 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3
|
I was too lazy to check out the team until now but as I see, nobody cares here, so here's my question about the developer team. I hope some people will read this.Yehuda Levi - CTO - CoFounder Appcoin, 3years 9mo. When you go to Appcoins, it has no detail at all, not even a website, what did he do for almost 4 years ? Mati Levi - QA Engineer - 3 years at Appcoin. Same thing, what did he do ? Omry Rosenfeld - Frondend developer 1year 5mo, same question. Assaf Rachman - Full stack developer at Appcoin. same question Or Bachar - Web developer at Marketspulse for 2years 1mo. Here's the site. http://www.marketspulse.com/ It does not even have a single link in it. Could have been a bare picture with text. This was his work for 2 years ? Itay Dreyfus - UX/UI Designer for 5months at Appcoin but he links group.market app. These are the devs. Now I'm really curious what did they do at appcoin, all I could find was https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=475160.0 It's a scamcoin from 2014 and https://www.appcoin.me/ UX/UI DESIGNER open position, no links. Appcoin was our previous company where we focused for 4 years on community currencies after having discovered Bitcoin in 2011 and realizing that user-generated money would change the world. Blockchain wasn't mature enough at the time, though we tried to support Master Coin and Colored Coins in order to achieve our objective of allowing any community to easily create a coin. We built lots of software at Appcoin. including front end marketplaces and currency governor dashboards, and piloted with dozens of communities which thrived for a time. Over time, however, we discovered the liquidity problem was limiting custom currencies, which would eventually lead us to develop the reserve mechanism, on Ethereum, at Bancor. Some of Appcoin’s many pilots included: Lev Market: Largest community currency in Israel, focused on young mothers. Over 40,000+ members Chalk: Second largest community currency in Israel, focused on middle and high school kids and operated by the National Student Assoisiation. Over 20,000+ members CampusCoin: A pilot at UC Berkeley, CA Group Market, a collection of many micro communities to create a ‘feed’ of complementary currencies (still online in Israel) Overall, we achieved nearly 1m transactions in complementary currency by ‘regular’ people buying actual products and services, not merely converting money for money. You can check the product at (its in hebrew!) : https://group.market/gpmtilArticle about CampusCoin : http://www.dailycal.org/2014/09/14/campuscoin-brings-another-cashless-alternative-campus/ |
|
|
|
when tokens are traded on the exchange relative to BTC, understandable pricing mechanism. is the flagship and the others were compared. Here, we propose the creation of crosscourse. Prices will be based on courses that are on the exchanges? If so , then not all tokens are liquid and the prices of some are very different in the exchanges, will average?
The network will only work with tokens which are received by smart contracts on everyone, crosscourse to zec, litecoin, Dash will not be used? what will happen to the tokens of other platforms different from etherium?
If I understand you're question correctly, you're asking how the inevitable price differences between smart tokens internal prices & their prices on exchanges. The answer is the same as the solution to price differences between exchanges: arbitrage bots. When there is profit to be made by a difference in price, these bots automatically come and make trades until they've evened out the prices (and so it is no longer profitable). To be clear: smart tokens' contracts can buy/sell themselves. No second party needed. That is how every single currency on the network can be fully liquid from day one. Yeah, right, but since you are going to run a fractional reserve, actual liquidity is going to limited by initial supply. For example, at 20% reserve ratio change in supply by a factor of 2 in either direction will change the price by a factor of 4. This will limit the amount of tokens we will actually be able to buy or sell at reasonable price. Liquidity would be really infinite in two cases: either the initial supply is very large; or reserve ratio is close to 1. Actually, the supply can be (and for most smart tokens, we think it will be) much smaller than 20%. The reason that smart tokens can still be liquid with tiny reserves is that, when you buy/sell a smart token (or its reserve tokens) the price is calculated as if you sold an infinitely large amount of micro transactions that equal the same total amount. For every micro transaction you do, the price for the next goes up (as with every supply/demand system). So if supply were to grow smaller, the price of each smart token would decrease proportionally. The token would stay liquid, it would just decrease in value. If demand were such that the price is no longer 'reasonable' to enough people, demand would go down and said price would stop rising (or fall, if demand went low enough that there are now more people selling than