ICONOMI - Live for today. Invest for tomorrow.

[welshminer]

Understanding the value of any crypto coin requires some abstract knowledge of what value is. And people here are either 1. not intelligent enough to understand it, or 2. are concern trolling.

Put it this way, if Warren Buffet announced that he was going to start buying $1 billion worth of 90's beanie babies per month, 90's beanie babies would suddenly have alot more value to alot of people.

So true.
Many people here just don't get basic econ.
This proves the usefulness of Iconomi project though. A no-brainer - just buy ICNX/ICNP and get your $. You also have a sleek, easy and fool-proof design of the platform for this same reason.

[1715430017]

1715430017

[Daparski]

I'll only respond to the more contentious parts of your post. The rest can be left to stand on its own as your opinion.

Iconomi token is backed up by ICNP and platform assets.

Who says? Where can I read that this is the case? How can you prove this to me, or to a new investor?

From the last AMA:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ICONOMI/comments/697cbr/iconomi_ama_may_2017/dh548ay/
I'm sure you've read it

Yes, I have. It's does sound good. However, it is only Jani's word, and a hypothetical that might never come to pass. It's a promise that "If we fail, we'll do this", but nothing more. It doesn't really answer the whole value thing, unless you're banking on them shutting down (Jani's response only gives value to a shutdown scenario)

That wasn't the smartest thing you wrote here in the last couple of months. If you create Mendeleev token and link it to Iconomi success the market won't buy it simply because your token doesn't represent a thing. How it is the same with ICN token, where you have ~50M usd under management, a team of 20 people working on the project and a platform to be released soon

I know my token won't represent a thing. My argument is just that. ICN doesn't represent that success either. You disagree. I understand that. In my argument, both ICN and MEND are just ERC20 tokens. The difference is in your head. And, as that terminology page says nothing more than "ICN is an ERC20 token", then the data supports my assertion at this point in time.

Until the moment that we are told more than "ICN is an ERC20 token" - then that is all it is, for all intents and purposes! This is what I'm trying to explain to you.

I understand that it is the official token that Iconomi issued (and not the one I issue), but that's its only real difference - and it's not a significant difference when we're discussing why it has any value.

Yes, Iconomi's original proposed value was that of a share in the platform. Yes, we don't know the details yet. You choose to think it is because of whatever, I choose to believe this is because it is still being developed. And you don't release an official statement before you have everything on place. It's not like the team is hiding, unknown, or working from an unknown location.

I think we both agree that it's still being developed. Now IF ICN becomes only a usage token (which is possible at this stage), there will be people who go along with that change. You will likely be one of those people. And there will be people who don't like it, feel like they were lied to etc. etc.

For this, we will have to wait and see.

Who says that [fill your favorite crypto project] will keep their promise and not run away, or if they close the project they will distribute the AUM they have?
that's what I've been telling in today's Mendeleev-Daparski session: there is no legal framework to use for the things you point out. It's not like other crypto projects have done otherwise.

In my argument, both ICN and MEND are just ERC20 tokens. The difference is in your head

The difference is not in my head, it is in all the money that ICN token has under management and what progress is made with them. As MEND token will do nothing besides few posts here and there, ICN token is powering the development of Iconomi - we can already see real progress and outcome.

[Mendeleev]

Who says that [fill your favorite crypto project] will keep their promise and not run away, or if they close the project they will distribute the AUM they have?
that's what I've been telling in today's Mendeleev-Daparski session: there is no legal framework to use for the things you point out. It's not like other crypto projects have done otherwise.

In my argument, both ICN and MEND are just ERC20 tokens. The difference is in your head

The difference is not in my head, it is in all the money that ICN token has under management and what progress is made with them. As MEND token will do nothing besides few posts here and there, ICN token is powering the development of Iconomi - we can already see real progress and outcome.

Daparski, there is still a fundamental issue that you aren't understanding in this Mendeleev-Daparski session.

Let us take ETH. ETH is used as fuel on the network. This is ETH's value. If Ethereum devs had walked away - yes, that value would likely be gone. However, ETH is provably a fuel on the network. It's not just some unsubstantiated claim that ETH=gas. It is a fact that ETH=gas, and so value is established. This is not about trusting the devs to stick around. It's about establishing why you would buy ETH, on the base assumption that the project continues.

So for ETH we establish these points:

1. Ethereum developers continue to work on the platform
2. ETH is required to use the platform, to pay for gas
3. ETH is in demand because people wish to use the platform

Conclusion: ETH has value.

