then you need buyers, even "penny stock" personalities who are ignoring the more important details). It's important to think about the implications of NEM supply on market cap: https://forum.nemcoin.com/index.php?topic=2531.msg6776#msg6776In short, increasing to 8 billion coins should also increase our market cap by maybe $20 million at first. This is completely wrong. Market cap will be exactly the same. The supply will double and each nemcoin will be worth half of current price. wrong?  Did you even read the post of Rockethead? "What this means is that pricing is emotional and sometimes with a bit of logic involved." vs. the method of yours ( 1 + 1 = 2 )He made a lengthy post about this, maybe too lengthy as the point doesn't seem to be getting across. The point is that we've seen many coins and there does seem to be a correlation between supply and capitalization. It's not a coincidence that all the successful alternates have a bigger supply than Bitcoin and not less than Bitcoin. Digital currencies right now, unfortunately, does have a lot of "penny stock" buyers who are buying based on the price even though the price in all honesty doesn't matter (it's the capitalization which matters.. but to get that capitalization increase then you need every buyer, including the penny stock personalities who think they are getting a good deal as they don't comprehend and/or ignore things like market capitalization, volume, et al). |
|
|
|
I think this option could result in a lot of dissent from existing stakeholders. Or maybe people will like it? I think it's possible that a larger market cap could boost NEM capitalization significantly. For one, there's probably people who are pricing NEM in just NXT and therefore the prices could hold to an extent if you boosted the total supply. Your NEMstake would scale in this option and you would benefit from this market capitalization increase. Then there is the psychological. Look at the Doge effect - 90+ billion coins and it brought in many people who were able to afford millions. Masses of people spending $10-$100 to become a is always going to be better than a dozen guys pumping in tens of thousands. Doge I think did ok. It wasn't the total supply itself in Doge that was controversial - it was the hyper inflation from PoW mining and then the instamine whales who got in early dumping on the new comers (which is arguably no different than NXT and a factor why people ceased coming to NXT. Why buy something that never goes up because as soon as it rebounds some whale dumps?). Not a lot not to like really. Worst case the supply equalizes the demand and we aren't really worse for the wear right? The important thing here is that it isn't like someone paid 50k nxt on Poloniex to get 1,000,000 and then gets screwed when it suddenly halves in value (worst case) as the supply is doubled. That would kind of piss me off. Anyone that has paid or will pay for a piece of the pie will be sorted in proportion. I guess I personally don't understand the mechanics of inflationary coins that well and the psychology it induces on the market in terms of value to make a good judgement other than a highly ignorant statement like "doubling the supply should halve the value per unit" in a perfectly efficient market. Not really what me or Makoto had wrote. There's no inflation here. Your NEMstake on the asset exchange is 0.00025% of the total NEM supply and that's how much NEM you will get - doesn't matter if it launches with 4 billion (1 million), 8 billion (2 million) or 100 billion (25 million)- you will get the 0.00025%. 0.00025% is 1 million / 2 million / 25 million depending on what the total supply is. I think Makoto and Rockethead's logic here is not everybody is paying fine attention to the value of NEM, so you if you did increase the supply and scale everything up then people may continue paying the same price (even if it drops by 50% it would be a net gain over remaining at just 4 billion). The current buyers of the asset exchange should be in favor of this as it essentially guarantees them an overnight 15x-30x return if it does work the way I described. I see merit in this idea but I think it's too controversial and I would vote no on it if it was polled.. but of course I'm just one person and my opinion is different from the people who are current spending $Fiat on NEMstake |
|
|
|
I think this option could result in a lot of dissent from existing stakeholders. Or maybe people will like it? I think it's possible that a larger market cap could boost NEM capitalization significantly. For one, there's probably people who are pricing NEM in just NXT and therefore the prices could hold to an extent if you boosted the total supply. Your NEMstake would scale in this option and you would benefit from this market capitalization increase. Then there is the psychological. Look at the Doge effect - 90+ billion coins and it brought in many people who were able to afford millions. Being a millionaire of something is a psychological thing that appeals to many. Masses of people spending $10-$100 is always going to be better than a dozen guys pumping in tens of thousands. Doge I think did ok. It wasn't the total supply itself in Doge that was controversial - it was the hyper inflation from PoW mining and then the instamine whales who got in early dumping on the new comers (which is arguably no different than NXT and a factor why people ceased coming to NXT. Why buy something that never goes up because as soon as it rebounds some whale dumps? As much as people groan about speculators - in actuality - nobody intentionally buys something with the intent of losing money). |
|
|
|
I am leaning towards agreeing with everyone that this discussion should probably just be left alone. It seems like there are quite a few who do think we should change the total amount of coins, but I think that decision will ultimately undermine investor confidence, at least in the short-term. Long term, it really could go either way, but I think that the effects would be so minimal that risking short-term investor confidence is too much of a risk for a very minimal long-term gain (if any).
