 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
XBY wallet on Yobit still maintenance. Many orders buy on C-Cex/Cryptopia/TradeSatoshi average 5 - 50 sat. It's nearly can be down price to 1 sat..
Where is XBY trade for 50 sat? Waiting for ur response Radent I think he talks about buy orders and not about trades as it has any significance. By this logic Bitcoin is failed coin because someone putted buy order of 1 cent on BTC that will never be triggered.  The significance is it would take more than a few thousand dollars to bring BTC down to 1 cent Same about other direction... it takes like only 2 BTC to more than double the price... In low volume coins this is irrelevant and has zero significance. You can swing coin price with few BTC + buy orders they are only orders, they can always appear or disappear. Fair call |
|
|
|
XBY wallet on Yobit still maintenance. Many orders buy on C-Cex/Cryptopia/TradeSatoshi average 5 - 50 sat. It's nearly can be down price to 1 sat..
Where is XBY trade for 50 sat? Waiting for ur response Radent I think he talks about buy orders and not about trades as it has any significance. By this logic Bitcoin is failed coin because someone putted buy order of 1 cent on BTC that will never be triggered. The significance is it would take more than a few thousand dollars to bring BTC down to 1 cent |
|
|
|
I asked in this question in the slack however it was difficult to clarify with a lot of conversation going on at the time. As had been mentioned at times and pointed out in the most recent video there will at some later date be L2 nodes released - I am interested in the purpose of this as from what I was told there would not be technical differences, merely less upfront cost and less receivable income.
In terms of the quality of the network there is straightforward benefit: more nodes = among other things further decentralization = better network. However the purpose behind 'mininodes' I still find somewhat puzzling. We can consider that by offering a lower price point more nodes will be adopted, this a good thing, however this would come with economic impact to the original, or L1 nodes, eventually deterring investor interest.
At this time the number of nodes is to be fixed to 512. Under this circumstance we have a limited supply 512 nodes that have the right to receive income from the network - or in other words 500k XBY in a node is of greater value than 500k 'loose' XBY as it is effectively working harder. The market determines that value by determining that interest rate, accounting for the associated risk, weighing alternate opportunities and eventually offering a flat price. There is of course opportunity cost associated as the money can't be used for anything else over the duration it is tied up in the node. To draw a comparison we could say a truck costing $500k being worked to near capacity should have greater economic value than $500k stashed under the mattress, but as long as the money is tied up in the truck it cannot be used to invest elsewhere.
By introducing a secondary tier at, for the sake of simplicity, half the price, it would then be possible to buy two smaller trucks capable of earning half the level of income each. Like trucks computers or their connections somewhere along the line can and do fail for periods of time, we love decentralization as it addresses this issue. If we have two then if one truck, or computer were to break down the other is still capable of earning for us. As we never see an uptime of 100% with trucks or computers alike we can expect if we only have one it will from time to time leave us completely out of pocket, this is something that could be reasonably accurately calculated. In addition to this a node cannot be partially sold, and like a truck it must be sold whole if it is to serve an identical purpose. For these reasons I would argue the logical approach from an investment standpoint would be to own two smaller nodes - not only do you have some redundancy in terms of the revenue stream, but also the ability to partially sell off that revenue stream if or when required - greater liquidity.
With what I would consider more attractive nodes introduced at later dates I would suggest this devalues the big 'one piece' L1 nodes, and if we were to introduce L3 down to L20 nodes down the line the L1 begins to look like a significantly riskier behemoth, not only in terms of consistency of revenue but perhaps more importantly liquidity - it would be more difficult to find a buyer and cannot be sold partially vs being able to sell off for example 1/20th of that revenue stream. In my opinion the more liquid alternative would be the far more desirable option. We could consider offering some amount of fees to the higher level options which would offset this, but in terms of the quality of the network I do not find logic in offering more money for the same work.
So, I look to challenge my thinking and seek an argument as to why this system would work better than say, just splitting all existing nodes across one level? And why L1 node holders should not have concerns that their investment would economically speaking devalue over time?
You are deep Karl. Maybe Borz can read and reply when he has time. He probably won't fear this topic and call you a fudder lol. Good luck! He doesn't know how the price of cryptocoin is determined, you think he is very deep and you expect that borzalom will answer to him. According to him supply determines the price, so I have a coin ACP in my portfolio which has a supply of 6.8 million and trading at 120 sat. Any explanation why the price is low. Actually it is demand which controls the price. Yeah demand is the other side of it, well done mate. |
|
|
|
Actually, supply & demand determine the price, marketcap is just an overall project value based on latest known price.
