How is defi yield farming possible, is Komodo releasing a governance token?
No gov token afaik AtomicDEX "takers" pay 0.15% trading fee, 50% goes to 1M DEX asset holders, "makers" (i.e. liquidity providers) pay nothing. Bob Lazar owns 15.5% of DEX assets (i.e. 7.7% of atomicdex fees) he is offering to give them away as LP incentives for 3 years. That means "makers" get paid to add liquidity on Atomicdex, who knows, maybe 7.7% of the 0.15% fee the "taker" pays! It's bullish for Atomicdex liquidity, incentives happens at the margins, the Defi craze has spoken, LP's want to be paid! |
|
|
|
Komodo Defi farming, nice yield  Atomicdex liquidity mining ...  |
|
|
|
 What is going on with Coinomat swap? Sasha launched all these assets before, but he never swap them in 2016 to WAVES as promised, why does he neglect his earliest investors so badly?  Sasha Ivanov lied to Coinomat asset investors, there is NO doubt!!! COINOMAT ASSETS STILL NOT TRANSFERRED IN 2019!!  SEC has taken action against EOS & SIA for their ICO's in recent weeks, how long until WAVES founder is charged for Coinomat securities violations? There are rumours that the Coinomat asset swaps will happen in 2 weeks. If the swap rates are fair Sasha can start restoring some of his lost reputation |
|
|
|
What is going on with Coinomat swap? Sasha launched all these assets before, but he never swap them in 2016 to WAVES as promised, why does he neglect his earliest investors so badly? Sasha Ivanov lied to Coinomat asset investors, there is NO doubt!!! COINOMAT ASSETS STILL NOT TRANSFERRED IN 2019!! SEC has taken action against EOS & SIA for their ICO's in recent weeks, how long until WAVES founder is charged for Coinomat securities violations? |
|
|
|
Coinomat asset airdrop happening soon, more details to come soon! Community initiative.
 Waves can never succeed with Sasha in charge, not until he fulfils the Coinomat asset swaps from 2016. His personal credibility in crypto is as low as it's possible to be, his reputation for lying and scamming investors is fully documented going back to 2014. Everyone who works for WAVES knows the truth! Carlos Matos has more legitimacy than Sasha, think about that for a second ... it's 100% true!
|
|
|
|
what happened with the coinomat swap? Nothing so far, another broken promise from sasha |
|
|
|
 When does the rebrand party start? |
|
|
|
I am calling a lawyer later today and will show her @Adam Levine's post, maybe it's the best we can hope for now.
I lost too much to walk away, most in INDEX and Cryptocard which aren't being swapped now, not even for measly 0.05 WCT. INDEX alone should be +10k USD each fair value, especially with the action the last 2 months. Far too big a loss to just absorb and walk away from.
What happened to this guy, I remember him from 2014 when he was a nxtforum mod, he seemed like a normal guy, then he makes millions of USD and scams all his old investors, other devs, and some friends even. It baffles my mind why he is doing this, he made millions out of waves ICO which was funded in large part from coinomat, he should be able to easily cover the swap with some compensation for lost dividends and delays, the amount involved in total is not that large really, probably 25 guys who backed Sasha with large investments like myself when he first started coinomat as part of NXT community.
He lost his soul from greed, and his mind too, ALL his coinomat victims are long term crypto guys from the early 2013-14 years, some are heavy hitting devs in their own right, like jl777 and IOTA founders, NXT ardor LISK NEM etc, why scam anyone, but why scam those guys who will speak of it forever more?
Why scam me, I used to chat with Sasha often on Nxtforum, and komodo/SuperNET slack when he issued some of these coinomat assets on jl777's multigateway, like NEXTBOND this is personal for me, and very very very costly. I went balls deep on Coinomat assets, wow, i fucked up trusting this prick, and thinking he would come good all these years.
Time for whiskey ...
This is fucking shameful behaviour, even in the cesspool of crypto  |
|
|
|
I am so disappointed, after all this time coinomat asset holders are offered less than 3 cents per asset, this does not make sense,
- not all assets are being swapped
- all assets are swapped for WCT when it should be WAVES token AND compensation for lost WCT airdrop
- original coinomat assets had different relative values and NXTswap rates in 2016, in 2019 they all have the same WCT rate, why?