After thinking about it carefully for a significant amount of time since this discussion came about, I have come to the conclusion that the risk to reward ratio for this decision is simply not good enough for me to be able to support any changes.
Have you heard about the changes in companies' shares in stock markets? They usually come suddenly and then you have been given a letter, a notification that each share is splitted into 8 (for example). In such case the value of the owner's shares is the same, but the amount of shares has increased, not doubled but 8 times. I think that the investors do understand this kind of changes. No one has eaten his words  crypto markets are rarely, if ever logical and most of the counterintuitive. Even though the change would have no effect on the value of stakes, can you really trust such an illogical and irrational market to make the logical and rational choice to ignore such a change? There just doesn't seem to be enough gained from such a change to warrant making it. Like Amy said the risk:return ratio just isn't good enough for us to go ahead with this.. Why risk having a number that Asians consider unlucky or deadly? They are quite superstitious ,at least in my experience . If something negative were to happen however small they might be more likely to stay away. Isnt it a good thing that we are taking Asian beliefs , superstition and psychology into account ? Its respectful. Now as long as we have plenty coins to cover a fantastic future does it really matter how many there are? I will say again that Nemstakes are not a true representation of value as at the moment they fall under certain parameters and that price is not something to worry about. If anything the change to coin amount would bring increased news coverage and interest. The superstition is real, which is why I had to really think about this for a while. And of course it is good to take the concerns of other cultures into account, especially when we are dealing with something intended for use by everyone around the globe. However, the more I thought about it the more I realized that this is really not even a discussion worth having. Mainly because even though the supply will be 4 billion, this is only in the beginning. The total supply will not be 4 billion for very long, considering it is inevitable that some NEM will be burned for one thing or another. Therefore, to change the original plan simply so we can have something other than 4 billion in the beginning seems like a drastic measure simply to accommodate a superstition that likely will not make much of a difference in any real world scenario. Again, I live in Asia so I am very familiar with the superstition; but, the more I think about it, the more I think nobody is really going to care and the risk of making any changes to the original plan at this point after nearly a year of nobody caring is just too high, in my opinion. Also, I know to those of you who are not very familiar with this uniquely Asian superstition this sounds even more silly, but please understand that sometimes things that may seem strange or insignificant to one culture could be vastly important in another. So, I am glad that we are having this discussion but in the end I think we will probably be just fine with 4 billion. +1 For people who don't want to change Euro http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/currency/EUR.htmlUSD http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/currency/USD.htmlCNY http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/currency/CNY.htmlAll : http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/I think european should not give their opinion  Well the way you put that could offend the Europeans on here. I hope that wasn't your intent. However, it's true that digital currencies are becoming popular faster in East Asia than they are in North America and Europe.
