It's obviously bullshit because it doesn't make sense. Now that the $20 price will be "honored" it doesn't make sense for GAW to let the price sit at 5. Every coin they buy at $5 puts $15 back in their pocket. What is the plan to earn that $15 between now and march?
"Every coin they buy at $5 puts $15 back in their pocket." Who buys? Whose pocket? If you buy that coin from GAW at $5, then GAW gets $5 in cash from you right now, in exchange for agreeing to pay you ten cents per month for 17 years (assuming a million coins go into the vault). |
|
|
|
To make this attractive Josh should offer to spend a million dollars a month to redeem coins. That´s 50,000 coins per month assuming a million coins floating. Lets say i have 500 coins (1/2000th of all coins), I cash in 25 coins per month at $ 20 and ROI in five months. And in 20 months I will have $10,000 for a net return of $7500 on my $2500 purchase of the 500 coins. Much more realistic.
It's attractive enough to the HT crowd that they're rushing out to buy more! This is the smartest thing they've done during the entire debacle. The way things were heading they probably wouldn't have lasted another month. If the merchant solution launches this week and is as lame as what they've admitted they're trying to do (now that they're officially denying ever having uttered the word "partnerships"), this week alone might have been fatal. As it stands the HT crowd is pacified. Mostly. They aren't on the hook to spend any money at all for at least two months. The earliest possible payout is April 1, and "unexpected demand" could easily be an excuse to push it back another month while they validate all of the accounts. If necessary they could throw some accounts loaded with premine coins into the vault and have a lot of the 100k per month flowing right back into GAW pockets. They can raise enough money to keep the program going for quite a while just by selling premine coins to the eager faithful now, by CC and on exchanges. It kicks the can down the road a few months, and increases their income in the short term in exchange for a relatively small obligation that stretches out over decades. It's not a smart long-term business plan, but it's a smart plan for keeping the business from going under. |
|
|
|
|
I doubt it buys them more than a few months of keeping the HT faithful pacified but that's a few months they wouldn't have had otherwise. They can raise enough BTC to handle the first few months of payments just by selling premine coins into the bump in price this should get them. It's a smarter plan than I expected, given how badly they've botched everything else.
Applications will be received through March 2. Then assuming it takes the rest of March to do all of the account verification they'll need to do, that puts the actual start of the buyback program on ... wait for it ... April 1.
|
|
|
|
 and it continues ... edit lol, you where faster :-p He doubled down, editing it to: Don't make a final determination just yet. Let's revisit this in 48 hours.
That's in response to whether the "$20 ship has sailed." Let's revisit that in 48 hours. Bold move. Sorry, too lazy to upload a screenshot. EDIT: and he just added another comment to say: "You will not need to wait much longer" |
|
|
|
If he had a shred of real business sense, he might have been able to make the coin work... wishful thinking right? 
How? Serious question. If they had told the truth about it (peercoin clone, huge premine, hardwired addresses get huge interest rates, shell of a website, no partnerships, no major fiat backing, no serious possibility of holding a $20 floor) it never would have gotten off the ground. He wouldn't have been able to get anyone buying at the "bargain" price of $4, much less load up at $10 just before the launch on the promise of doubling their money in a few days.
