DNotes 2.0 - Staking, CRISP Interest, DNotes Pay

[DNotes]

A short clip from Alan's interview with Adam Chapnick from ICOInvestor.tv. ICOInvestor.tv is fairly new to the industry and they are just getting started, so we don't know when or if this interview will air, but here is just a short segment from the interview.

https://youtu.be/TPMuX0vgBhE

[1715085684]

1715085684

[1715085684]

1715085684

[1715085684]

1715085684

[1715085684]

1715085684

[DNotes]

The US Department of Justice is reportedly considering action against rogue ICOs

https://www.businessinsider.com/icos-us-department-of-justice-considering-action-against-rogue-ico-2017-11

The US Department of Justice (DoJ) is considering taking action against "initial coin offerings" (ICOs), according to a report in the Financial Times.

It is clear that there are fraud cases and bad actors looking to exploit ICO in an attempt to use new technology as a loophole to the rules without getting an official exception. Especially after the attending the World Funding Summit it is clear that there are guidelines to raising money regardless of whether it is an ICO or a more traditional approach. So I am not surprised they are actively seeking cases of clear fraud and looking to send a clear message.

[Brandon Cheliak]

The US Department of Justice is reportedly considering action against rogue ICOs

https://www.businessinsider.com/icos-us-department-of-justice-considering-action-against-rogue-ico-2017-11

The US Department of Justice (DoJ) is considering taking action against "initial coin offerings" (ICOs), according to a report in the Financial Times.

It is clear that there are fraud cases and bad actors looking to exploit ICO in an attempt to use new technology as a loophole to the rules without getting an official exception. Especially after the attending the World Funding Summit it is clear that there are guidelines to raising money regardless of whether it is an ICO or a more traditional approach. So I am not surprised they are actively seeking cases of clear fraud and looking to send a clear message.

I have a conspirative hunch that a majority of fraudulent ICO's may be by a relatively small number of players. So maybe after authorities uncover a few cases of fraud, a whole web will be exposed. This will save legitimate players in the ICO sector a whole lot of headache in dealing with widespread regulatory crackdown. Although this may be wishful thinking, we can only hope.

[Brandon Cheliak]

A short clip from Alan's interview with Adam Chapnick from ICOInvestor.tv. ICOInvestor.tv is fairly new to the industry and they are just getting started, so we don't know when or if this interview will air, but here is just a short segment from the interview.

https://youtu.be/TPMuX0vgBhE

Great point in the video, I have a couple secondary questions on this (for anyone who feels like chiming in). There is some agreement in the industry that mass adoption will solve cryptocurrency's volatility. The problems I see in this are:

1) Any currency that has a severely restricted incoming supply would see prices absolutely skyrocket if there was a 'mass acceptance sized amount' of investment being pumped into the market, how could these currencies ever achieve stability once their growth period has ended?

2) Using fiat investment as the main driver of mass acceptance means that the exact same people who control most of the money now, will likely control cryptocurrency. Could this negate any chance there was at using cryptocurrency as a means of financial inclusion? People won't use cryptocurrency if it doesn't better their life, so why would they switch monetary systems if it's just going to put them further from the top?

[DNotes]

A short clip from Alan's interview with Adam Chapnick from ICOInvestor.tv. ICOInvestor.tv is fairly new to the industry and they are just getting started, so we don't know when or if this interview will air, but here is just a short segment from the interview.

https://youtu.be/TPMuX0vgBhE

Great point in the video, I have a couple secondary questions on this (for anyone who feels like chiming in). There is some agreement in the industry that mass adoption will solve cryptocurrency's volatility. The problems I see in this are:

1) Any currency that has a severely restricted incoming supply would see prices absolutely skyrocket if there was a 'mass acceptance sized amount' of investment being pumped into the market, how could these currencies ever achieve stability once their growth period has ended?

2) Using fiat investment as the main driver of mass acceptance means that the exact same people who control most of the money now, will likely control cryptocurrency. Could this negate any chance there was at using cryptocurrency as a means of financial inclusion? People won't use cryptocurrency if it doesn't better their life, so why would they switch monetary systems if it's just going to put them further from the top?

