Of course the price could rise, other features could be added to the coin, and so on.

Just saying that your model has a flaw (if anyone was reading it expecting to automatically cash out at their initial investment and still keep all of their coins). Sure, it's possible it could work. The flaw is if too many people think that way, the current price won't remain where it is, it'd go down. Or there simply wouldn't be enough volume to support those selling.

As for what to do with Steps... I mean, if we are all honest here, I expect like 95%+ of the people investing expect to just make a profit with it. That's not a knock on Steps, it's true for pretty much all cryptos.

I mean obtain the btc which was their initial investment in Steps to begin with. Which was sort of the point of your post ... calculating how the rewards would be equal or greater than the amount of btc initially paid to obtain Steps.

Just saying if everyone planned to sell their stake rewards, you'd run into a pyramid situation, where those first to sell would probably get the current price, but eventually it'd cause the price to go down or it'd be not enough volume to support those selling.

The flaw in that thinking is discounting human nature. If everyone does that, they'll create too much sell pressure to regain their initial investment, therefore lowering the price of the coin.

Of course not everyone will stake and other things could occur to increase the price of the coin. But it does have a pyramid feel to it ... basically whomever sells their coins early (after HiPos) will get their initial investment back, but if everyone tries to sell, it'll be too much selling pressure and not enough volume/buy support to pay them all.

So yeah, in theory your model could work... for some.

Thanks. Changed it the other day when they altered the Lisk sig so it was a bit different.

And good to hear that XCR will cooperate with Lisk. It really does make sense at this point to cooperate, as I wondered how XCR would even survive past the ICO otherwise. Now the thing I expect most people are interested in (well, I am anyway) is that btc/eth bonus. Guess we'll find out tomorrow-ish. It'll basically set the true value of XCR for the ICO, and probably the current XCR market price (minus a little) too .... easier then to figure out how much we'll want to invest in Lisk, how much we may wish to cash out.

Testing my signature out now...

I haven't followed this coin very closely, but bought a little semi-recently and was curious so checked out the marketplace.

No way would I want to enter my personal info into the site, nor give it to anyone else in cryptoland. I may be in the minority, but think there are too many crazies in this forum.

What I suggest is a simple rating tool, like others have mentioned. I also see no need for personal info at all if a person is selling digital goods.

Change the signature from the OP, and I'll alter my sig for the bounty. Again, just feels wrong to use it the way it is now.

Actually he didn't edit it (I assume). He just used the Lisk signature info on the OP for the bounty. I considered doing it too, but now I strongly suggest they change it so it's a bit more unique. Just copying the same sig and changing the name doesn't exactly show a lot of work was put into it.

I like the sharedrop idea, and suggested XCR people get freebie Lisk... although they have a concern regarding dumping... which may be a valid one. However if they do get enough BTC/ETH people onboard, I'm not so sure that concern would be such a big one. They'd get their BTC... have enough volume to survive any dumping... and XCR people would have a stake in the new coin without having to give up their XCR.

On the other hand, XCR people could benefit short-term by an outright 1300 conversion, seeing as it logically would lead to a uptick in price ... (so two ways to escape)...  but not so good for XCR people nor supporters after the ICO is over, assuming a lot of people convert.

Problem wouldn't be with XCR exactly, just the lack of volume. It'd take them ages to move enough XCR to convert to BTC, to pay anyone.

So long as the discount is reasonable, I think it'd be okay. If we are seeing 30% discount for BTC people, then I think they may make some XCR people angry. They sort of have to pick an in-between number... where BTC people will feel it's enough of an incentive, and where XCR people go, 'Okay, not great, but it's a number I can live with'....

And that reminds me, what guarantees are there in regard to the XCR gathered up during the ICO? I mean, will it be held in an escrow wallet somewhere, locked up safe for a longtime? Otherwise, the situation will be Lisk Devs holding a ton of XCR, which is now their rival ... and it doesn't take much dumping at all to crush the price. I guess that could be a problem...

I was about to post that same exact observation. If all discounts are equal, folks will just chomp up XCR so long as it's below 1300, then pay for the ICO using just XCR. Great for XCR holders... not so great for you.

So long as the discount is reasonable, I expect it'd be fair to everyone. Or at least fairer than the 800-900 sat range of XCR right now.

The way to avoid dumping is to get enough outside investors into the project (btc/eth people). Although I do agree that if it's just primarily XCR people getting into the ICO, free coins/buy wall or not, dumping may be a problem.

Past examples of ICOs with 100% freebie coins do show dumping... at first. Then the market recovers (depending on the coin), those who dumped cry and so on. Those coins died due to just being junk coins, not the initial dumps. If the freebie amount wasn't too much + enough outside investors were onboard, the market should be able to support any dumping too.