Now that they've officially abandoned any idea of holding a floor, and are desperately trying to claim they never uttered the word "partnership," what's the best case future? What are they promising now? Integration with a browser plugin that looks like it will deliver a truly awful shopping experience, with fees and no refunds and stuff you think you're ordering from one retailer actually coming from another. That's only if they can get around the Amazon TOS issues. Maybe a debit card, but there are plenty of bitcoin debit cards so that's no great thing. Nothing that would create any significant value. You are right, everything that was done was completely fubar. But... If the notion for this coin and its technology were in the hands of someone capable, someone who could have made these things happen, could it have been useful?  Short answer : NO Long detailed answer : No effing way, Brah I've got to agree with you, and suchmoon. It just fundamentally never made sense. It was never plausible that retailers like Amazon and Target would partner with some random new alt coin. It didn't make sense for investors to put millions into it (and non-imaginary investors would have wanted verification of those retailer partnerships). A real $20 floor was never plausible. The whitepaper was a joke. When there's a market for it and consumers want it and retailers have a reason to be part of it, someone like the Winkle twins will do it with their deep pockets and business connections and armies of lawyers and lobbyists. It's not feasible yet though. |
|
|
|
Good job getting him on the record there. I'd be very surprised if it's true. It would require integrity, cost them money, and gain them nothing. But who knows. In this thread: https://hashtalk.org/topic/28636/paybase-amazon-ann/24@gawceo writes: "We are willing to have a 3rd party audit if we need to close this" The HT crowd should take him up on that. An audit to account for all the premine coins, the alleged $100 million fiat fund reserves, sales and purchases on exchanges, etc. That would be gawsome. |
|
|
|
If he had a shred of real business sense, he might have been able to make the coin work... wishful thinking right? How? Serious question. If they had told the truth about it (peercoin clone, huge premine, hardwired addresses get huge interest rates, shell of a website, no partnerships, no major fiat backing, no serious possibility of holding a $20 floor) it never would have gotten off the ground. He wouldn't have been able to get anyone buying at the "bargain" price of $4, much less load up at $10 just before the launch on the promise of doubling their money in a few days. Now that they've officially abandoned any idea of holding a floor, and are desperately trying to claim they never uttered the word "partnership," what's the best case future? What are they promising now? Integration with a browser plugin that looks like it will deliver a truly awful shopping experience, with fees and no refunds and stuff you think you're ordering from one retailer actually coming from another. That's only if they can get around the Amazon TOS issues. Maybe a debit card, but there are plenty of bitcoin debit cards so that's no great thing. Nothing that would create any significant value. |
|
|
|
I wish you all luck with your endeavors, I am going back to the real game and that is BTC, I hope we all can one day look back at this and wish that we did not cause the damage to all Crypto that we have done over the last few months.
This vendetta against GAW and Josh has made the whole crypto community look like a bunch of fucking amateurs. Only 6 months ago Crypto was getting excellent main stream press and was looking good. However the in fighting, scams, and crap coins have now made it look like a joke.
Asic mining has killed scrypt, it may even kill BTC, coins like Dark Coin and Black Coin will not take off due to their names.
I will not be posting here or on hash talk as all the negativity has shown me that the crypto community will keep fighting each other and keep calling all new coins or innovation a scam.
The people on this forum and others have done more harm to Crypto than good, so be proud of yourselves as you may find that you are the ones stopping crypto getting wide spread acceptance, it is only a matter of time before the Banks and Governments of the world centralize the technology and all Crypto will go down in the history books as a fad.
So pat yourself on the shoulder and say well done as you are the guy's who supposedly want to see Crypto be a success have actually made it look like a fools paradise.
You all need to rethink what your agenda is here and start thinking about the bigger picture, so step away from your key boards and start promoting Crypto instead of tearing it down.