Let's transfer that logic to ICN. ICN WILL have value if it becomes a fuel on the Iconomi platform. But that's not what we're discussing. So we'll put that point aside. We're discussing ICN as something similar to holding a share in a company (to all intents and purposes)

You claim that ICN is powering the development of Iconomi. How is that? The funds they hold are "powering" the development. ICN is irrelevant. These two points:

1. Iconomi developers continue to develop the platform
2. Iconomi is successful and makes profit

... are in no way related to ICN, the token. The fact that some profits will be used to provide a support level on the market does not increase ICN's value. People wanting to possess ICN is what would increase its value.

So your point 3. would be "ICN is in demand because it represents the assets Iconomi holds"

So again... How is that? Explain why you believe this. If I say "ETH is used as gas", you can't say "I don't believe you", because I can show you that it is.

Show me why you believe that ICN represents the assets Iconomi holds, or the profits they make. What is your basis for this claim? Where are you getting this information from?

This information WAS true once, in so far as it was officially stated. But now there is nothing that says this is the case. So why are you, Daparski, claiming that it is?

[Daparski]

ETH is used as fuel on the network. This is ETH's value - here I don't agree with you

ETH has value only because ethereum developers continue to work on it. If tomorrow king Vitalik and the rest will say they are out of it, even with all projects and ICOs being built on top of ether and are using it for gas, its value will drop to 0 faster than you can call your uncle.
The value doesn't come from the usage. Ether price went up more than 10x in the last few months - is it because we now have 10x more demand for that usage of gas? Of course not! Most of it is a belief that in the future ethereum will be even more utilized and its price will go higher than the current ATH.

I don't see how it is so different with Iconomi.
ICN already has a value since it generates profits. These profits were made by the work and efforts of Iconomi team
The funds that they hold are defacto the ICN  token and are used for operational and development costs and for ICNP.
ICN is in demand because it represents the progress Iconomi is making - just like eth price represents the progress Ethereum devs are making

As for the rest - we will need to wait and get official clarifications. The fact that these clarifications are not yet presented doesn't make ICN token useless.
And the best way to judge that statement is to ask the market. The market never lies and so far it disagrees with you.

[welshminer]

The fact that some profits will be used to provide a support level on the market does not increase ICN's value. People wanting to possess ICN is what would increase its value.

Your statements make no sense.
Profits are used to provide support level - this what makes people wanting to possess ICN, this what creates value.

Otherwise it can be said that none of blue chip companies that don't pay dividends but rather do buybacks have any value whatsoever.

Also what you are saying is that GOOGL is as worthless as MEND

Like it or not, business and economy in general are built on trust. The majority believes ICN is the true token that represents Iconomi, not MEND or any other.

I am sure that in the nearest future Iconomi will move on to Aragon network or a similar project to give token holders voting rights and transparency. We are at such an early stage of crypto-world development.

Also from your statement ETH has value because

ETH is required to use the platform, to pay for gas

(your other two points are the same as for ICN).

So... I guess I can use Google without owning GOOGL.... Now prove me it has no value.
And before you say about voting rights - one can also buy a class C GOOG.  

BTW, it's not quite appropriate to compare ETH to ICN. It's like comparing USD to AAPL - different asset classes with different usage and purpose.

[Mendeleev]

Welshminer, the issue here is that YOU are comparing normal stocks to an Ethereum token, and my arguments are based on the fact that they are totally different. How's that for apples and dollars?

Your response still rests on the assumption that ICN has value. That is the assumption I am challenging - something which must first be proven in order to progress with your argument. And you haven't proven it.

What you're saying works in a world where you can prove you own a share of a company, have voting rights etc. What I'm saying, or rather asking, is for proof of this same value when discussing ICN.

If it were the same, it would state that on the terminology page here.

However, I would imagine that the team are in no position to make such a claim. And that's fine. If they can't say that, then they can't say that. But that does affect the value, and casts uncertainty upon it. And if THEY can't say that, then neither can anybody else - including you - and so I will dismiss that claim as nothing more than conjecture until you can prove otherwise.

I have demonstrated why I (and others) claim the value is unclear. The opposing viewpoint amounts to little more than a held belief that has no actual basis in reality, and can't be proven by any means. It's simply a case of "well that's just the way it is".

By the way, support level in no way gives people incentive to buy the token. My statement made perfect sense.


Daparski, you still don't understand my point. But...

As for the rest - we will need to wait and get official clarifications. The fact that these clarifications are not yet presented doesn't make ICN token useless.

I agree with this...

The market never lies and so far it disagrees with you.