But perhaps the wall/freebie coins were a bad idea... not sure. Just thinking aloud as to possible things that could smooth things over a little. You don't want to be stuck with troll types, who ages from now are still harping on XCR/ICO issues ... ie. Dash-like trolls still going on about things from 2 years ago.

The one thing I'm still unsure about is the actual XCR conversion price. I know you mention 1300, but are you talking about before BTC/ETH bonuses, I assume? If so, it's not really 1300 exactly ... such as if BTC people get a 5% bonus, it's more like  1235ish... if it's 30%, it's 1000 sats. Sure hope it's closer to 5% than 30%.

Whether there is a valid reason or not, it may not matter. Price of XCR went down = angry people.
I was just throwing an idea out there that might smooth things over a little bit.

I'll also mention that I'm not angry... I actually haven't followed things very closely, so I have no reason to be angry... I barely even know what's going on with XCR.  With crypto stuff, I'm not so sure logical reasoning even matters most of the time. It's perception that seems to trump facts.

The biggest problem you will face actually has nothing to do with Lisk... just the fact you made some (probably a lot) of XCR people angry due to the price dropping + way this was handled.

The 1300 sat thing will help, just not sure if it will help enough. Have you considered things like a 1300 sat buy wall, or something like setting aside a certain percentage of Lisk and simply giving some away to XCR holders? Like taking a wallet snapshot by a certain date, and those people get 20% freebie Lisk, or something similar?

It'd mean less Lisk you can sell during the ICO, but it'd probably mean a lot less angry XCR people too.

I strongly agree that you want outside investors.

Just saying keep those bonuses reasonable, as otherwise that 1300 value isn't really 1300. Whatever the bonus is... it won't be 1300, just don't make it so it's equivalent to less that 1000.

Well, assuming the LISK people simply don't want a pile of XCR and no outside investors (meaning just XCR people moving to Lisk -- which is sort of dangerous, to be honest), we'd have to trust some exchanges.

Otherwise, how would new investors buy that XCR to begin with? Or eventually trade Lisk? If you are saying we can't trust any exchanges at all, why would anyone want Lisk to begin with? Too risky to use an exchange to buy/trade it.

Theoretically it could play out like that. But like all things crypto... who knows.

Things I can suggest to soothe over things a bit more is:
Offer the 30 day option to convert back to XCR (like I believe they already stated they would do)
But set that 30 day timer not from the end of the ICO, but from the first day the coin gets on a major exchange.

Also agree to a 1300 buy wall for at least a certain period of time after the coin gets on an exchange. I realize that the ICO won't likely bring in enough to allow a giganto buy wall, but they could at least put some sort of wall up.

That way, it truly is a low risk situation. It also would boost current XCR values back to around where it was (maybe).

I've been out of crypto for about a year... came back like a month ago, and was happy to see Crypti still around (as it's one of the alts I kept). Anyway, just as the price was creeping up a bit and I was thinking of diversifying/cashing out a little, of course this happens.

The Lisk ICO thing could work, at least as a way to keep XCR at decent price levels/escape route for XCR people (for who want to escape)... but only if the btc bonus isn't too high. If I read the ICO info correctly, those swapping XCR for Lisk will get it at the equivalent of 1300 sats. Not a bad price at all. Even though XCR has reached 1300-1600 sats recently, volume has been an issue.

But I also believe people paying in BTC will get a bonus too? Now depending on what that bonus is, it decreases what the actual XCR equivalent value is. Say BTC people get a 10% bonus... okay, that means XCR equivalent buy-in isn't really 1300 anymore. So that could possibly be problematic.

Otherwise, when the ICO rolls around, those who want to buy-in would be better off just buying up XCR for the 1300 rate. So I guess I am saying to the Lisk people... either have a very small BTC bonus, or none at all.
At least that way it keeps XCR price somewhat stable for now, and around the ICO time, theoretically could lead to a run-up in price. Ex: I expect those without XCR would then be willing to pay 1000-1200 sat for XCR to convert to Lisk vs 1300 in BTC.

Been away for a while so I haven't followed this coin (or any coin) very closely. But as someone already stated, if payouts are at an okay level, the price of the coin doesn't matter a whole lot. I always viewed this coin more like a CD or annuity type of thing.

The price of the coin doesn't surprise me much (actually I think it's about exactly where it was when I left around a year ago). What does surprise me is the lack of liquidity/demand. Anything occur during the past year negative-wise with the coin? Or is it the normal crypto ADD, where if it's not new and shiny, and chatted about constantly, people forget about it?

I've been out of crypto for around a year and forgot I had some scraps left on Cryptsy, so probably lost about 30% using overpriced alts to escape... or a mighty .15ish btc.

I consider it a stupidity tax for not remembering where I even kept some of my coins.