How much did you lose from Cantor Fitzgerald? :grinning: Last edited by BitJane I don't need anyone to edit my posts, i am reasonably educated not like some of the monkeys here So you blame the monkeys, rather than blaming Josh and GAW? Even back in the "hashcoin" days it was obvious that the thing was going to fall apart, although there was still room for it to be incompetence rather than an outright scam. The people who were saying this were right, whether they said it tactfully or rudely. Then the release came, and it was a hollow shell of a web site and a clone coin without any significant features, No sign of the merchant partnerships, no sign of investment money, no names of investors or banks or analysts backing it, no serious attempt to maintain a floor, nothing. Some people wised up at that point, and if some of those joined the monkeys over here in pointing out how obvious these things were, they were right. The monkey also flung poo at Josh's true believers, and that was rude. But they were right about Paycoin. Not a single thing that followed added any weight whatsoever to the "maybe this is real" column, but evidence against it kept piling up. Still no signs of the claimed merchant partnerships, investors, or banks. No evidence of significant software development. You can buy chili sauce with the coin, not much more. They add a new way to take your money, via CC, but violate the TOS. It's amateur hour at every turn. More people wised up along the way, more monkeys flung poo at HT, but they were right about Paycoin. I doubt it was intentional scam in the full-blown Ponzi sense, if only because there seems to have been so little thought put into any of it. There was never a business plan that made sense but there was also never any thought put into making it work as a scam. You've got numbers pulled out of thin air without trying to be self-consistent, you've got bogus promises that are not just implausible they're unmaintainable and will unravel at launch. And then when they do unravel, he's got no plan, just denial and attempts to edit history. It's like he couldn't even think three weeks ahead. I agree that it's damaging to crypto, although as of right now the number of people who have heard of paycoin outside the crypto community is very very small. So if it goes away quickly the damage is minimized. The monkeys are trying to make it go away quickly. Sorry about the poo though. |
|
|
|
[Suspicious link removed]j.com/moneybeat/2014/11/25/bitbeat-gaw-miners-to-launch-bitcoin-challenger-paycoin/ When the coin opens to the public on Jan. 2 with what Mr. Garza says will be an anticipated market capitalization of $250 million, the company will partly back that with a store of fiat currency worth around $100 million. So putting it all together, they sold 4.8 million coins to investors at $2 each for a total of $100 million? It's like he can't even be bothered to break out a calculator and try to come up with numbers that make sense. |
|
|
|
Wow it's still selling off, it's bloodshed
According to one poster on HT when I raised the pre-mining issue there, the coins were purchased in the ICO for $2 each. That is .0072 BTC per XPY at current rates. When the price drops even close the that level, look out. I would expect most investors to dump very quickly when it hits that level. And there are (according to Josh, if you believe him) 40% x 12,000,000 = 4,800,000 XPY held by those investors who paid in $2 each. Right now, with prices hovering around .01 BTC, these investors can afford to wait it out. As soon as the .01 level starts to get tested, watch out below. These investors, many of whom I am betting are wall street buds of Stuart, are going to dump fast to avoid a loss. It just now occurs to me that the 4.8 million XPY are the same ones described as "$100 million in coins" ... but if they paid $2 that would be slightly less than ten million. I'll bet the claim of $100 million was a bit of slippery wording, i.e., it was "100 million [worth of] coins" if you assume a $20 floor. All indications are that they didn't get much at all in cash from investors. A few hundred thousand sounds plausible. The investor coins are supposed to be in escrow anyway, so they wouldn't be dumpable. But that doesn't matter. If there were any serious investors putting a million or more into it, which I doubt, can you imagine them sitting by while Josh's promises crumbled one after another? Lawyers would have gotten them disentangled long before this point. Although basic due diligence -- because at that level you can ask for verification of the alleged partnerships and everything else, rather than trusting Josh about it -- would have kept them from getting involved in the first place. There still has never been any attempt at an explanation at how that 2 per coin was going to turn into 20 (especially when there were going to be coins mined outside of those "sold" in the ico and from "mining" hashpoints. This whole thing never made sense, not sure why people ever had faith, never mind after weeks of paybase being a 0. I've seen a lot of HT'ers assert that GAW had a hundred million in investments to back the coin. They believe Josh said it. But the closest claim I can find from Josh is that they would escrow "100 million in coins," which could be weasel-wording to claim only that that many coins would be worth that much at $20 each. Has he ever directly claimed that they got $100 million cash from investors, or is this just HT lore? I found one person over there on HT who did the math, and realized that the claimed reserves and the number of coins for investors didn't make any sense at all. That was a month ago. Nobody else in the thread seemed bothered by that. One suggested that although GAW did in fact "guarantee a floor of 20$" they wouldn't need to spend cash to support the floor: "I think it will happen the opposite, that if necessary GAW will have to hold the price by selling their coins." https://hashtalk.org/topic/20626/pyc-to-skyrocket-but-gaw-will-stop-itTo this exuberant analysis @gawceo replied: "Wow, well done." |