- the swap value of 3 cents is ridiculously low
This is totally unacceptable, I do not accept this offer, what about INDEX and Cryptocard assets, what happens with those assets?
Coinomat asset swap victimsI feel your pain! It's time to accept the truth, Coinomat asset holders who did not swap in 2016 have been scammed, Sasha Ivanov is NEVER going to pay you anything close to what he owes you for using your wealth since 2014. This is a reality!@Waves.support will continue to ignore this issue (HIS BOSS IS A SCAMMER), but who can blame him, he's just a forum mod worker, not the person who stole your funds in 2014 and used them to make millions. I have spoken to my accountant and this is the best course of action IMO Do not swap your old coinomat assets for WCTIf you swap now you will get no value from your original NXT coins from 2014-16, you effectively miss out on the crypto boom from 2017, your NXT was worth peanuts in 2014-16, and the swap rate of WCT is peanuts now. Ivanov used your money to bootstrap his WAVES ICO which made millions, BUT, you get nothing! I think Sasha Ivanov will never personally speak of Coinomat asset swap ever again, he is going to try and tough this out, ignore the whole drama, and hope it goes away. He isn't even bothering to swap all the old coinomat assets. You can use this to your advantage though. What you should do is convert the value of what your old coinomat assets would have been worth at the peak of the 2017 boom in December, assuming you had swapped them to WAVES, and convert that value into a personal debt in your local fiat, a debt owed by Sasha Ivanov to you personally for keeping your money past the promised swap date. ALL his public statements since 2016 clearly explain the terms of the Coinomat::WAVES swap, and you are legally allowed to value Ivanov's obligation to you using WAVES value from December 2017 if you want, he promised the swap as early as April 2016 so the obligation to pay WAVES, (i.e. the debt) is beyond doubt, and you are legally entitled to value the debt and write it off "when you realised it wasn't going to be paid". This is the Tax law for most countries, it is for me anyway. The original promise to swap is very clear, when WAVES DEX started, and as this was never done, the swap became a debt that you can write off when you first realised it was not possible to recover. What you want to do is maximise the cost basis of the 'thing' you are going to write off, so DO NOT swap now! I am picking December 2017 as the date to value Sasha Ivanov's debt to me, and he made it clear he refused to repay his debt with the recent email! The debt was in WAVES, not WCT! This will not let me ever get my money back, but it does mean I can file a police report for an unpaid debt valued at the peak of the last bull market, and then I can claim that as a capital loss for tax purposes to offset against other income. It's better than nothing, 100% legal, you just need to file a police report. I checked with an accountant today and he has a slightly different opinion than @Adam Levine, he agreed Sasha's victims should not swap their NXT coinomat era assets for WCT now, because "they're already sold", his opinion is the swap details were explicit enough to record the "trade" around the time the swap was promised, so he said there's no need to worry about keeping coinomat assets as 'collateral' for a debt, the trade happened BUT delivery was delayed/deferred. His opinion is coinomat victims owned "rights" to WAVES with Sasha as the custodian exactly the same as owning WAVES held by a custodial wallet, so ownership is separate from possession. This is good, my accountant agrees with AL that as long as we use a consistent inventory tracking method for taxation of FIFO, we can legally account for the stolen waves using FIFO, which in effect means the "disposal" event for the stolen WAVES can actually be used to reduce WAVES that you owned from as far back as the ICO. Summary: we owned the swap waves all along, Sasha's email the other day triggers a disposal of WAVES (he stole some of your WAVES ), but we're allowed to use an inventory control method of FIFO that means Sasha theft of WAVES can be accounted for using another parcel of WAVES, they're all fungible after all. You can indeed sell some WAVES now, keep the funds, and record the stolen waves as being from a parcel purchased before the swap (where we record the trade and change of ownership, with no physical delivery), BUT, you can't swap now for WCT (Sasha owns the coinomat assets already, he just hasn't taken possession of them yet), and you have to report the theft of waves Sasha's email implied to POLICE. You can't sell the same assets twice! Better than nothing! https://onlinetaxman.com/fifo-vs-lifo-for-crypto-trades/Coinomat assets have to be the most depressing story I have come across in crypto, far worse than Bitconnect or The DAO |
|
|
|
I am not in, but i thought that this coinomat problem had been resolved ?