buying). In other words, the price of a smart token is kept reasonable by the market, like any other freely traded commodity. A price of your token is a power law of its supply relative to initial supply. You need to have a fairly large initial supply if you don't want the price to raise/drop by crazy amount after each trade, unless your reserve ration is close to 1. This is true, a deeper market depth (which is a main function of a reserve currency in this type of smart token) makes for less volatility. The market depth on any given exchange is usually <1%, so a 20% market depth can be considered quite large. I am sorry, but you are comparing apples and herrings here. You can't have 5 BANCOR issued initially, which is reserved by 1 ETH. If you do this, your token will behave as any illiquid token, a price will be a random number, which varies significantly with every trade of a fraction of ETH. If you run at low reserve ratio, such as 20%, you need to have a huge initial supply, which is much larger than projected daily volume. The ratio between Token market cap and Reserve have to always stay the same, so by dropping just 1 ETH in 5 to 1 contract you are increasing market cap by 2 and change the price for one Token from 1:1 to 1.74:1 which is the whole 74% price increase, consider that you just dropped a liquidity bomb that changed Token market cap from 5 ETH to 10 ETH, what would have happened to an exchange if you tried to execute order of that magnitude. One of the ways to think about reserves is as "liquidity pools". Reserves are essentially common pools that provide liquidity to their smart token holders. The current solution for liquidity is based on market orders on the different exchanges (and in some cases, in different currencies pairs). If you measure the size of these current "liquidity pools" (aka as "market depth"), relative to the market-cap of the currency, and compare the event where similar amounts are unloaded to the market through the exchanges vs. through a smart token with 10% reserve, you would probably find out that the market behaves in a much more stable way using the smart token, since there is a single common liquidity pool, which is growing relative to the market cap of the smart token. It can be tricky to wrap the mind around it since this is a model for linking between currencies which is quite different than the one being used today and for a long time now, and I really hope my attempt to explain it was clear enough. Anyway, I'll be happy to answer any other questions you may have! And thank you for your interest  |
|
|
|
What sort of money are people keen to put towards such a Project ?
I can not speak for others but I made a very-very good run on ETH in recent months (over 500%) and Bancor is my next target. I plan on shifting a certain % of that but not more than a thousand ETH. i would put my bets also to eth to ETH? i would bet that bancor rises more than ETH atleast short term I would love to see Bancor do Ether run or even outperform it, but the value of Ethereum comes from the number of users on the platform, alot of developers are sitting on millions of Ethers locked in their wallets and this reduced the supply on the exchanges and this makes the price to go up. Bancor is not offering anything close to this because the fundamentals are different. It's important to realize, that since BANCOR price is denominated in ETH, naturally, every increase in the ETH price is translated 1:1 to increase in BANCOR value. As long as more are buying BANCOR than liquidating it (with/to ETH) through the smart contract -- the price of BANCOR will keep increasing relative to ETH (its baseline). |
|
|
|
Hello, When will u create a slack channel?
Apr 30th - one month before the ICO (May 30th) |
|
|
|
yeah, we need to know how much total supply coins dev
Thanks for your questions. We will announce the specific details soon, also here in this thread. |
|
|
|
I pointed out this concern above. The problem is a lack of data about the value of the altcoin in question, due to low liquidity. I contend that it is impossible for a formula to determine a reasonable value. It says in the white paper the input to the formula is historical trade information, but that is not a correct input to use, in fact there is no input that makes sense.
The formula is used to adjust the price toward the point where an equilibrium between token buy and sell volumes is reached. That price-point of course may change over time as it is a direct result of the market demand for the token at any given moment. Here is my talk from the recent Ethereum developers conference in Paris, where I go through the price-calculation method step-by-step. |
|
|
|
We will disagree as we are too fundamentally opposed on this issue and I wish you the best of luck. You are trying to improve liquidity in altcoins which i believe is admirable. I just believe that in altcoins the illiquidity stems from the lack of demand and your mechanism cannot solve for that. If I want to purchase almost any altcoin I can find off market liquidity very easily, there is just no demand for most if I try and sell.