|
|
|
Wow it's still selling off, it's bloodshed
According to one poster on HT when I raised the pre-mining issue there, the coins were purchased in the ICO for $2 each. That is .0072 BTC per XPY at current rates. When the price drops even close the that level, look out. I would expect most investors to dump very quickly when it hits that level. And there are (according to Josh, if you believe him) 40% x 12,000,000 = 4,800,000 XPY held by those investors who paid in $2 each. Right now, with prices hovering around .01 BTC, these investors can afford to wait it out. As soon as the .01 level starts to get tested, watch out below. These investors, many of whom I am betting are wall street buds of Stuart, are going to dump fast to avoid a loss. It just now occurs to me that the 4.8 million XPY are the same ones described as "$100 million in coins" ... but if they paid $2 that would be slightly less than ten million. I'll bet the claim of $100 million was a bit of slippery wording, i.e., it was "100 million [worth of] coins" if you assume a $20 floor. All indications are that they didn't get much at all in cash from investors. A few hundred thousand sounds plausible. The investor coins are supposed to be in escrow anyway, so they wouldn't be dumpable. But that doesn't matter. If there were any serious investors putting a million or more into it, which I doubt, can you imagine them sitting by while Josh's promises crumbled one after another? Lawyers would have gotten them disentangled long before this point. Although basic due diligence -- because at that level you can ask for verification of the alleged partnerships and everything else, rather than trusting Josh about it -- would have kept them from getting involved in the first place. |
|
|
|
Another point of stupidity in the HT camp is the inability to understand that merchant integration = continuous downward market pressure. You have the same morons yelling "Down with Dumpers" and pleading for everyone to max out their credit cards to buy up all the XPY (@ a 10% fee no less) on the exchanges to drive the price up (never mind that Josh & CO are those endlessly dumping into the market right now) and in the same breath these idiots say that people buying from merchants with XPY will bring the price up. Completely effing stupid. Merchants do NOT hold crypto, they DUMP it as soon as they get it.
The merchants (if Josh delivers on it at all) don't get XPY. Here's what the Terms of Use have to say about Paysave: https://paybase.com/terms-of-use4. PAYSAVE. Using your PayCoin balance in your Paybase Account, you can use PaySave to purchase goods or services online from select merchants. Because completing a purchase through PaySave requires Paybase to convert PayCoin to a form of payment accepted by the merchant, all purchases made through PaySave are final and nonrefundable. Paybase may impose a transaction fee on purchases made through PaySave.
The part about "convert PayCoin to a form of payment accepted by the merchant" can't mean anything except paybase turning around and selling the XPY on one of the exchanges. GAW certainly isn't going to provide the cash for it. So in addition to fees and non-refundable purchases, spending XPY translates immediately into selling pressure on the exchanges. Plus they still might be letting you find things on Amazon only to discover that the package is from some other retailer. Predicted HT bot response: "You didn't expect convenience like this to be free or easy, did you?" Actual HT comment on the pre-announcement thread: "I'm assuming GAW has done their due diligence on this and spoken to the necessary teams at Amazon." |
|
|
|
It's not very long: 7.2m * 400 hp = 2.9 billion hashpoints
20hp/day/mh for 2 months would be 1200hp
2.9b/1200 = 2500 GH/s
So is there a reasonable estimate of the hash rate available (assuming GAW actually had all the hash rate they claimed)? That would give an estimate on the number of XPY that could have gone to customers for hashpoints. |
|
|
|
http://gawminers.eu/news/hashcoin-ico-customer-round-qa-transcript-yesterday-evening/"Hashcoin ICO Customer Round Q&A Transcript from Yesterday Evening" I highlighted some things that stand out to me, below. Probably nothing new. A few broken promises (identities of analysts and banks that set the $20 price expectation were to be released, for example). Claims about partnerships. I'm probably missing something but it looks like the $20 estimate (allegedly from banks and analysts, not just pulled out of Josh's ass!) was based on an assumption of 250 million coins total. So the number of coins changed to 12.5 million, but the $20 per coin estimate wasn't affected? Q & A:
Does this mean that although we can buy the coin at around $4.00, if it is actually worth at least $20.00?