As long as the interest and demand grows, if no new currency is created, then it has to rely supply of people willing to sell. I believe you are correct that something like a bitcoin, as it stands today, it would be difficult if not impossible to achieve equilibrium and relative stability over the longer term. DNotes goal of stability is not a perfect level of value, but growing value slowly over time without disrupting day to day financial activity.

There are multiple issues in regards to financial inclusion. I think in terms of equal financial opportunity rather than strict equality or equality of outcome. Whether you start with very little money, should not impact your ability to grow at an equal rate as everyone else. We know that fiat will have less value over time, a savings account offers a negligible yield, investing in stocks can be risky and require specialized knowledge, not to mention the cost can far outweigh any gains when dealing with small amounts, among many other things that make it difficult for someone with not a lot of money to benefit from the financial system. But imagine if the value of your money could grow slowly over time, because value isn't extracted from the currency, along with a modest interest.

Whether or not someone enters the system with a lot of money, in a system like DNotes is creating, should have no impact on the individuals starting with very little ability to benefit from the system. I believe that is very different than the existing financial system, and benefits everyone.

[wiser]

Those are some very good questions, and ones that I hadn't thought of before.

At this point, anyone who gets involved with a cryptocurrency is an early adopter, and as such, will have early adopter advantage. I think that once cryptocurrencies truly go mainstream, it will be more difficult for people to put in small amounts of money and see their investments grow 100 times or more. However, I think that the next stage will be that people can use cryptocurrencies to buy stocks and things, and there will always be new ventures that people could invest in. I actually believe that some of the US regulations do make it more difficult for ordinary people who aren't wealthy to have access to some good investments. For example, recently there have been a number of ICOs launched in the US which will only allow accredited investors to participate. In that case, people like me are excluded and if they turned out to be good products, then I miss out on the financial opportunities. For this reason I am super excited about the micro-IPO provision that Dyna and the DNotes team discovered. That is seriously an amazing find!

When a coin starts getting adopted by a much wider group, the price will go up, but it will hit a point where people won't pay any more for it and then it will come down and eventually reach an equilibrium until another mass adoption event happens to push the price up. The secret here is to always have a good reason for someone to buy DNotes. If they didn't get in on the very first price hike, if it's a good project (which it is) then there will always be another price hike when it picks up a new market, and in between the price should be pretty stable I would think.

As for the current wealthy (hedge fund managers and the like) getting involved, I'm not too worried about them. Sure, it's great if you happen to be holding the coin that they're suddenly interested in. But if they're really buying your coin for their clients, that's a good time to take some profits, because I think they can pump the price a lot because they have plenty of money, and that pump is less sustainable than the kind of pump you get when your coin gets into a genuine new market, i.e., a new group of genuine adopters.

I obviously don't have a crystal ball, so no guarantee that any of this will actually happen. But that's how I see it. Ultimately, a coin will rise or fall on its fundamentals, and DNotes has some great ones. I tell people that DNotes currently is one of the most undervalued coins in existence. But honestly, all the coins that are good are very much undervalued because so few people (relatively speaking) even know about them.

[DNotes]

Those are some very good questions, and ones that I hadn't thought of before.

At this point, anyone who gets involved with a cryptocurrency is an early adopter, and as such, will have early adopter advantage. I think that once cryptocurrencies truly go mainstream, it will be more difficult for people to put in small amounts of money and see their investments grow 100 times or more. However, I think that the next stage will be that people can use cryptocurrencies to buy stocks and things, and there will always be new ventures that people could invest in. I actually believe that some of the US regulations do make it more difficult for ordinary people who aren't wealthy to have access to some good investments. For example, recently there have been a number of ICOs launched in the US which will only allow accredited investors to participate. In that case, people like me are excluded and if they turned out to be good products, then I miss out on the financial opportunities. For this reason I am super excited about the micro-IPO provision that Dyna and the DNotes team discovered. That is seriously an amazing find!

When a coin starts getting adopted by a much wider group, the price will go up, but it will hit a point where people won't pay any more for it and then it will come down and eventually reach an equilibrium until another mass adoption event happens to push the price up. The secret here is to always have a good reason for someone to buy DNotes. If they didn't get in on the very first price hike, if it's a good project (which it is) then there will always be another price hike when it picks up a new market, and in between the price should be pretty stable I would think.

