Good idea.. Well whales will have to register in Bagholder area with only one address to be paid and yes exchanges earn from the trades so makes sense. Let's put the vote up and see what happens..
Yeah, but what I was saying is... say MegaWhale has 15% of the entire supply... he's a big fat whale. He then breaks up that 15% into three wallets of 5% each. He registers on your dividend signup page as three different people, at 5% each, and wants payment to three different btc wallets. What's to stop him or an exchange from doing so? |
|
|
|
BAGHOLDER BONUS VOTE IS UP..PLEASE PARTICIPATE..  Suggest clarifying the poll a little bit, so folks know the 3rd option still has payouts in btc/qbk. And first option has no cap at all on megawhales. |
|
|
|
You have some good points. Also I may add POLO has not had any ICO payment at all and have done a lot of work and also handling the ICO funds for us. Busoni and MODS have worked very hard so maybe just having them some payment to at least distribute to the Mods and maybe I can suggest to them to do a POLO GIVEAWAY too..Maybe we can cap the exchanges to MAX 5%? If at audit time peeps download their funds and have to hold for a 7 day period the dump would not probably take place all in one go, maybe it will make a monthly pump and dump fest but if people want to get paid every month and they are also earning from staking it wouldn't be wise to sell off all their coins anyway. Also we will have trading incentives and contests throughout the month to keep the Punters occupied. We could put also a cap on wales as well, maybe same as the exchanges like a maximum 5%? That way more bagholders can earn a decent percentage.. So what we could do is Exchanges and wales earn MAX 5% then rest goes normal percentage so say a wale owns 7% of the coin he can still only get max5% payout but if he is a founder member and never takes off his wallet his 10k coins he can earn extra gifts from bounty pool every 90 days. What do you think about this idea?
Caps on giant whales or let's just call it large amounts of coins makes sense to me. You don't want a situation where the exchanges hold 40% of the coins, eating 40% of the profits. You can make it a hard cap, or go with diminishing returns after a certain percentage. But... What is to stop megawhales from simply breaking up their wallets into smaller amounts, getting around the cap? Blockchain analysis may be able to block some of this, but if the person is tricky enough, I expect it wouldn't be an issue for them to get around it. As for Poloniex getting paid for the ICO, maybe offer a onetime dividend payment, say 5-10%, and that's it? I'd suggest even giving them more than 5% this one time, instead of 5% forever... and ever. I really think exchanges should be blocked from getting payments at all. They get their money from fees. Even Polo has made money from the ICO due to fees. Also don't forget the coin will eventually be on other exchanges than just Poloniex too. It's not like you want to give them all 5% forever, when they make money from fees as it is. So I'd do the 5% thing for fat whales, and 0% for exchanges. I'm just not sure how to actually enforce that cap. |
|
|
|
FOUNDER MEMBERS will need to have 10k staking in their wallets all the time in order to receive the EXTRA PERKS and remain founders..This way it means we are rewarding those who are helping us stabilize the price and take off more QBK from the exchanges. Normal Bagholding members will need to have as much as they can in their wallets on MONTHLY AUDIT DATE once we announce in advance the AUDIT DATE and have it there for 7 days as payouts will be done within a 7 day period. After that they have more liquidity to trade again. As the block explorer shows wallets split up although some wallets hold all the coin, for example I have all of mine in one wallet but on the rich list it shows it split up, we will just ask members to send us their wallet addies in member's area and do a little thing in the debug window, very easy just to check if they have their monies split in more than one wallet on blockchain. We are thinking of adopting the percentage based payouts in a choice of QBK OR BTC as it will be a fairer system and a payment cap on the Exchange so that more is payed out to Bagholder populations. As most members despise the verification process, paying via the percentage system for Bagholders with 100 QBK or over is the fairest way to distribute the revenues. We will from the bounties and giveaways funds have incentives also for EVERYONE, small holders and large so everyone will benefit form even more goodies than just their monthly dividends and staking income. Naturally the FOUNDERS eill get their extra freebie perks every 90 days they remain a FOUNDER for helping QBK grow in stability and price because this in turn BENEFITS ALL HOLDERS, These extra gifts will NOT BE TAKEN FORM THE 50% BAGHOLDER POOL but form the BOUNTIES and GIVESAWAY pool. We will have both QIBUCK BAHOLDER AND QIBUCK FOUNDER membership areas open within the next few days. We will still have the card later down the line as an extra option but because we would have to order 500 upfront at a small discount we will just hold that off for now till we have more demand for it, say at least 200 Bagholders wanting it. , Otherwise we may just pay the full price for a card but we won't be generating extra revenues for that if we don't order 500 in one scoop. At the moment our time is better spent developing the coin, JV ventures, mining, trading and Investing to kickstart revenues. Today one of our Team Members has already made a request to rent rigs to mine a very stable coin. Please give us any decent feedback on this thank you. I like the