s creation in 2012, outsourcing it to a partnership of national securities exchanges and associations known as self-regulatory organizations, which are responsible for self-policing members including the NYSE, Nasdaq OMX, BATS, Chicago Board of Trade and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (Finra), an independent, not-for-profit organization authorized by Congress to regulate market participants. Guidelines for the project indicated that it would be implemented in 2015. There have been more than 700 meetings to discuss parameters, costs and vendors, according to the Financial Times. As of November, there was only a shortlist of potential vendors — Finra, SunGard and Thesys, which the SEC is reviewing. This frustrates Hunsader, who calls the task “obscenely easy” since he is already able to collect similar data through his subscription feeds, albeit without participants’ IDs. “The Consolidated Audit Trail will NEVER get built,” he tweeted recently. " |
|
|
|
Go forth and bare witness.
I think you mean "bear witness"....bear as in "carry". https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bear_witnessYou guys have moral high ground in every imaginable way. Infinitely higher.
Amen. Hey, Anon, are you the guy that sent me an 11 oz silver ingot when I bought some of your silver assets back in the NXT days? Did you do lot of silver ingot pours? |
|
|
|
So, please don't bore others and me with your bullshit.
<clapping slowly> Bravo. Very well done takedown. |
|
|
|
What you guys have to understand is that Factom just needs to move on how they did and do and all what you want will come. To believe it would be smart to make marketing for the Factoid-market is in fact the total opposite. We are not their target!
Attention is increasing. It's visible on all platforms and also in this thread. And it will continue to increase. Like I've said before: This is a catapult. So enjoy it. They do it all right.
You are absolutely correct, and the charts show that Factom is indeed a different type of coin and a different type of business - and definitely "under the radar". If anything the price needs to stay low for now to keep M3 inflationary Factoids from piling up because of low EC usage. |
|
|
|
It all comes down to marketing, good marketing and GREAT marketing. With these news, people should be buying FLY like crazy, however, this is still not the case.
But things re improving recently. Much more news, Q&A and media presence.
If you say so. There's a lot more room for improvement....    |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