This isn't a guaranteed thing, I mean PayPal is used by many people in the United States and that userbase is much larger than Bitcoin. I'm from Europe I'm poor  Well unless your Grandfather was a King or a Lord, aren't most people in Europe?  People think Europe is a rich land but it isn't really anymore for most ordinary people. Like wages in coastal China are now higher than most of Europe (have to remember Europe is not something that ends in the middle of Germany but extends to the Urals and includes many countries where ordinary people are struggling). |
|
|
|
I am leaning towards agreeing with everyone that this discussion should probably just be left alone. It seems like there are quite a few who do think we should change the total amount of coins, but I think that decision will ultimately undermine investor confidence, at least in the short-term. Long term, it really could go either way, but I think that the effects would be so minimal that risking short-term investor confidence is too much of a risk for a very minimal long-term gain (if any).
After thinking about it carefully for a significant amount of time since this discussion came about, I have come to the conclusion that the risk to reward ratio for this decision is simply not good enough for me to be able to support any changes.
Have you heard about the changes in companies' shares in stock markets? They usually come suddenly and then you have been given a letter, a notification that each share is splitted into 8 (for example). In such case the value of the owner's shares is the same, but the amount of shares has increased, not doubled but 8 times. I think that the investors do understand this kind of changes. No one has eaten his words crypto markets are rarely, if ever logical and most of the counterintuitive. Even though the change would have no effect on the value of stakes, can you really trust such an illogical and irrational market to make the logical and rational choice to ignore such a change? There just doesn't seem to be enough gained from such a change to warrant making it. Like Amy said the risk:return ratio just isn't good enough for us to go ahead with this.. Why risk having a number that Asians consider unlucky or deadly? They are quite superstitious ,at least in my experience . If something negative were to happen however small they might be more likely to stay away. Isnt it a good thing that we are taking Asian beliefs , superstition and psychology into account ? Its respectful. Now as long as we have plenty coins to cover a fantastic future does it really matter how many there are? I will say again that Nemstakes are not a true representation of value as at the moment they fall under certain parameters and that price is not something to worry about. If anything the change to coin amount would bring increased news coverage and interest. The superstition is real, which is why I had to really think about this for a while. And of course it is good to take the concerns of other cultures into account, especially when we are dealing with something intended for use by everyone around the globe. However, the more I thought about it the more I realized that this is really not even a discussion worth having. Mainly because even though the supply will be 4 billion, this is only in the beginning. The total supply will not be 4 billion for very long, considering it is inevitable that some NEM will be burned for one thing or another. Therefore, to change the original plan simply so we can have something other than 4 billion in the beginning seems like a drastic measure simply to accommodate a superstition that likely will not make much of a difference in any real world scenario. Again, I live in Asia so I am very familiar with the superstition; but, the more I think about it, the more I think nobody is really going to care and the risk of making any changes to the original plan at this point after nearly a year of nobody caring is just too high, in my opinion. Also, I know to those of you who are not very familiar with this uniquely Asian superstition this sounds even more silly, but please understand that sometimes things that may seem strange or insignificant to one culture could be vastly important in another. So, I am glad that we are having this discussion but in the end I think we will probably be just fine with 4 billion. +1 For people who don't want to change Euro http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/currency/EUR.htmlUSD http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/currency/USD.htmlCNY http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/currency/CNY.htmlAll : http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/I think european should not give their opinion Well the way you put that could offend the Europeans on here. I hope that wasn't your intent. However, it's true that digital currencies are becoming popular faster in East Asia than they are in North America and Europe. This isn't a guaranteed thing, I mean PayPal is used by many people in the United States and that userbase (150 million) is much larger than Bitcoin (2 million max) However you also have to remember that digital currencies seems to be attracting the remittance market and $capital bypass market which *drum roll* is predominately East Asian and South East Asian. Bitcoin allows you to get $USD equivalents if you live in the developing world. |
|
|
|
|
You are assuming this is somehow an Asian thing. Here's an experiment: make a coin and give it a total supply of 666,666,666 and see how many people are interested in buying it. Maybe you could get some decent capitalization in the fringe world of alternate trading but you would probably just be attracting "l33t" people who think demonic numbers are cool.