Answer: Yes, Josh stated that the coin will be $4.00 or less for the miners to purchase using their Hashpoints.The analysts and banks have stated that they have determined the coin will be “at least” $20.00 per coin, once it is released for sale to the public.
Clarification (Allen): This is just like an Initial Stock Placement Offer (IPO), to investors and the public, of a corporation’s first issuance stock on the NASDAQ, NYSE, Euronet, CAC 40 and DAX. A company decides to raise a specific amount of money to expand their operations, so they go through a process with investment bankers to secure the needed amount of money. The investment bank analysts probe the would-be investors to get an impression of what value they place on the stock, or in this case, a coin. This will change as the offering date approaches, sometimes higher or sometimes lower. They will know best a day or two before this ICO for the coin. Currently, GAW is being given data to indicate that the coin will go for “at minimum” $20.00 each to investors who have already shown interest to “buy in.”
I am basically curious how you guarantee this $20.00 price. Why $20.00 and $4.00 valuations?
Answer-1: $20.00 is not guaranteed, it is the minimum price that outside investors have agreed they would be willing to pay to invest in the coin. It is highly likely the coins market value, at sale time, will be higher than the $20.00 price. As the ICO date approaches, more valuations will be determined from further probing of the interested investor market.
Answer-2 (Allen): All of the ICO coins are apportioned based on the current investors’ and banks’ percentage of involvement up to this point. The remaining share of the ICO coins belong to GAW (and entities). This is a funding coin for GAW’s business expansion projects as well. All involved entities have decided on the percentage of the ICO that will be sold to the miners. Any miner with Hashpoints will be able to purchase the coin with their Hashpoints.
Can you release the names of the analysts and banking partners involved?
Answer: The identities of both the analysts and banks will be released once the ICO has completed and the merchant marketplace established in the near future.
What is the roadmap on documentation for the API/protocol, so web developers, like me, can integrate the coin payment acceptance into our websites?
Answer: We are already partnered with some of the largest merchant payment collectors. The project will also be open-source.
A week or so ago, you said that the market cap is going to be 250 million. Does this mean the total number of coins or does this mean something else?
Answer-1: It will be much higher now.
Answer-2 (Allen): “Market Cap” refers to “Market Capitalization” in the financial world. One takes the number of corporate shares outstanding, multiply those by the current market price, which will then equal the total market value of all outstanding shares of the company. For this coin, the application will be the same, so it is not “numbers of coins,” but rather the entire expected market value of the coins. Josh has indicated this to be the case, because he has stated that the expected market cap is much higher now, meaning that the new expected “value” of the coin has increased above the earliest estimates from a few weeks ago. Although I have no direct confirmation, one can make a deduction that there will be a maximum of 250 million “coins” to be mined, forever. Initially, the calculation for “market cap” was probably being “conservatively” based on a $1.00 per coin rate, hence his original statement that it would be a minimum of $250 million. Now that the expected price on the market has changed, the total mine of the coin (total to be mined) will be in excess of $5 billion ($20.00 x 250 million coins to be mined), at the time of the initial coin offering.
|
|
|
|
See my post 20 minutes ago where Josh clearly stated that out of the 12,000,000 block zero coins, 60% went to customers (for hashpoints) and 40% to investors...