percentage idea + cap on large amounts... as I probably should, as I suggested doing it that way earlier in this thread. Although would people care that it differs from what you stated in your ICO? Again, I'm against radical changes from ICO terms, but am unsure if going to a percentage system would really bother anyone or not. It is certainly the easiest and most logical way to to do (that I can think of). If people do mind changing from the initial ICO setup, consider the multiple stakes idea using the same pool layout, which is pretty close to being a straight percentage anyway. Just that it'll be much more complicated on your end as to determining payouts to people. I'd think most people would be fine with the percentage idea though, as it's not like it means less money for them or anything really... in some cases they may make more. As for cards, I expect most really don't care one way or another about them. For free, sure, it's a nice bonus and I'm sure some would take them. But it's not like I expect many to really have a use for it over just regular btc sent to their wallets. So if it costs you money, I'd delay it like you plan. One thing does confuse me though... the exchange getting payouts. Why would the exchange get any coin at all as a payout? They already got their fees from the ICO and they are getting money from trading fees. I'd still recommend a cap, just to block evil exchanges or mega whales, but I didn't expect exchanges to get any dividends anyway. And what happens when a coin is on multiple exchanges? Why should they get any payouts? Edit: And that extra gifts for holding idea is a good one. That way you can maybe get around the potential 'audit date' issue, where some folks may sell right after the audit date, and buy up before. |
|
|
|
you are new in crypto right?
you really wouldnt want Cryptsy and Polo over MP and Bittrex - those who have been on crypto earlier this year will probably agree
Polo was hacked, although did pay back people over time. And I'm not aware of Cryptsy ever being hacked, although they have hardly been problem free. I was thinking of what would benefit the coin more in regard to slow growth when I mentioned poloniex. There is no guarantee any specific exchange will be more secure than another... although due to the fact bter just had its issues, of course it'd be wise to get on another exchange as soon as possible. |
|
|
|
I want to buy some Crypti, but I don't want to use BTER. Waiting Crypti on another exchanges (Bittrex, Mintpal).
Why would you trust Mintpal over BTER? Remember Mintpal was hacked and 30% of all the Vericoin was stolen. I'm not sure I'd trust MP over BTER necessarily, but with that moolah purchase I'd trust them a bit more. I really doubt moolah would want to kill their own purchase with lax security. My preference is sort of leaning towards Poloniex or Cryptsy over MP/Bittrex right now. I'd rather the coin built up slowly, so Polo could make some sense. Bittrex tends to be too pump/dumpy for my tastes (although of course it occurs on all exchanges). |
|
|
|
The #1 address has got to be Poloniex. Yeah, it must be. I'm more interested in that top 12 list. No wonder that idea of a founder's club was thrown out there. I do agree that the dev team should really look to create an incentive for those coin holders to, well... hold. It's like the top 12 addresses own 40% of the coin. And I'm not including Poloniex. That top 12 may not even be 12 people, as I expect some have split their wallets. A couple of payout/dividend questions: How will confirming coins be determined? By the blockchain, or wallet when signing up? Do people need to hold for that entire month to get payouts, or just own those coins when actually signing up? |
|
|
|
Honesty... in my view... what this coin needs, if it's to stand any chance of coming to anything, is a shit hot core dev or dev team. A CDM (as per the Whitepaper) needs to be recruited asap. Someone who is committed to the ideals of decentralised development and building a coin from the ground up. Someone willing to invest their blood, sweat, tears, time and skills to the ideal that this 'eco-system' need for a coin that's development is (truly) guided by the people and not vested, centralised interest. I only wish I had that skillset!!
The problem I see, and I may be wrong about it, is ... If there is a great coder or dev team out there, why would they decide to code for GPC instead of just making their own coin, or coins? Unless they get paid in BTC or GPC (and an awful lot of it at current prices), I'm not sure why they would. I know from my own experience that trying to gather up coders/devs is a pain. I've done some coding (although in weird languages so it'd be useless here or for crypto), and did some smalltime game development for a company a while ago. Several teams were signed up, but the only games that ever saw the light of day had a lead dev who was also a coder. And the only coders I could get were those with no coding experience at all and I had to train myself. Any decent coder would logically choose to just develop their own project. The exception being, coders for hire. I'm just not sure if the dev has enough GPC/BTC to hire anyone... or the coin will get lucky enough to find that one in a million dev who is looking to join someone else's project. On the bright side, the price is getting low enough where another dev could buy in cheap and decide to do a revival. The price may need to sink a bit more for that to happen though. |
|
|
|
I have actually reinvested those funds back into the project, meaning I have used my own money to support this coin. Finally, I reinvested 3 BTC back into GPC only to have the value wiped by the fud.