... but not this. I think the market does agree with me. If it didn't, ICN would be worth more now, in my opinion. The projections we can agree on, based on what Iconomi is, the assets, etc. should have this token outperforming many others. But it isn't. The market is on my side... or rather... the side of uncertainty.

Anyway, this is just an academic discussion. I'm not here trying to convince anyone that it has zero value and never will. We can leave it at that. I grow weary of these screeds. Until next time!

 

[drnash85]

Welshminer, the issue here is that YOU are comparing normal stocks to an Ethereum token, and my arguments are based on the fact that they are totally different. How's that for apples and dollars?

Your response still rests on the assumption that ICN has value. That is the assumption I am challenging - something which must first be proven in order to progress with your argument. And you haven't proven it.

What you're saying works in a world where you can prove you own a share of a company, have voting rights etc. What I'm saying, or rather asking, is for proof of this same value when discussing ICN.

If it were the same, it would state that on the terminology page here.

However, I would imagine that the team are in no position to make such a claim. And that's fine. If they can't say that, then they can't say that. But that does affect the value, and casts uncertainty upon it. And if THEY can't say that, then neither can anybody else - including you - and so I will dismiss that claim as nothing more than conjecture until you can prove otherwise.

I have demonstrated why I (and others) claim the value is unclear. The opposing viewpoint amounts to little more than a held belief that has no actual basis in reality, and can't be proven by any means. It's simply a case of "well that's just the way it is".

By the way, support level in no way gives people incentive to buy the token. My statement made perfect sense.


Daparski, you still don't understand my point. But...

As for the rest - we will need to wait and get official clarifications. The fact that these clarifications are not yet presented doesn't make ICN token useless.

I agree with this...

The market never lies and so far it disagrees with you.

... but not this. I think the market does agree with me. If it didn't, ICN would be worth more now, in my opinion. The projections we can agree on, based on what Iconomi is, the assets, etc. should have this token outperforming many others. But it isn't. The market is on my side... or rather... the side of uncertainty.

Anyway, this is just an academic discussion. I'm not here trying to convince anyone that it has zero value and never will. We can leave it at that. I grow weary of these screeds. Until next time!

 

Advertisement is key.

[Red_Sanford]

How jacked up is it that there is no definitive answer to the utility and value of this token?

That this debate can rage on for days and it talked about in the slack channel and nobody from the team (Jani) steps up to answer the question and end this.

[Drunkducker]

ethbits seems to be in beta. im watching it and taas and any-other dividend paying tockes to see how the market reacts. none seem to take giant jumps in gains.

[welshminer]

Welshminer, the issue here is that YOU are comparing normal stocks to an Ethereum token, and my arguments are based on the fact that they are totally different. How's that for apples and dollars?

...

What you're saying works in a world where you can prove you own a share of a company, have voting rights etc. What I'm saying, or rather asking, is for proof of this same value when discussing ICN.

It's not much different - the economic principles are the same. The Value concept is the same. The key difference is how shares are registered - Companies House, Secretary of State etc. vs blockchain. ICN is registered on Ethereum chain. It guarantees that 3 something shares of Iconomi are owned by you. It's up to you whether you trust blockchain or not. Similarly it is up to you to trust Companies Register, US government, Google, Apple, Iconomi or whoever.

So yeah, I can prove I own ICN.

Your response still rests on the assumption that ICN has value.

Sure it does. ICN like any other stock has intrinsic value that is subject to the value of underlying tangible and intangible assets plus subjective expected utility of the project.

If it were the same, it would state that on the terminology page here.

it says "More information about the ICONOMI smart contract and ERC20 compliant ICN app tokens can be found here." That "here" links to Etherscan where you can read the contract source code and find a proof of your stake in the company.

Obviously it's not outlined as clear as one would wish it was - but it's just a matter of time. The team has plenty of work to do, including legal part that will make all definitions.
BTW, why are you being so picky? What other crypto token has all of the above?

That is the assumption I am challenging - something which must first be proven in order to progress with your argument. And you haven't proven it.

... - and so I will dismiss that claim as nothing more than conjecture until you can prove otherwise.

I don't have to prove you that. This is how markets work (not just stocks and not just crypto) - if crypto-community decides MEND tokens are worth something and demand meets supply then MEND will have its value.

Moreover, in Roman law there is such notion as presumption of innocence. Market values ICN @ $1.2 - you have declared ICN has no value - you have a burden of proof.

[MoveCrypto]

Understanding the value of any crypto coin requires some abstract knowledge of what value is. And people here are either 1. not intelligent enough to understand it, or 2. are concern trolling.