Is that plausible? That would be 7.2 million XPY to customers for hashpoints. They were talking about 400 hashpoints per XPY. So that's 2.88 billion-with-a-b hashpoints! http://gawminers.eu/news/hashcoin-ico-customer-round-qa-transcript-yesterday-evening/[By the way, there's some good stuff in that link. I'll come back to it.] I first heard about XPY when it was Hashcoin, and it sounded like not just a scam but an audacious scam so I kept an eye on it. But I don't know a lot of the GAW details. What I remember about hashpoints is people on HT talking about picking up only small numbers of Hashcoins that way. The big investors boasted about having tens of thousands of hashpoints. In this thread: https://hashtalk.org/topic/15040/how-much-could-your-hp-be-worth-after-the-ico/8(comment number eight, upvoted by GAWCEO) someone estimates that the "champions" have around 4 million hash points total. (He's arguing that because there are so few hashpoints, then based on the projected market cap each hashpoint should be worth closer to a dollar than a penny.) So is it even plausible that 60% of the premine went to customers for hashpoints? |
|
|
|
If what you're saying is that these quotes are why the GAW fans got the idea that their buys on paybase translate into buys on the exchanges, then it shows they're seeing what they want to see. After everything that's happened they're still giving Josh the benefit of the doubt, and assuming he'll do what's good for them rather than what's good for him, even when the terms of use say exactly the opposite of what they're assuming. What do you expect them to think. The posts either insinuate... or outright say they will purchase from the market the coins sold on Paybase.... as in this post that was already known: http://media.coindesk.com/2015/01/Hash-Talk-4.pngIt specifically says "Plus, all the coins purchased on Paybase will be purchased from the market!" So how could anyone not see that. Sorry if you posted that one before and I missed it. Yeah, that's a clear promise. Nothing else in that post turned out to be true. They didn't "aggressively push the market up." The market wasn't above the floor except very, very briefly. And by the TOS they're not legally obligated to do it, no matter what Josh said, and the TOS are written to be very explicit about that both in specifying that no other statements outside the TOS are binding, and that paybase is not acting as an intermediary. And they've got no reason to buy those coins on the exchanges (other than Josh keeping his word, and you know what that's worth). They have more then enough coins already to fill every buy order, and by filling the orders out of premine coins they make bucketloads more money. So I think it still takes some very wishful thinking, and trust in Josh way beyond anything he's earned, to even entertain the idea that they might be buying the coins on the exchanges. Now, I'm not a blockchain expert, but is the proof offered up in this thread definitive? How does anyone know who owns what wallets and where through that chain of transactions? Suspicious... yes it definitely looks that way just because of the weird halving structure... but is it definitive? If it's definitive... who will be be brave soul to sacrifice their HT "burner" account to post it first?  I'll take their word for it that the coins being sold are premine coins. But GAW's story might be that they deliver the premine coins immediately then replenish by buying on the exchanges. It would be fun to see someone try to pin them down on that. It's certainly something that XPY holders should care about, since diverting buying volume off of the exchanges and increasing the supply by letting go of more premine coins would be detrimental to XPY. Seems like it would be worth using up a burner account to find out. :-) |
|
|
|
Eh... I'm just the messenger here. If what you're saying is that these quotes are why the GAW fans got the idea that their buys on paybase translate into buys on the exchanges, then it shows they're seeing what they want to see. After everything that's happened they're still giving Josh the benefit of the doubt, and assuming he'll do what's good for them rather than what's good for him, even when the terms of use say exactly the opposite of what they're assuming. Third, it makes little sense. They don't need to "refill the coffers" to serve customer's needs. It was over 96% premined. They have more coins (at zero cost) than they could ever use. And there's ZERO evidence that they're buying to "maintain the target price" for any target at all. 96% premined yes... but the vast vast majority of all those coins got staked or went into customers' hands to cloud stake, personal wallet stake, or sell off. I don't know how many they had in their coffers, but it's reasonable to say they would have to go to the exchanges every now and then. I don't know if there is any evidence of this happening yet. I don't think it's true, even according to the official GAW story, that the vast vast majority of those coins got staked or went into customer's hands. The claim is that "investors" bought a lot of them, and Josh has said he "bought" some himself. With 96% premine a huge percentage could have gone into stakers and into customer's hands via hashpoints or whatever, and GAW could still have many times more premine coins in their pockets than are actually trading on the exchange. You say "it's reasonable to say they would have to go to the exchanges every now and then" but why? The numbers would argue that it's extremely unlikely that they would ever *need* to go to the exchanges. They're not going to run out of premine coins, ever. |