Sasha tweet in March saying he wanted swap to happen 'next week' ... that was over 7 weeks ago. Original swap was meant to happen when WAVES went live .... 2016 |
|
|
|
Hard to calculate how much reputation damage WAVES get from Coinomat asset swap disaster, but lots of early adopter crypto followers will never trust Sasha ever again, guys from early NXT community in 2013, many who went on to start other crypto projects - NEM, LISK, KOMODO, IOTA, STRATIS, ARDOR ... they all know what happened with Coinomat, and judge WAVES founder for his actions, and mostly inactions for over 3 years! Could not agree more, Coinomat asset swap will haunt Sasha for the rest of his career |
|
|
|
looks like new candidates who offer some rev share will get elected by trump, not because he wants their money, but because the rev share shows they must really want the NN spot.
Trump's been crystal clear on his agenda for 3 elections now, he wants to prevent concentration of NN operators and trying to attract more skills into the community so he offers newbs a chance to self select themselves if they offer some profit share. Next year he votes for himself and runs 2 notaries. It's not the way jl777 wants elections to be decided, but thankfully it's the last year like this. If you're thinking of running next year I can tell you now:
- if you run a NN in the top 30 from the previous year I won't consider you
- if you run in 3 or 4 regions I wont consider you
- if you successfully participate in testnet and show you have skills to run a NN I will read your proposal
- I strongly favor single region independent candidates, I would try to avoid sock puppets
- if you offer some rev share to voters I will be 'grateful' and add you to my shortlist
- it's not simply who offers the largest rev share, 10% and up would get you on my shortlist, then I pick the best overall candidate(s)
|
|
|
|
It is competitive though!
Exactly, competitive elections of NN is essential for cementing dPoW as being decentralised with NN selection based on KMD stake ownership, so I hope candidates who step up and actually campaign a bit and have some good ideas & suggestions get rewarded by voters, plus it's a good way to focus the whole community and have some fun. The last election ended up very close and exciting at the end. The next month should be pretty cool  edit: I also love how jl777 makes it known he doesn't favor vote bribes or revenue sharing but he doesn't disallow it, just says his opinion and leaves every other individual to make up their own mind. It's hard to predict what will happen this year |
|
|
|
I disagree, the concentration of NN is bad for decentralisation and if it starts it'll be hard to undo coz notaries don't compete like PoW miners, so there'll always be a worry about collusion (even just a perception) if multiple NN are operated by a small clique of insiders who aren't required by the system to either compete in mining and invest in hardware, or put their capital on the line with PoS. That's why P-Trump is trying to encourage as many people to run as possible now before season 1 & 2 veterans run again and get more NN, and offering some voter bribes is a way to level the playing field with established NN who have good reps and more rusted on voter support from established relationships.
Crypto consensus is built on competition and risk/reward game theory dynamics, and as good as komodo dPoW system is technically, a weakness is the NN operators don't have to compete directly and don't have to invest much $$, so there's a risk of ending up with an insiders circle jerk when what we really want is 64 independent NN.