Think about the following up above, if you want to see my Bittrex transactions I'd be happy to share them.
Sorry to those who feel wronged, but you technically weren't, not by me.
Something I am sure others have noticed was that someone was buying up coins/moving up the price. I assumed it was you... as almost immediately after launch there was buy pressure. There was some danger in doing it that way, as it also set the coin up for an immediate decline. As for the reasons for the price drop, I wouldn't place blame squarely on fud. I'm of the opinion it's due to the pricing model + mindset of most in crypto nowadays. They want quick profits, pump/dump... and will only hold if they believe they can get a bigger payout by doing so. It's not so much about the coin, dev, features or any of that. It's the payout, and ideally they want it quick. When a coin sells for 50-70 sats and can then be resold for 700-1200... people will sell of course. So to me, it's bittrex + quick pump that sort of did the price in. Most of the fairly distributed coins went the slow route ... meaning they start off on dinky exchanges (allcrypt, etc), struggle along at 5-10 sat sells, clearing out weak hands... then move up the exchange ranks. Nowadays it's all sped up. 1-2 days after release a coin goes to bittrex, pump occurs... and that's sort of it. If you want to see a coin not fall apart after that point, the coin needs something unique feature-wise and further development. |
|
|
|
The hacker has rejected the 300 BTC from BTER. He wants more.
Greed loses. Reset the blockchain. Is there still time for that? I think that is only an option until they hit a certain block? And it's less a rollback, and more just sort of pruning, if I recall correctly. If it was up to me, I'd just go that route. NXT is sort of wrecked either way ... might as well choose the option that is the least damaging. |
|
|
|
|
At the very least, I expect folks should copy down their Bter Id numbers. I also took a screenshot of my holdings, although not entirely sure it'd do me any good.
|
|
|
|
Didn't this set off warning bells for ppl?
I feel for those who bought into this bc the pitch sounds great... Fair launch, fair community development, but what has happened is completely unfair given they put faith in your leadership, and you provided... NOTHING.
Investors: be sure to follow using the new laws which will hunt down scammers like this.
I'm not sure if you are aware of how this ICO thing was set up, but it wasn't a traditional ICO. A large number of coins were given away for free, the rest were small donations. And when I say small, I mean like crumbs... .02-.04 per person. He may have taken in like 3 btc total and he was upfront from the beginning that the funds were for him, for releasing and setting up the coin... donation meant donation. He paid for the block explorer + mobile wallet himself. He has tried to set up developer hiring. So... to me, I'm not exactly sure where the scam is. For those involved in the ICO, there is practically no possible way they lost any money on this. |
|
|
|
|
Pretty nice job with the explorer + rich list there. Surprised more folks don't have their coins in their wallets though... really need that dividend thing set up soonish. No wonder there has been so much sell pressure, as I guess people have kept tons of coins on the exchange, over half of the existing supply evidently.
|
|
|
|
:-\this topic is dead?
15 Days and nothing yet..........its just useless, i have nothing agains bossman, but its useless buy this coin........even some sell walls are retrieved , and no one bought nothing, i have 0.6 BTC to dump but we only have 0.3 total buy orders, the problem with this coin is bossman dont take the coin like a priority the coin for him is more like a future project (for next year), if some one really believes in GPC please put some buy order of 1 BTC for 150 i will dump and get out right now. i believed in bossman too but now i see he dont take his coin like his first priority i really want get outm if some one believe in GPC yet put 1 BTC for 150 i will be happy in sell for you Bosman has done fine, in my opinion. The reason the price has fallen is a combination of many alt markets falling + initial price of the coin. It was basically free to people, or close to it. Even for those of us who donated, I think the price ended up being like 50-70 sats? Whenever that happens, people will take profit -- just the way it is. But for a coin to recover after folks take profit, it needs further development. That's where it is now. So either Bosman needs to be a coder and develop, or someone needs to join up who can code and develop. If the coin just remains stagnant, it will go the way of other freebie coins, comm/itc and so on. |
|
|
|
Put differently, if you are holding XCR but do not have buy orders even down at 1 Satoshi you are a proof XCR is not worth
even 1 Satoshi - so why the hell you are still holding it Bizarre conversation... Investors, traders, gamblers... whatever you wish to call them, may only take on so much risk -- It's risk/reward. Many may not feel comfortable increasing their risk any further by putting more btc onto bter. So hence less buy orders than one would see under normal circumstances (such as the exchange not being hacked). It doesn't mean they should just dump their xcr at rock bottom prices. It just means their risk threshold has been met, and they will just wait it out. Its like asking why buy any crypti at ico prices at all, if you don't go all in at 15 btc? |
|
|
|