|
|
|
At the begining of the week two people bought between them 150btc of paycoin through paybase not one of these trades went thru any exchange
So? so josh said buys thru paybase would be from exchanges but there not so where are all these xpy coming from. How do you know they are not coming from the exchanges? They don't buy them in one block from one exchange per sale. They mentioned that they have "enterprise" accounts with the exchanges, and my guess is that they round-robin them to keep the buying price low. They keep the "spread" as profit. Where did Josh promise that? What was the exact wording? "As the purchase of XPY starts to flow through Paybase, it will stabilize the market. I know it does not sound exciting, but it’s the more important process to make all this work. The more confident people are in XPY, the more they will use it. The back-end engine is what we have spent the most time developing. It leverages all our buying power, then moves between exchanges to help level the price. Essentially, it works like an exchange, but with the function of creating market stability." Notice how vague that is. It reminds me of this: http://media.coindesk.com/2015/01/Hash-Talk-4.pngBut what it *doesn't* say is that when you buy on paybase, they buy the same number of shares off of an exchange. It doesn't say that at all. Also... here: https://hashtalk.org/topic/26626/paybase-beta-is-here"Paybase is now integrated into many exchanges (that's the feature we spent most of our time building) and its programmed to monitor the price and depth of the order books on those markets. We have programmed Paybase to leverage those open markets first, so it will grab orders faster than any human can - maintaining the target price and refilling the coffers so we can serve our customer’s needs to buy and use Paycoin." Again that doesn't *at all* promise that what people buy with CC on paybase becomes buys on external markets. Not at all. Second, like the first that just seems to be saying "we have some arbitrage bots." And I wouldn't take their word for "spent most of our time building" either. Not that they seem to have put much time into any development for paybase/paycoin. Third, it makes little sense. They don't need to "refill the coffers" to serve customer's needs. It was over 96% premined. They have more coins (at zero cost) than they could ever use. And there's ZERO evidence that they're buying to "maintain the target price" for any target at all. So I still haven't seen any promise from Josh that a CC buy on paybase flows through to paybase buying on exchanges. The TOS explicitly say they are not promising you that, and you're buying directly from paybase. And it makes no financial sense, from GAW's perspective, to do it. Selling the premine coins on paybase via CC takes buying pressure off of the exchanges, and increases the effective supply, but it maximizes GAWs profits. EDIT: And just to drive the point about the Terms Of Use home, it explicitly says ( https://paybase.com/terms-of-use): 3.2 Entire Agreement of Purchase. THIS AGREEMENT, AND THE DOCUMENTS REFERENCED HEREIN, SET FORTH THE ENTIRE UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN YOU AND PAYBASE WITH RESPECT TO THE PURCHASE OF PAYCOINS.
and 7.7 Entire Agreement. This Agreement sets forth the entire understanding and agreement between you and Paybase as to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes any and all prior discussions, agreements and understandings of any kind (including without limitation any prior versions of this Agreement), and every nature between and among you and Paybase.
So even if Josh did promise elsewhere that those purchases would flow through to other exchanges (which I haven't seen), when you buy via paybase you're agreeing that the agreement is all that matters, and it says the opposite. |
|
|
|
At the begining of the week two people bought between them 150btc of paycoin through paybase not one of these trades went thru any exchange
So? so josh said buys thru paybase would be from exchanges but there not so where are all these xpy coming from. How do you know they are not coming from the exchanges? They don't buy them in one block from one exchange per sale. They mentioned that they have "enterprise" accounts with the exchanges, and my guess is that they round-robin them to keep the buying price low. They keep the "spread" as profit. Where did Josh promise that? What was the exact wording? The TOS ( https://paybase.com/terms-of-use) say: When buying or selling PayCoin through the Exchange Service, you are transacting with Paybase directly. Paybase does not act as an intermediary or marketplace between other buyers and sellers of PayCoins.
So they've got no legal obligation to buy those coins on exchanges. And mostly, it would make no sense. They have enough premine coins to fulfill every order at zero cost. Why keep the spread as profit when they can just pocket the entire purchase price? They have more coins than they could ever sell. Buying coins makes no sense unless it's to artificially prop up the price, and obviously they aren't doing that. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