The only multiple notary candidates I'm voting for are PIRATE & kmdlabs (are they running in multiple regions?), and projects with 2-3 people working together. Am I greedy if I take a bribe to vote for a noobie? lol Been saying it since season 1 ... community pool nodes tick ALL the boxes |
|
|
|
"dPoW gives DLT projects the same security as bitcoin at a fraction of the cost, without adding any trusted third party, and without creating any centralized single point of failure"
That's a pretty good definition of what dPoW does, can you say how it does it in as many words? KMD holders vote for 30 out of 64 notaries every year in a free and open election, the bottom 30 performers facing re-election. These 64 NN then form a separate peer-to-peer network from Komodo. 13 out of 64 notaries will then periodically notarize a blockchain hash from every supported blockchain onto the bitcoin blockchain. This then creates an anchor point or "checkpoint" for each secured blockchain that cannot be reversed. |
|
|
|
Also, as stated, I'm not a marketeer so you reading too much into a cheesy tagline shows me you fail to actually pull out content from posts well. You asked to describe what dpow was without using stake... in simplest terms with an albeit cheesy slogan, that's its selling point. For projects that lack the infrastructure to adequately protect their chain, for a relatively small price, they can prevent attack by periodic snapshots to the longest, most secure ledger in the world. While not backed up directly, we can say with the transitive property that they ultimately exist on the BTC ledger because the ultimate hash encompasses those chains. Finally, I wasn't aware that Tether secured blockchains from attack. Thanks for the info. /s
"dPoW gives DLT projects the same security as bitcoin at a fraction of the cost, without adding any trusted third party, and without creating any centralized single point of failure" |
|
|
|
Want a super crude and cheesy dpow definition without using the word stake (which is wrong): "Securing your project through Bitcoin's hashrate, because wasting resources is silliness" or "dPow Tether, back your project up to Bitcoin's ledger--simple, secure, affordable"
ha ha ... you came up with slogans for Tether lol thanks for the giggles, do you know what 'definition' means? You can't explain dPoW in simple terms, can you? not a slogan, a simple explanation that makes someone understand marketing is NOT just slogans, it's a simple message that people can understand |
|
|
|
PoS is becoming a rubbery term like blockchain, if we want noobies to understand replying with a 'No' without any further explanation is not helpful and looks like FUD. He clearly intended to point out NN are selected based on stake via an election. Nothing too wrong there, maybe he could have said NN selection is similar to delegated PoS,
the takeaway for noobs is dPoW doesn't require burning huge amounts of electricity or warehouses full of hardware, anyone can run in the election even if they own zero kmd.
Thanks you What does 'immutable' mean after The DAO hack and Ethereum rollback? What does Nakamoto consensus mean after the HashWar and BCH/BSV split? Notary elections are stake based, 1 VOTE = 1 KMD, so I'm sticking with dPoW is a VERSION of (delegated) PoS, that makes sense to me, and regular Jo's can understand the concept. The VOTE allocation is based on proof of stake, no selling votes, no sending VOTES to third parties, just 1 legal send from KMD investor to a NN candidate. 64 NN then form a network for completing dPoW tx, that's the essence IMO |
|
|
|
lol, except that it has nothing to do with proof of stake. Stake-based =/= Proof of Stake. Your stake, represented by the coins you get 1:1 vote with (or your direct KMD for that matter), do not generate blocks themselves, nor do the NN's via POS.
As for your edit "if I said dPoW is a version of PoS you would be correct, but I didn't say that". Ummm? "dPoW is a hybrid version of proof of stake" So you inserted hybrid and that is suppose to change the core statement? Really?
And trolling? If correcting a nonsensical statement that is only going to serve as a statement of confusion makes me a troll, so be it. I'm probably one of the larger holders here.
Why don't you give a definition and explain dPoW then? Just replying 'No' was worthless My definition would not include POS, that's for sure.  Gutless, you can't define dPoW adequately can you, not without mentioning 'stake'. Stay a million miles away from any marketing, komodo needs adoption and that comes from simple explanations people can understand. You can't do that, can you? |
|
|
|
lol, except that it has nothing to do with proof of stake. Stake-based =/= Proof of Stake. Your stake, represented by the coins you get 1:1 vote with (or your direct KMD for that matter), do not generate blocks themselves, nor do the NN's via POS.
As for your edit "if I said dPoW is a version of PoS you would be correct, but I didn't say that". Ummm? "dPoW is a hybrid version of proof of stake" So you inserted hybrid and that is suppose to change the core statement? Really?
And trolling? If correcting a nonsensical statement that is only going to serve as a statement of confusion makes me a troll, so be it. I'm probably one of the larger holders here.
Why don't you give a definition and explain dPoW then? Just replying 'No' was worthless |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