Put it this way, if Warren Buffet announced that he was going to start buying $1 billion worth of 90's beanie babies per month, 90's beanie babies would suddenly have alot more value to alot of people.

Nice analogy.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ICONOMI/comments/697cbr/iconomi_ama_may_2017/dh4gyjb/?context=3

What is the basis for calculating the profit? USD ?
We use the currency in which it was originally invested. Proceeds from sale and hence fees from profit are easier to calculate and distribute without conversions to some other base currency.

I'd be interested to hear more clarification on this.

If ICNP goes BTC->ETH->ERC20, then what is the base currency for the P/L calculation in that case?

[Mendeleev]

Welshminer, just caught your response there.

I did not declare it has no value. I declared it has no clear value. There's a difference. Its current monetary value is not what is being discussed.

Why are you bringing up burden of proof and presumption of innocence? Nobody is on trial here. If you want to state that I must back up my position - I did just that (or attempted to). I'm not even sure I hold a position. It's more like an agnostic viewpoint.

Also, I'm not disputing that you own ICN.

This is getting silly. You are obviously not an idiot, and neither is Daparski. And I'm pretty sure I've demonstrated that I'm not an idiot either.

With that, I must insist on a close to this, and just let our posts stand as they are, for people to decide for themselves. There's no point arguing back and forth ad infinitum. We're clearly not going to reach a middle ground, and we're just clogging up the thread.

I will offer you this link, though, if you haven't read the comments here already:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ICONOMI/comments/6d9ci1/where_the_the_value_of_the_icn_token_derived_from/

Deanjks makes some interesting points. If you're on reddit, maybe you can chime in there too.

Cheers!

Edit: Oh, one last thing... can you point me to what you're referring to in the contract here:

That "here" links to Etherscan where you can read the contract source code and find a proof of your stake in the company.

... I don't see any proof of anything there. What do you mean, exactly?

[welshminer]

If ICNP goes BTC->ETH->ERC20, then what is the base currency for the P/L calculation in that case?

I would assume when ERC20 profits are realised, these would be expressed in ETH because ETH was used to purchase them.
If Iconomi used BTC to invest in ETH it would measure profits in BTC.

But if Iconomi had no ETH and decided to invest in ERC20 token ICO that only accepts ETH, it would convert BTC to ETH then buy ERC20. So, as to my understanding, that means investing BTC in ERC20, so profits should be expressed in BTC.

That's just my point of view, I might be wrong.

[Ergenekon]

Is there any date for Public Iconomi?
it should be Q1 2017

[welshminer]

Edit: Oh, one last thing... can you point me to what you're referring to in the contract here:

That "here" links to Etherscan where you can read the contract source code and find a proof of your stake in the company.

... I don't see any proof of anything there. What do you mean, exactly?

There is a tab "Read contract" you can query your balance there to see the proof of ownership.
You can also explore contract address https://etherscan.io/address/0x888666CA69E0f178DED6D75b5726Cee99A87D698

No doubt everyone's perception of value is different.
What I was trying to say is that every statement should be justified and backed by proof.
I tried to prove the fact that Iconomi's decision to do buybacks instead of paying dividends does not adversely affect it's value or makes it unclear and in no way makes ICN as useless as and abstract MEND token.

This discussion can go on for ever - must admit it is better to leave it where it is.

[Mendeleev]

There is a tab "Read contract" you can query your balance there to see the proof of ownership.
You can also explore contract address https://etherscan.io/address/0x888666CA69E0f178DED6D75b5726Cee99A87D698

No doubt everyone's perception of value is different.
What I was trying to say is that every statement should be justified and backed by proof.
I tried to prove the fact that Iconomi's decision to do buybacks instead of paying dividends does not adversely affect it's value or makes it unclear and in no way makes ICN as useless as and abstract MEND token.

This discussion can go on for ever - must admit it is better to leave it where it is.

I will give it one more try...

That proves ownership of ICN. Not ownership of Iconomi. That's my whole point. The token and the platform aren't the same thing, and there's nothing linking them together - other than the buybacks. But anybody can buy them, or create support levels. This doesn't demonstrate that your ICN token is linked to Iconomi's assets or profits, or why Iconomi's success should increase the value of ICN. The market doesn't care who is providing support levels. This works different with regular shares. With ICN, it's just a case of "here's your token. This represents Iconomi" and we just have to believe that based on... what?

The only people who will buy this, in future, are the ones who don't see that problem.