As for the current wealthy (hedge fund managers and the like) getting involved, I'm not too worried about them. Sure, it's great if you happen to be holding the coin that they're suddenly interested in. But if they're really buying your coin for their clients, that's a good time to take some profits, because I think they can pump the price a lot because they have plenty of money, and that pump is less sustainable than the kind of pump you get when your coin gets into a genuine new market, i.e., a new group of genuine adopters.

I obviously don't have a crystal ball, so no guarantee that any of this will actually happen. But that's how I see it. Ultimately, a coin will rise or fall on its fundamentals, and DNotes has some great ones. I tell people that DNotes currently is one of the most undervalued coins in existence. But honestly, all the coins that are good are very much undervalued because so few people (relatively speaking) even know about them.

Thanks wiser, the mini-IPO is a great concept which allows for a much wider participation and flexibility. Alan is focused on identifying the best possible option for funding and navigating the legal framework that positions DNotes and DNotes Global Inc for the future.

You are absolutely correct, there is a lot of room to grow with this industry.

[kopes18]

Local Regulation of a Global Currency

I'm going to start with admitting I have absolutely no idea how China adjusted its cash liquidity in the article linked below. I'm hoping someone on this thread can shine some light on that, because it did not seem to devalue the CNY like printing cash would.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/chinas-liquid-injection-could-be-bitcoins-delight

But I certainly recognised the effect the article claims shutting down Chinese exchanges has had. kopes18 had already confirmed my suspicions that exchanges would have just moved their operations, but not their customer base:

Most exchanges in China have already moved outside, Hong Kong, Japan and so on.

This article adds to that by pointing out how China may have moved against exchanges to stop the outflow of capital. But instead of achieving it, their move has now moved profits to the countries that the exchanges have been forced to move to.

I find all this fascinating because before cryptocurrencies enabled true exchange of value regardless of country of origin, similar moves controlling the physical exchange of fiat currencies were much more successful. Certainly excessive control of fiat exchange plays into the hands of black markets. But the clear increase of risk works to dampen that trade. Whereas the inbuilt security of cryptocurrency makes dealing with markets outlawed by your own country much safer. Leaving your cryptocurrency in these exchanges is still a high risk proposition though.

So while it is clear that the disruptive effect of cryptocurrencies and their ability to transfer value much cheaper than banking services provide puts the old financial systems under pressure and into opposition. China's actions, as an early and effective controller, expose how futile government regulation will be. This is, in my opinion, likely to discourage the big banks from putting pressure on governments to regulate cryptocurrency to retain their own market advantage. And this leaves them the final option of funding and generating negative propaganda about the cryptocurrency industry instead. And as I see it, the coming collapse of many ICO ventures will give them plenty to write warnings about. Let's just see how effective they are at muddying the water between tokens and alt-currencies.

Hi TimMarsh, you seem very interested in China haha, yes of course for a crypto investor. And we already see the China regulation has less and less influence to Bitcoin, it truly become stronger, for me, also like a monster.

I don’t know much about the economy, but I will share with you the things as a normal citizen from what I see. During these years housing price grows a lot, especially in big city like Beijing. A lot people even put the money for running their company into real estate. This do absorb a lot cny. I can see the price rising each year. Just guessing the inflation could be 10% per year.

Whatever media said, a lot is wrong and with not good intentions. China is a developing country, it's changing but takes time and normally very slow. All I see the global economy is very dangerous for none dollar country.

I thing you mixed currency valuation and exchange rate. For example 1 usd = 6.5 cny. This is exchange rate, not a valuation. Exchange rate is set by Chinese government, not a free market decided. For evaluation is much more complicated, I don’t know, it relates to export import and many many thing. It’s very hard to evaluate only base on China dumping billions cny. What the article says is very subjective.

[TeeGee]

A short clip from Alan's interview with Adam Chapnick from ICOInvestor.tv. ICOInvestor.tv is fairly new to the industry and they are just getting started, so we don't know when or if this interview will air, but here is just a short segment from the interview.

https://youtu.be/TPMuX0vgBhE

Great point in the video, I have a couple secondary questions on this (for anyone who feels like chiming in). There is some agreement in the industry that mass adoption will solve cryptocurrency's volatility. The problems I see in this are:

1) Any currency that has a severely restricted incoming supply would see prices absolutely skyrocket if there was a 'mass acceptance sized amount' of investment being pumped into the market, how could these currencies ever achieve stability once their growth period has ended?