Wouldn't though us buying up QBK throughout the month help increase market activity and buy pressure? After all many are wanting us to find ways to help increase the market share and price, this one way would be a no brainier, including a multipool. I can understand changing the mini pool part would keep out a lot of investors so yes point taken there. So maybe there can be btc or qbk options for payment without the card. all three pools would require a lot of accounting Making more mini stakes within and would dilute the pools x 10 so I wouldnt personally like that idea. So maybe just keeping all pools as they are but giving btc ad qbk options would not be such a radical change only we add a FOUNDER POOL x5% and take that off the smaller pool to reward the 25 FOUNDER MEMBERS who promise not to dump 10k coins for as long as they wish to retain founder benefits. That would mean up to 250k non dump able coins. This way we are rewarding holders and not dumpers. As BITDV just stated, the problem with paying just in QBK is that many people would sell it immediately to cash out for BTC. So yep, multipool + devs buying up coins increases buy pressure, but at the same time if you pay out just in QBK, you probably would negate that ... as many would simply turn around and then dump the QBK. Having two options, btc or qbk, could work, although I expect the majority to choose btc. As for multiple stakes, the problem as discussed earlier in this thread is, if you don't do multiple stakes, or go with a percentage model, people may cheat. And that skype idea really isn't so feasible in my opinion. You also couldn't pay direct into people's wallets without that btc card (requiring an address) if you plan to stop cheaters that way. As for diluting pools due to multiple shares, I don't think it'd matter as much as you may think. Yes there will be more shares, so each individual share will be worth less. But keep in mind that also means people will have multiple shares. So it should more or less even out. It's like two people splitting $100, each owning 2 shares, so $50/share. If they instead each owned 50 shares, at $2/share, there would be no difference in the end. For the small time investor, perhaps they'd get a bit less, due to spillover from the rich folks now getting extra mini-shares with any leftover they have ... but it's better than requiring 1K to get anything at all. You'd have to crunch the numbers and see how that comes out. A founder pool would probably be okay, but their money would need to be taken from someone else's pool... which may not go over so well. I'm not necessarily against it, just not sure how others would feel about it. Maybe they could be paid mostly in QBK from the multipool or something like that. |
|
|
|
There are no buy orders because people are uncertain regarding the future of BTER and do not want to hold any equity on the exchange.
So why they are holding XCR? Because they can't take it from the exchange yet? If it was released, I'm sure many would move it from Bter as soon as possible. |
|
|
|
The pool structure is still used,what do you mean by radical change?
The structure is same just altered.
Payouts in QBK only would probably be considered a radical change, especially if folks expected BTC. Requiring 500 or 1K QBK would be considered a major change, if folks bought 1-400 QBK with the idea of getting payouts. I consider them radical changes anyway... unless, again, I am misunderstanding something here and small time people would still get payouts even under these changes. And payouts could still be in Btc without spending 2K on those cards, as I'm sure folks would be fine with funds just being sent direct to their wallet. |
|
|
|
Have they said if user data has been compromised everyone should change passwords
If you must be told to change password after a hack that means you are idiot. The main issue for XCR now seems to be lack of buy orders. 100% coins (tokens) are there on Bter but not even 10% could be sold even if all buy orders end up filled. There is not much confidence when it comes to XCR, obviously. Issue is BTER, not XCR. I expect a lot realize this already, but I don't expect any giant rise in price even after release, UNTIL the coin gets on another exchange. A lot of people simply won't feel comfortable moving btc there. And a lot of people simply never use BTER to begin with. |
|
|
|
What does everyone think of this idea?
All payouts in QBK,45% paid to holders of 1k and over Bagholders.
5% extra paid for Founders pool,those who hold 10k coins which must be held in wallet at all times.Extra perks for Founders.
25 people can claim founder status, every 3 months and can claim perks.
Don't think you should make payouts automatically in QBK, but make it optional. You shouldn't change the terms of your ICO at this point too radically. It's unfair to investors and also Fud food. Yes, some stuff should be changed, but you really should leave it as btc payouts, and have QBK as an option if an investor so chooses. I suggested earlier that it would have made sense initially for payouts to require a min. of 1K. But you shouldn't do that at this point. As to why... you'd basically cheat all the small holders out of payouts, unless I misunderstanding the plan here? Best payout option, in my opinion, was posted by someone else here earlier... leave pools alone, just allow multiple stakes so there would be no cheaters. It's more or less the same as an overall percentage (easiest way to go), but is close enough to your initial ICO setup as to not ruffle anyone's feathers. That is what I'd suggest, unless... again... I am misunderstanding what is being discussed here. You should never radically change the terms of your ICO after the fact. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