What is 'Market Capitalization' Market capitalization refers the total dollar market value of a company's outstanding shares. Commonly referred to as "market cap," it is calculated by multiplying a company's shares outstanding by the current market price of one share. The investment community uses this figure to determine a company's size, as opposed to using sales or total asset figures. BREAKING DOWN 'Market Capitalization' Using market capitalization to show the size of a company is important because company size is a basic determinant of various characteristics in which investors are interested, including risk. It is also easy to calculate. A company with 20 million shares selling at $100 a share would have a market cap of $2 billion. ahaha |
|
|
|
Actually supply does determine price
No, market cap determines the price. At least inform yourself about the basics of trading, please  You will find that you are wrong |
|
|
|
The only thing? Supply doesnt determine price at all. The only important thing about supply is if its hardcapped or not. XBY is hardcapped. Price means zero absolutely nothing. Its like saying a pizza is cheap cause one slice is only a dollar but the pizza is sliced into 100 slices...its moronic. Marketcap is the only thing to look at. The actual price only has any value when coupled with supply and then only cause you can work out marketcap. Attacking supply is what scum bag fudders do. Thats all.
This coin is literally in the hands of morons who dont appreciate the significance of the technology. Sad i see very few legendary or hero members posting here cause its hidden in the depth of Yobit pump and dump hell at the moment. Hopefully that will change soon.
Actually supply does determine price |
|
|
|
No, early big nodes will always be worth more than the smaller nodes because they keep the system running and earn more profits plus they will contain the double amount of XBY's and because XBY is a deflationary currency where all 650 Million coins already exist that means smaller nodes mathematically cannot be worth more than the original level 1 nodes. If you want to buy more XBY grab more BTC instead of trying to spread bad FUD around here  Yeah obviously relative to one another and I just demonstrated why. """"Deflationary"""" or the number of coins are entirely irrelevant. |
|
|
|
I wont.be kind cause you spent the whole spreading bland fud on the slack. If you had actually rewx though the ANN or just not been so pompous you would know the first round already happened at community decided price of 500.000. Now you cant go back and ask people fo.completely change their pricing.to.keep.ypu happy. Clearly its just a way to give oportunity for more people to buy a node at a lower price due to the price increase. What a lot of hot air over nothing. You must be fun at parties.
OK here - early big nodes will be worth less than later small nodes |
|
|
|
|
I asked in this question in the slack however it was difficult to clarify with a lot of conversation going on at the time. As had been mentioned at times and pointed out in the most recent video there will at some later date be L2 nodes released - I am interested in the purpose of this as from what I was told there would not be technical differences, merely less upfront cost and less receivable income.
In terms of the quality of the network there is straightforward benefit: more nodes = among other things further decentralization = better network. However the purpose behind 'mininodes' I still find somewhat puzzling. We can consider that by offering a lower price point more nodes will be adopted, this a good thing, however this would come with economic impact to the original, or L1 nodes, eventually deterring investor interest.
At this time the number of nodes is to be fixed to 512. Under this circumstance we have a limited supply 512 nodes that have the right to receive income from the network - or in other words 500k XBY in a node is of greater value than 500k 'loose' XBY as it is effectively working harder. The market determines that value by determining that interest rate, accounting for the associated risk, weighing alternate opportunities and eventually offering a flat price. There is of course opportunity cost associated as the money can't be used for anything else over the duration it is tied up in the node. To draw a comparison we could say a truck costing $500k being worked to near capacity should have greater economic value than $500k stashed under the mattress, but as long as the money is tied up in the truck it cannot be used to invest elsewhere.
By introducing a secondary tier at, for the sake of simplicity, half the price, it would then be possible to buy two smaller trucks capable of earning half the level of income each. Like trucks computers or their connections somewhere along the line can and do fail for periods of time, we love decentralization as it addresses this issue. If we have two then if one truck, or computer were to break down the other is still capable of earning for us. As we never see an uptime of 100% with trucks or computers alike we can expect if we only have one it will from time to time leave us completely out of pocket, this is something that could be reasonably accurately calculated. In addition to this a node cannot be partially sold, and like a truck it must be sold whole if it is to serve an identical purpose. For these reasons I would argue the logical approach from an investment standpoint would be to own two smaller nodes - not only do you have some redundancy in terms of the revenue stream, but also the ability to partially sell off that revenue stream if or when required - greater liquidity.
With what I would consider more attractive nodes introduced at later dates I would suggest this devalues the big 'one piece' L1 nodes, and if we were to introduce L3 down to L20 nodes down the line the L1 begins to look like a significantly riskier behemoth, not only in terms of consistency of revenue but perhaps more importantly liquidity - it would be more difficult to find a buyer and cannot be sold partially vs being able to sell off for example 1/20th of that revenue stream. In my opinion the more liquid alternative would be the far more desirable option. We could consider offering some amount of fees to the higher level options which would offset this, but in terms of the quality of the network I do not find logic in offering more money for the same work.
So, I look to challenge my thinking and seek an argument as to why this system would work better than say, just splitting all existing nodes across one level? And why L1 node holders should not have concerns that their investment would economically speaking devalue over time?
|
|
|
|
|