2) Using fiat investment as the main driver of mass acceptance means that the exact same people who control most of the money now, will likely control cryptocurrency. Could this negate any chance there was at using cryptocurrency as a means of financial inclusion? People won't use cryptocurrency if it doesn't better their life, so why would they switch monetary systems if it's just going to put them further from the top?

As long as the interest and demand grows, if no new currency is created, then it has to rely supply of people willing to sell. I believe you are correct that something like a bitcoin, as it stands today, it would be difficult if not impossible to achieve equilibrium and relative stability over the longer term. DNotes goal of stability is not a perfect level of value, but growing value slowly over time without disrupting day to day financial activity.

There are multiple issues in regards to financial inclusion. I think in terms of equal financial opportunity rather than strict equality or equality of outcome. Whether you start with very little money, should not impact your ability to grow at an equal rate as everyone else. We know that fiat will have less value over time, a savings account offers a negligible yield, investing in stocks can be risky and require specialized knowledge, not to mention the cost can far outweigh any gains when dealing with small amounts, among many other things that make it difficult for someone with not a lot of money to benefit from the financial system. But imagine if the value of your money could grow slowly over time, because value isn't extracted from the currency, along with a modest interest.

Whether or not someone enters the system with a lot of money, in a system like DNotes is creating, should have no impact on the individuals starting with very little ability to benefit from the system. I believe that is very different than the existing financial system, and benefits everyone.

I really liked the above post, and the direction that DNotes is taking in regards to growing its ecosystem and money supply.

A lot of people do draw attention to Bitcoin's deflationary nature, but what a lot of people forget is that inflation is not necessarily a bad thing. Back in the 1800s banks would often issue more bank notes to allow seasonal workers and farmers to have enough money during harvest seasons etc. When demand for tokens outstrips the supply, there shouldn't be much of an issue with more units coming into existence, and this is an issue Bitcoin may face.

The real issue with inflation is when it occurs without any sort of intrinsic value attached to it. It no longer works in the central bank world in my view because the dollar is an infinitely printed token that isn't backed by anything. Currency is, and should always be a reflection of value produced. Inflation becomes a dirty word when it occurs without any new value created to back the issue of the newly minted units. In crypto, the new money works as a liquidity vessel, and in the case of DNotes in particular, the tokens represent an ownership claim against DNotes Global -- a company whose modus operandi is to create value for DNotes currency.

It is only when we cross the rubicon, and money creation becomes a value-soaking activity, rather than a value-creation activity that a currency is done for. It is my view that we see this when it comes to Central Bank operated currencies who print money for their government's spending purposes, without any actual new value being created in line with the new tokens.

In contrast DNotes Global will be creating additional value into the DNotes currency with an array of business activities that include a storage vault, book and business subscription property, crypto news website, and hopefully soon a regulated digital currency exchange among other exciting things the mini-IPO will enable us to offer. I can see (some) issues with the deflationary nature in Bitcoin, and definitely others in the valueless inflation in current mainstream money. I think DNotes has the right approach.

Been very busy working lately, apologies for being quiet.

[Brandon Cheliak]

A short clip from Alan's interview with Adam Chapnick from ICOInvestor.tv. ICOInvestor.tv is fairly new to the industry and they are just getting started, so we don't know when or if this interview will air, but here is just a short segment from the interview.

https://youtu.be/TPMuX0vgBhE

Great point in the video, I have a couple secondary questions on this (for anyone who feels like chiming in). There is some agreement in the industry that mass adoption will solve cryptocurrency's volatility. The problems I see in this are:

1) Any currency that has a severely restricted incoming supply would see prices absolutely skyrocket if there was a 'mass acceptance sized amount' of investment being pumped into the market, how could these currencies ever achieve stability once their growth period has ended?

2) Using fiat investment as the main driver of mass acceptance means that the exact same people who control most of the money now, will likely control cryptocurrency. Could this negate any chance there was at using cryptocurrency as a means of financial inclusion? People won't use cryptocurrency if it doesn't better their life, so why would they switch monetary systems if it's just going to put them further from the top?

