Seriously Tony, if you are planning january airdrop, you should do it only over wallets which did not move any single coin since received them
~ and should stabilize price, which is crucial if you want byteball to be a currency.
You're contradicting yourself: to be a currency, it should be used. If you're only holding instead of spending, it's not a currency.
Fully agree.
Pointless to give something which is not usable at all. Then u will have full pockets of coins which are worthless.
Don't agree. Let's be honest a currency is usually accepted to buy lots of useful things. There will be no confidence in this long term until full disbursement. Im surprised actually that bittrex listed it with the dev still holding so much and making unilateral decisions with no community consult.
I went to my shop to buy some useful things sadly i don't live in milan so they didnt hear about bb yet.
The only thing you can buy with bb is other crypto right now ie trading
It will be a long time before bb is a currency that is primarily used to buy "things" with. Lets take care of the distribution first so we can eventually buy things of worth without spending hundreds of gbytes.
I say continue distribution to those that have held bytball and not been shuffling and churning it on exchanges.
The distribution to me is a disaster of in so many ways ..certainly block off the known addresses of competing projects holding huge amounts of BB that was totally foolish giving it all to them so now we have to go stop distributing to the people that bought bb being told they would get future full moon airdrops just so we can fund our own development. In fact if i could vote for forking this and nulling their wallets i would. Take back our tokens and use them for development too. I mean why are we funding the development of projects competing against us I own LISK and KOMODO and probably a few others byte ball donated huge chunks of its minting too and still i think it is totally ridiculous.
I never heard such a crazy plan. Let's fund other projects competing against us so we cant fund our own plans.
Then let;s destroy real investor belief in anything the dev says in future by stopping their airdrops they probably invested in it for in the first place and held since the top which was 10x higher. If i had actually purchased this in june/july I would be pretty seething. Not only have I taken a 90% hair cut on my btc I am now not getting the meager 20 or even 10 percent recurring airdrops and the distribution is being strung out longer and longer and trust me most investors do NOT like the dev in sole control of such a huge percentage of the minting. The distribution should be finished in 3 months or less. Build in a development funding mechanism if you wish but holding back and controlling so much of the minting in such a centralised way is just another nail in this projects coffin.
Those who stuck up for this distributional model at the start must have rocks in their head. KNOWINGLY giving such huge funding to competing projects and exchanges is still unfathomable to me. Tonych never comments on it either. You basically KNOWINGLY just made your task magnitudes hard and drawn out.
Luckily it is the most novel project technically here except perhaps eth so it;s not dead but to get where is should have been already is going to take 10x longer and the vast profits on the way will be given away to other projects and exchanges.
What a waste of a great chance it has been so far.
I dont care if the rest of the tokens are burned right now. It is more damaging having them in the sole control of one person.
Better to create a development funding mechanism that creates a small % of tokens that are used according to a decentralised voting process.
If I could fork it and null the other competing projects known bb wallets I would do that too. We have no issue changing distributional methods we consider mistakes here. That was the largest mistake. Lets undo that. Im sure they would have more shame than to complain since its not even their BTC anyway.
Real investors (those that do their homework) do not care that the project has the best tech or best user case. They look hard at the distribution and risk of a shift of the value in btc and tech to another project or out in to fiat altogether. Right now byteball is high risk in that area. Forget looking at wallet numbers nobody knows how they are being split. All we know is at the start a small very small number of people took huge amounts of this coin which was then compounded. That is risky for market making and collusion and exit.
On top of that the dev holds 60% and makes unilateral non consulting decisions on those tokens.
This is super high risk right here. Also if tonych is a single coder not a group that is again super high risk.
Competing projects own huge slices of the minting.... that is never going to be a good thing. They have split interests sure they want to make money but they want their project to succeed.
All these things need to be addressed or minimised as much as possible if you want investors jumping in with both feet.