This is probably why Iconomi are trying to create a new use for the token. Why would they bother inventing a new use for it otherwise?

Anyway, unless Iconomi can solve this, I predict this outcome: ICN will become a token used to complete actions on the platform. And that will be its only value.

I predicted that dividends would be scrapped, by the way. So if I'm right about this, I expect you all to kiss my sweaty feet  

Goodnight!

(If I'm wrong, I'll send Daparski 100 dogecoin)

[estenity]

I will give it one more try...

That proves ownership of ICN. Not ownership of Iconomi. That's my whole point. The token and the platform aren't the same thing, and there's nothing linking them together - other than the buybacks. But anybody can buy them, or create support levels. This doesn't demonstrate that your ICN token is linked to Iconomi's assets or profits, or why Iconomi's success should increase the value of ICN. The market doesn't care who is providing support levels. This works different with regular shares. With ICN, it's just a case of "here's your token. This represents Iconomi" and we just have to believe that based on... what?

The only people who will buy this, in future, are the ones who don't see that problem.

This is probably why Iconomi are trying to create a new use for the token. Why would they bother inventing a new use for it otherwise?

Anyway, unless Iconomi can solve this, I predict this outcome: ICN will become a token used to complete actions on the platform. And that will be its only value.

I predicted that dividends would be scrapped, by the way. So if I'm right about this, I expect you all to kiss my sweaty feet  

Goodnight!

(If I'm wrong, I'll send Daparski 100 dogecoin)

may i recall that icn ico gave Jani et al. the money capacity to act ? investors are owed something.... and a new whitepaper appears urgent.

since onset, concepts are unstable,news are uncertain....financial management must not go without clarity. point.

[isharci]

I feel like the point that Mendeleev is making (and people are ignoring or not getting) is that there is no legal or structural mechanism that ties the value of Iconomi to the ICN token. Iconomi could very well build a massively successful company that generates billions of dollars in revenue and the only value transfer mechanism we token holders have is the belief that Tim/Jani and company are honorable men that will maintain the (unenforceable) contract that we all entered into when we invested in the ICO. There is likely no government in the world where ICN holders could prosecute a lawsuit against them. That being said, I believe in the project and the team. I judge them to be honorable in their actions and efforts. Everything that they are doing *SCREAMS* legitimate to me. But who knows, Bernie Madoff was the ultimate insider and he stole billions.

[Daparski]

I feel like the point that Mendeleev is making (and people are ignoring or not getting) is that there is no legal or structural mechanism that ties the value of Iconomi to the ICN token. Iconomi could very well build a massively successful company that generates billions of dollars in revenue and the only value transfer mechanism we token holders have is the belief that Tim/Jani and company are honorable men that will maintain the (unenforceable) contract that we all entered into when we invested in the ICO. There is likely no government in the world where ICN holders could prosecute a lawsuit against them. That being said, I believe in the project and the team. I judge them to be honorable in their actions and efforts. Everything that they are doing *SCREAMS* legitimate to me. But who knows, Bernie Madoff was the ultimate insider and he stole billions.

That is exactly my point and I tried to explain that to my uncle.
Currently there is no legal framework for any crypto project. Iconomi is no different in that matter.
What assurance have waves, steem, Aragon, storj or any other crypto platform token owners??

If MEND token owner can speak his mind and suggest a way for Iconomi to provide such legal assurance it will be great.

As for the security that people have with traditional stocks - how many of them lost their money and life savings despite the legal paper they had in their hands?

Legal or not, crypto or fiat it doesn't matter. There is only one thing that really matters and it is always the most important asset in every company, project, or startup - the people behind it.
It is always people first, not technology or legal papers first.

[isharci]

Traditional companies have the weight of the legal system behind them. If a company officer fails to act in its stakeholders interests the board can replace them. If the officers act illegally they can be prosecuted and put in jail. Crypto doesn't have those mechanisms to back it's arrangements. We're fucked if any of the projects decide to take the btc/eth and run, and there's nothing we can do about it. For crypto (which is supposed to be trustless) we really do have to place a lot of trust in the teams and projects that we are backing. I think that trust in itself warrants the generous terms we enjoy through the ICO process, but we give up a lot of legal protections by participating.

Regarding someone coming up with some mechanism for Iconomi to implement at the suggestion of the community regarding a way to assure investors, we still have to trust that the Iconomi team would implement it (assuming it's a rational and carefully thought out suggestion.)

When traditional investors invest in stocks and the company fails the courts sell the assets and pay out liabilities, and then investors. Yes they may lose money, but the actions are enforced the government.