As long as the interest and demand grows, if no new currency is created, then it has to rely supply of people willing to sell. I believe you are correct that something like a bitcoin, as it stands today, it would be difficult if not impossible to achieve equilibrium and relative stability over the longer term. DNotes goal of stability is not a perfect level of value, but growing value slowly over time without disrupting day to day financial activity.

There are multiple issues in regards to financial inclusion. I think in terms of equal financial opportunity rather than strict equality or equality of outcome. Whether you start with very little money, should not impact your ability to grow at an equal rate as everyone else. We know that fiat will have less value over time, a savings account offers a negligible yield, investing in stocks can be risky and require specialized knowledge, not to mention the cost can far outweigh any gains when dealing with small amounts, among many other things that make it difficult for someone with not a lot of money to benefit from the financial system. But imagine if the value of your money could grow slowly over time, because value isn't extracted from the currency, along with a modest interest.

Whether or not someone enters the system with a lot of money, in a system like DNotes is creating, should have no impact on the individuals starting with very little ability to benefit from the system. I believe that is very different than the existing financial system, and benefits everyone.

I really liked the above post, and the direction that DNotes is taking in regards to growing its ecosystem and money supply.

A lot of people do draw attention to Bitcoin's deflationary nature, but what a lot of people forget is that inflation is not necessarily a bad thing. Back in the 1800s banks would often issue more bank notes to allow seasonal workers and farmers to have enough money during harvest seasons etc. When demand for tokens outstrips the supply, there shouldn't be much of an issue with more units coming into existence, and this is an issue Bitcoin may face.

The real issue with inflation is when it occurs without any sort of intrinsic value attached to it. It no longer works in the central bank world in my view because the dollar is an infinitely printed token that isn't backed by anything. Currency is, and should always be a reflection of value produced. Inflation becomes a dirty word when it occurs without any new value created to back the issue of the newly minted units. In crypto, the new money works as a liquidity vessel, and in the case of DNotes in particular, the tokens represent an ownership claim against DNotes Global -- a company whose modus operandi is to create value for DNotes currency.

It is only when we cross the rubicon, and money creation becomes a value-soaking activity, rather than a value-creation activity that a currency is done for. It is my view that we see this when it comes to Central Bank operated currencies who print money for their government's spending purposes, without any actual new value being created in line with the new tokens.

In contrast DNotes Global will be creating additional value into the DNotes currency with an array of business activities that include a storage vault, book and business subscription property, crypto news website, and hopefully soon a regulated digital currency exchange among other exciting things the mini-IPO will enable us to offer. I can see (some) issues with the deflationary nature in Bitcoin, and definitely others in the valueless inflation in current mainstream money. I think DNotes has the right approach.

Been very busy working lately, apologies for being quiet.

Great answers guys, exact same line of thought as I had followed, albeit in much better detail.

[DNotes]

A short clip from Alan's interview with Adam Chapnick from ICOInvestor.tv. ICOInvestor.tv is fairly new to the industry and they are just getting started, so we don't know when or if this interview will air, but here is just a short segment from the interview.

https://youtu.be/TPMuX0vgBhE

Great point in the video, I have a couple secondary questions on this (for anyone who feels like chiming in). There is some agreement in the industry that mass adoption will solve cryptocurrency's volatility. The problems I see in this are:

1) Any currency that has a severely restricted incoming supply would see prices absolutely skyrocket if there was a 'mass acceptance sized amount' of investment being pumped into the market, how could these currencies ever achieve stability once their growth period has ended?

2) Using fiat investment as the main driver of mass acceptance means that the exact same people who control most of the money now, will likely control cryptocurrency. Could this negate any chance there was at using cryptocurrency as a means of financial inclusion? People won't use cryptocurrency if it doesn't better their life, so why would they switch monetary systems if it's just going to put them further from the top?

As long as the interest and demand grows, if no new currency is created, then it has to rely supply of people willing to sell. I believe you are correct that something like a bitcoin, as it stands today, it would be difficult if not impossible to achieve equilibrium and relative stability over the longer term. DNotes goal of stability is not a perfect level of value, but growing value slowly over time without disrupting day to day financial activity.