The PS4 argument isn't a particularly good one anyway. Samsung Galaxy 4 (Korean company) doesn't even market a Samsung Galaxy 4 under its' western name in Asia but labels it: "SHV-E300K/S/L" (300 as opposed to 400").
|
|
|
|
And in the "rich countries" You can build nothing without authorization of competent organs.
Which is what I wrote. "Homeless", in the sense of sleeping on a cold paved sidewalk, is a phenomenon which only exists in developed countries. Elsewhere in the world the governments are often so weak and powerless that you can literally build a house anywhere and a lot of these illegally constructed homes are beautiful mansions or 2000+ SQF homes. They have to sell you the myth that you are better off being poor (less than $15 Hr or unemployed) in a rich country than being working class or middle class in a poor country. If I was making a destitute wage I would just say forget it, book the next plane to Cambodia and go teach English for $800-$1000 a month (you can live well on $500 there) and make more money on the side with private lessons and then Bitcoin / Altcoin trading. |
|
|
|
Really this is a distraction - main cause of homelessness in the world has to do with government, a speculative real estate market and zoning laws, not the inability to construct or afford a shelter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYqBxEAtXZAPlus I would rather live in these Chinese 3D printed shacks and not a 3D printed hut. In the developed world - homeless sleep in a bug ridden shelter or under the bridge. In the developing world - the homeless can build any shelter they want and the local governments are often too powerless to do anything about it. Before the civil war - 46% of homes in Syria were illegally constructed without permits or buying the real estate and a lot of these homes were of high quality. |
|
|
|
http://www.nxtreporting.com/shareholder.php?a=12465186738101000735 is up again... more porpoises and dolphins than before (I think 34 holder was the closest thing we had to a whale that we know of, maybe more of a Beluga than a Blue at close to 1% share) About 10 folks own about 10 or more shares looks like. This does not include the "stealth" holders with spams of 2 share accounts of course. Not sure I want to know what the account "bots" is for or where its' capital was derived from Edit: I'm surprised James only has 10 shares  . Maybe but this is a burden of proof / logical fallacy. People got 5% of NXT for $150. 5% of NEM costs like $200K. 1% is 40 million. Some do almost have 1%, makes you wonder how they got the capital but that's speculation / gossip |
|
|
|
Nem will be the new better nxt
No NEM will be the new better BTC Digital currencies is a good concept which has garnered a lot of media and government attention. Dropbox has a larger capitalization than Bitcoin and I don't see governments addressing it. Bitcoin is only 500K-2M users. The internet back in 1989 had more users. We are still in the innovator stage. Good concept but I question the execution as I'm not seeing the userbase expansion. The social media and search engine were good concepts but it took years for alternatives to emerge who knew what they were doing. Digital currencies will likely be $Trillions someday and NEM could be the front runner or one of the runner ups. |
|
|
|
3,999,.... or 3,,888,... to avoid 4 billion is just a trick of number.
They are (roughly/about) 4 billion if we round up.
The amount of NXT is 999,997,096. but people say/think NXT amount is 1 Billion.
Even NEM dev team said 4 billion NEM is determined by 4 times of 1 Billion NXT.