Actually your statement above helps me to better understand the source of the apparent disagreement. We're not trying to "improve liquidity in altcoins" as you stated. What we are doing is enabling the long-tail of tokens by providing a price-discovery and liquidity solution which does not require a critical-mass of trading activity in order to achieve liquidity. Our solution is not targeting these existing altcoins that can be purchased off market very easily as you say, rather, we see a world where every local community or business can create their own credit by issuing their own currency, as many already do - in the form of local currencies and loyalty points. However, using Bancor protocol, these currencies will be convertible to and from other crypto and fiat currencies, which would increase their usability and value (for example markets for airline miles). We believe that just like in user-generated-content (blogs/videos/etc.) - the long-tail has the potential to become bigger than whatever existed before it. The potential of the long-tail can only be realized when the barriers for its existence has been removed, and the critical-mass of trading that is required for high-liquidity is definitely a huge barrier for the long-tail of user-generated-currencies. Regardless, we appreciate you taking time to engage with us in this forum and wish you all the best as well. |
|
|
|
However, in the domain of currency exchange, we still have a Double Coincidence of Wants, where a bid/ask is required. I disagree with this completely. Bid/Ask is a function of the market's supply/demand and it is the current price one can buy/sell at. Bid/Ask is not a "Function", rather, it is a mechanism for liquidity and price-discovery. The point we are making is that this is not the only single possible mechanism, and definitely not the best one for every use-case. If I want to buy a coin/token that has very few holders and doesn't trade on major exchanges I can do so, selling is difficult, but that is the nature of buying something that does not have much demand and is thinly traded. This is incorrect. How can you buy a token which doesn't trade on major exchanges? Your ability to buy the token is a function of the ask orders in the exchanges, just as your ability to sell it is a functions of the bid orders. The asymmetry your describe here simply does not reflect the reality. Your are trying to solve for illiquid assets, but are phrasing it in terms of coincidence of wants which is incorrect. Illiquidity is a direct result of the double coincidence of wants problem. Just imagine a token, for which there is on average a single buyer and a single seller per week. The chances for the coincidence of matching the two are slim, and the only option would be for buyers/sellers to wait for days until a match is found, which would also result in a very poor price-discovery process. Using Bancor's reserve mechanism, the buyers and sellers would be able to instantly convert their token, and the price will be adjusted over time, by the contract, toward an equilibrium between buys and sells of the token. And with altcoins/tokens it typically is not supply which is an issue as there are millions of coins issued in each instance. The issue is purely demand. This is also incorrect. The supply in the exchanges is not the same as the money-supply. Even if there are millions of coins which are issued, it does not automatically translate to ask orders in the exchanges. Additionally, Bancor-compatible tokens are self-issued according to their demand, so the arguments that "millions of coins issues" simply does not apply here. You are trying to create demand via a derivative mechanism. This will only be useful though to those coins/tokens that can't support demand on their own and as there is no real demand for the coins/tokens themselves you are creating a way for those who own them to extract some value out of the derivative portion (i.e. reserves) which almost everyone will do as the coins/tokens cannot stand on their own.
We are not "trying to create demand", as the demand is organically created by the market. The difference is that using the Bancor-protocol, a low demand (or lack there of) is reflected in the price, which may drop to near-zero for token with no intrinsic value, however, liquidity -- which is purely a function of the chances to match two "bartering" parties -- would cease be a challenge. |
|
|
|
if the coin using bancor is good, liquidity will be there on the exchanges. if the coin is bad, the reserves are going to be eaten up pretty fast as instead of selling into bad liquidity everyone will convert their holdings into the reserve.
The liquidity on the exchanges is not just a function of the utility of a coin, but also of its scale. A local currency, for example, may incentivize local commerce and be useful as well as beneficial for its users, however, it might not have the scale required for achieving continuous liquidity in the current bid/ask matching model. Using Bancor, the demand generated by the utility of a token would definitely be reflected in its price, but not in its liquidity (or lack thereof). The removal of the critical mass barrier to liquidity is important not just for the long-tail of currencies, but also for the newly issued that are still in their early growth phases. It is clear that both liquidity and price-discovery can be achieved for large-scale tokens using the existing solutions, which would be like saying that true talent would eventually be discovered and featured on TV. Still, YouTube not only reduce the barrier for a talent to be discovered, but also enables us to enjoy a significantly larger variety of talents. |
|
|
|
That's accurate! In a sense, Bancor solves the DCoW problem for tokens, by enabling them to use other tokens.
By tokens are you referring to cryptocurrencies like bitcoin, ethereum, dash? If so, they are freely tradable for each other already. This would be like saying that since bread, milk and fish are freely tradable in an imaginary barter economy, there is no need for money in that economy to solve the DCoW problem. Yes, these crypto-currencies are tradable, however, the high-barrier to liquidity makes it significantly harder to get new currencies to the point of high-liquidity, where the price-discovery process becomes reliable. Bancor protocol solves that very problem, thanks to the new technologies which enable anyone to create programmable tokens (smart-contracts). The very definition of DCoW is that two parties with opposing wants are required in order to complete a transaction. Exchanges merely deal with this problem, but by no mean they are solving it like money did for barter. |
|
|
|
I'm slacking behind the ANN how "algorithmically-calculated conversion rates" should work, and liquidity without trade volume, maybe the habits have grown to strong. Watching orderbooks all day, picking from buy or sell side, it is that simple. Could not tell you a fixed rate at any given point in time how could a formula do that? SMA or EMA kurves are followers only.