There are multiple issues in regards to financial inclusion. I think in terms of equal financial opportunity rather than strict equality or equality of outcome. Whether you start with very little money, should not impact your ability to grow at an equal rate as everyone else. We know that fiat will have less value over time, a savings account offers a negligible yield, investing in stocks can be risky and require specialized knowledge, not to mention the cost can far outweigh any gains when dealing with small amounts, among many other things that make it difficult for someone with not a lot of money to benefit from the financial system. But imagine if the value of your money could grow slowly over time, because value isn't extracted from the currency, along with a modest interest.

Whether or not someone enters the system with a lot of money, in a system like DNotes is creating, should have no impact on the individuals starting with very little ability to benefit from the system. I believe that is very different than the existing financial system, and benefits everyone.

I really liked the above post, and the direction that DNotes is taking in regards to growing its ecosystem and money supply.

A lot of people do draw attention to Bitcoin's deflationary nature, but what a lot of people forget is that inflation is not necessarily a bad thing. Back in the 1800s banks would often issue more bank notes to allow seasonal workers and farmers to have enough money during harvest seasons etc. When demand for tokens outstrips the supply, there shouldn't be much of an issue with more units coming into existence, and this is an issue Bitcoin may face.

The real issue with inflation is when it occurs without any sort of intrinsic value attached to it. It no longer works in the central bank world in my view because the dollar is an infinitely printed token that isn't backed by anything. Currency is, and should always be a reflection of value produced. Inflation becomes a dirty word when it occurs without any new value created to back the issue of the newly minted units. In crypto, the new money works as a liquidity vessel, and in the case of DNotes in particular, the tokens represent an ownership claim against DNotes Global -- a company whose modus operandi is to create value for DNotes currency.

It is only when we cross the rubicon, and money creation becomes a value-soaking activity, rather than a value-creation activity that a currency is done for. It is my view that we see this when it comes to Central Bank operated currencies who print money for their government's spending purposes, without any actual new value being created in line with the new tokens.

In contrast DNotes Global will be creating additional value into the DNotes currency with an array of business activities that include a storage vault, book and business subscription property, crypto news website, and hopefully soon a regulated digital currency exchange among other exciting things the mini-IPO will enable us to offer. I can see (some) issues with the deflationary nature in Bitcoin, and definitely others in the valueless inflation in current mainstream money. I think DNotes has the right approach.

Been very busy working lately, apologies for being quiet.

Great answers guys, exact same line of thought as I had followed, albeit in much better detail.

This conversation reminds me of the need for financial and investment education especially when it comes to cryptocurrency. It is another piece of the financial inclusion puzzle. There is a lot to know, how the different financial systems are configured and the impact it has on the individual, how to research your investments, understanding risk and risk management. Cryptocurrency and blockchain have opened a whole new category of finance and investment.

[DCEBrief]

SNB Chairman Views Cryptocurrency as Investment, Not Currency

https://dcebrief.com/snb-chairman-views-cryptocurrency-as-investment-not-currency/

[Chase]

It's all so obvious in hindsight:


The Dot-Com Bubble Bursts:  New York Times - December 24, 2000

A year ago Americans could hardly run an errand without picking up a stock tip. Day-trading manuals were selling briskly. Neighbors were speaking a foreign tongue, carrying on about B2B's and praising the likes of JDS Uniphase and Qualcomm. Venture capital firms were throwing money at any and all dot-coms to help them build market share, never mind whether they could ever be profitable. It was a brave new era, in which more than a dozen fledgling dot-coms that nobody had ever heard of could pay $2 million of other people's money for a Super Bowl commercial.

What a difference a year makes. The Nasdaq sank. Stock tips have been replaced with talk of recession. Many pioneering dot-coms are out of business or barely surviving. The Dow Jones Internet Index, made up of dot-com blue chips, is down more than 72 percent since March. Online retailers Priceline and eToys, former Wall Street darlings, have seen their stock prices fall more than 99 percent from their highs.