If we chose 3.99 billion, less 10 million than 4 billion, while 10 million will be current Bitcoin circulation，while NXT just less 3 thousand than 1 billion. So I don't think we can still call NEM issued 4 billion. Ten million difference should not be ignored. we will call the number 3.99 billion as 39亿(亿=1/10 billion) 9千万(千万=10 million) in China.Of course ,in west country ,3.99 billion maybe still regarded same as 4 billion. But our purpose is to happy asian people for this.So if 3.99billion can make it ,we will be OK. Problem is that people will round 3.9 billion up to 4. @pat: Playstation Death just sounds awesome I Googled: "PS4 Sales Japan" and got a whole bunch of news articles about poor PS4 sales within Japan. PS4 is supposedly getting crushed by Wii U? |
|
|
|
Nemster are superstitious  Speak for yourself Superstitious is fine. Self-fulfilling prophecies is generally where the trouble happens. I'm reminded of Phinnaeus Gage who used to have 1000s of Bitcoins and recently took out a loan of 2.5 BTC and ran off. Likewise the guys who lost $millions on the dice games. |
|
|
|
I'm a fan of the Australian single transferable vote but that's difficult to do with a forum poll. I think I might reset the poll and leave two options
3,999,999,999 (4 billion)
8,000,000,000
Might be a good idea yes. If the only goal is to get away from 4, why do you want to double it ? We've had this discussion already - 4 is a bad number in Asia and 8 is a good number, to get 4 to 8 is a simple multiplication of 2. To get to 5, 6 or 7 has to involve fractions. I'm not a fan of burning 1 or 10 stakes as personally I feel people would just round up in their heads to 4 billion. Capitalization wise both numbers have an impact. 4 billion might result in less sell off as the initial stakeholders may be more determined to remain NEMillionaires but at the cost that 4B coins might alienating to several cultures. You can flip this around for the 8 billion, might be more culturally sensitive but it could also result in initial stakeholders going "geez I have 2 million coins, I'm going to sell off half" |
|
|
|
I'm a fan of the Australian single transferable vote but that's difficult to do with a forum poll. I think I might reset the poll and leave two options
3,999,999,999 (4 billion)
8,000,000,000
Can add my suggestion 3,990,000,000 (=21million*190) on poll . for the number 3,999,999,999 ,we will still say NEM issued 4 billion in China. I misread what you wrote earlier, yes I will put it down as 3,990,000,000 |
|
|
|
|
I'm a fan of the Australian single transferable vote but that's difficult to do with a forum poll. I think I might reset the poll and leave two options
3,999,999,999 (4 billion)
8,000,000,000
|
|
|
|
I come from China, I like to talk my thought about 4 Billion issue, in China statutory measurement units , we will call the 4 billion is 40 yi (yi pronunciation is E (in A B C D E), and 40 is not so bad as 4 in China culture.
But i don't know other Asia issue about 4 billion.
if we still want change the quantity, I suggest the number 3.99 billion,because 3.99 billion =21 million*190.
and 21 million is bitcoin quantity, while 190 is a good number in China, it means live long, bitcoin*190 will means we can live longer than bitcoin.
The hate for 4 comes from the pronuncination of 4 (= 四 [sì]) is almost same with the pronunciation of death(=死[sǐ]) 4 = 四 [sì] 40 = 四十 [sìshí] 40 includes 4 in pronunciation. EDIT/ My hobby is banknote collecting. The special serial no. banknote is expensive. Solid number note(1111111, 2222222,.....9999999) is most expensive. Among them, 8888888 is most expensive, and 4444444 is cheapest in spite of same rarity. Million number note(1000000, 2000000,.....9000000) is expensive, too. Among them, 8000000 is most expensive, and 4000000 is cheapest in spite of same rarity. The love/hate for special number also influences on the price like this. You should post this on the NEM forum. |
|
|
|
|
Government cannot be destroyed. Government is made up of a collection of individuals with their own desires and ambitions. The people who run the taxation wing of the government often have little to do with the banking wing.
It just means if crypto currencies become mainstream then governments would continue collecting taxes, except it would be in digital currencies and not $Fiat.
|
|
|
|
|
I would be cautious about buying any extreme amounts of Bitcoin until I see signs of exponential userbase expansion. On the contrary it looks more like the number of new users is slowing down and then there's fatigue of older users (who cease using Bitcoin).
This technology is exciting but Bitcoin at 500K-2M users hasn't shown any signs that it will be the Yahoo or Alta Vista of digital currencies. There were more people using the internet in the late 1980s and more people using Yahoo in 1996.
|
|
|
|
Its going to be a Monday dump now. Happened a few times in the last 2 months.
We are not safe yet.
Pretty much, there's been a trend where dumps occur on monday and the price builds up during the rest of the week. Also at the beginning and end of the month to pay rent and other expenses. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