Bancor offers a completely new method for price-discovery, which is possible only with programmable tokens that can hold other tokens, be issued/destroyed by their contract, and provide a public API to buy and sell them. While in traditional exchanges the liquidity source is the market depth, and the price-discovery is based on the agreement between two independent parties -- with Bancor-tokens, the liquidity source is the reserve(s) and the price-discovery is based on the buy/sell history. This means that whenever a Bancor-token is purchased from its contract (in exchange for a reserve token), new Bancor-tokens are issued and the unit price goes up relative to the reserve token. When a Bancor-token is sold (in exchange for a reserve token), the tokens are destroyed and reserve-token are transferred to the seller. The price changes result from how the price is calculated, which is simply: UnitPrice=ReserveBalance / (TokenSupply * ReserveRatio). There are step-by-step examples in the whitepaper elaborating on this. It's important to emphasize that this is how Bancor-tokens operate, however, reserve-tokens may be any ERC20 token, including Bancor-tokens, so the "Bancor Network" enable conversion between any two tokens (Bancor-tokens or reserve-tokens). Bancor-tokens use this method of price discovery, in which the price is the result of the previous buys/sales of the Bancor-token. This creates a situation that when a token has high demand, the price will climb up until it reaches the point where sellers are encouraged to sell it, and buyers discouraged from buying it -- and the price will remain around that equilibrium point between buys and sales. This is very different from the way exchanges work, however, it has a similar behavior in which buying a token increases its price and vice-versa. What/how/who/howmany of these reserve tokens will come into existance to fuel the exchange supply?
The reserve token can be ETH, or DGX, or any other ERC20 token. These reserve tokens cannot issue themselves, so they do not "come into existence" . The initial reserve can be collected in a crowdsale of using a direct deposit, and will grow due to a strong demand for the token. The market-cap of the token will grow in parallel simply since the market-cap is calculated as ReserveBalance / ReserveRatio. Any investment opportunity?
We are planning the crowdsale of BGTs (temporary name), which is detailed in the whitepaper as the first "genesis network token" (a Bancor-token which is to be used primarily as a reserve of other, user-created Bancor-tokens - enabling conversion between all of them) We will provide additional details on the crowdsale soon. For more info - read the whitepaper and review the Bancor smart-contract code at https://bancor.network |
|
|
|
does this mean that Bancor is Token for exchange or token exchanger?  Bancor is a protocol for token exchange, which is based on a new model where the price discovery is not based on the agreement between two parties, rather, it is based on an equilibrium-seeking model in which every purchase of a token increases its price, and every sale of a token decreases it. The price equilibrium point is the price-point in which the amount of buys and sales of the token are balanced. You can read more in our draft whitepaper (link) |
|
|
|
Do you have a prototype or mvp for your project? Is there a github repo that is publicly accessible?
We've published the pre-alpha version of the smart-contract code for review on our website. http://www.bancor.networkMore stuff will be coming out very soon.. |
|
|
|
i already have one local coin for Ibiza that will want to use this protocol, our biggest problem was how to get liquidity in a simple way and bancor solves this elegantly https://hippie.moneyi'm sure there will be 1000's more to come! Sounds exciting! Good luck with your project! We would love to have you as one of our first pilots. Feel free to contact us at contact|at|bancor.network. Best thing about it is that it could give us a good reason to visit Ibiza! |
|
|
|
Cool, an innovative Bancor protocol that seems designed to deprive the exchanges serious share of the profits from the trade of various tokens. Will support this idea, especially if it will save time and money on the exchange of tokens. Developers, good luck, it will be interesting and useful project.
Thanks! I don't think the exchanges will go out of business so fast, as most of their ongoing operations are about dealing with deposits, withdrawals and regulations compliance, as the actual exchange is dealt by machines (which are paid no salaries..  ) In this sense, the exchanges are similar to ISPs as they provide a gateway between the existing digital-asset networks and the modern decentralized, blockchain-based networks. |
|
|
|
I do not see what problem the Bancor project is attempting to solve. The double coincidence of wants was solved by money (fiat), and bitcoin is an extension of that. The white paper is not properly written.
I think that what you are referring to is the double coincidence in bartering goods, but from what i understand in the white paper they mean that Bancor solves the double coincidence when swapping money, as in you have dollars and want euro but to do that you would generally need someone on the other side willing to trade his euro for your dollar. i could be wrong tough! That's accurate! In a sense, Bancor solves the DCoW problem for tokens, by enabling them to use other tokens. Tokens hold other tokens in their reserve (using their smart-contract) and provide a conversion service between the token and its reserve/s, using the calculated rate as detailed in the whitepaper: https://goo.gl/1WNx2l |
|
|
|
In that ways ICO dies, that understand people can learn any thing byself but it anouncing must have much more than name of project
We've also released the first draft of the Bancor Protocol Whitepaper: https://goo.gl/1WNx2lYou are invited to read it and comment. |
|
|
|
We are going to switch over to this account as the house account for Bancor Network - Eyal please reply and confirm
thanks
confirmed |
|
|
|
|