Unlike the worrisome decline in the stock prices of solidly grounded technology firms due to a slowdown in profits, the sharper plunge taken by some of the trendy Internet companies that had no earnings in the first place has proved comforting to those who believe in the rationality of markets. After all, many of them lacked one key asset -- a sensible business plan. Even the most traditional brokers and investment banks set aside the notion that a company's stock price should reflect its profits and urged investors not to miss out on the gold rush. At the craze's zenith, Priceline, the money-losing online ticket seller, was worth more than the airlines that provided its inventory.

The current sense of despair in the dot-com universe may be as overdone as last year's euphoria. The Internet, after all, really is a transforming technology that has revolutionized the way we communicate. What recent months suggest, however, is that it may not be an indiscriminate, magical new means of making money.

Woeful tales of visionary innovators failing to capitalize on their revolutionary new technology are not new. The advent of railroads, the automobile and radio, to name other watershed innovations in history, also led to many a shattered dream. The number of failed auto makers far exceeded the number that ultimately succeeded.

In this holiday season, the financial implosion of so many dot-com retailers seems particularly cruel. It is not as if consumers do not appreciate shopping online. Online sales this season are expected to be about two-thirds greater than last year. But it is not the innovators who are reaping all the benefits. Online retailers are losing market share to the likes of Wal-Mart and Kmart. This holiday season, online sales of traditional retailers, initially hesitant to embrace the Web, will outpace those of the pure dot-coms for the first time.

The endearing Pets.com sock puppet is a fitting mascot for the demise of the dot-com mania. Less than a year ago the spokesdog for the online pet-supply retailer was starring in some of those $2 million Super Bowl commercials. Now, in the wake of his master's bankruptcy, he is looking to shill for another company -- one that can actually make money.

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/24/opinion/the-dot-com-bubble-bursts.html

[DNotes]

It's all so obvious in hindsight:


The Dot-Com Bubble Bursts:  New York Times - December 24, 2000

A year ago Americans could hardly run an errand without picking up a stock tip. Day-trading manuals were selling briskly. Neighbors were speaking a foreign tongue, carrying on about B2B's and praising the likes of JDS Uniphase and Qualcomm. Venture capital firms were throwing money at any and all dot-coms to help them build market share, never mind whether they could ever be profitable. It was a brave new era, in which more than a dozen fledgling dot-coms that nobody had ever heard of could pay $2 million of other people's money for a Super Bowl commercial.

What a difference a year makes. The Nasdaq sank. Stock tips have been replaced with talk of recession. Many pioneering dot-coms are out of business or barely surviving. The Dow Jones Internet Index, made up of dot-com blue chips, is down more than 72 percent since March. Online retailers Priceline and eToys, former Wall Street darlings, have seen their stock prices fall more than 99 percent from their highs.

Unlike the worrisome decline in the stock prices of solidly grounded technology firms due to a slowdown in profits, the sharper plunge taken by some of the trendy Internet companies that had no earnings in the first place has proved comforting to those who believe in the rationality of markets. After all, many of them lacked one key asset -- a sensible business plan. Even the most traditional brokers and investment banks set aside the notion that a company's stock price should reflect its profits and urged investors not to miss out on the gold rush. At the craze's zenith, Priceline, the money-losing online ticket seller, was worth more than the airlines that provided its inventory.

The current sense of despair in the dot-com universe may be as overdone as last year's euphoria. The Internet, after all, really is a transforming technology that has revolutionized the way we communicate. What recent months suggest, however, is that it may not be an indiscriminate, magical new means of making money.

Woeful tales of visionary innovators failing to capitalize on their revolutionary new technology are not new. The advent of railroads, the automobile and radio, to name other watershed innovations in history, also led to many a shattered dream. The number of failed auto makers far exceeded the number that ultimately succeeded.

In this holiday season, the financial implosion of so many dot-com retailers seems particularly cruel. It is not as if consumers do not appreciate shopping online. Online sales this season are expected to be about two-thirds greater than last year. But it is not the innovators who are reaping all the benefits. Online retailers are losing market share to the likes of Wal-Mart and Kmart. This holiday season, online sales of traditional retailers, initially hesitant to embrace the Web, will outpace those of the pure dot-coms for the first time.

The endearing Pets.com sock puppet is a fitting mascot for the demise of the dot-com mania. Less than a year ago the spokesdog for the online pet-supply retailer was starring in some of those $2 million Super Bowl commercials. Now, in the wake of his master's bankruptcy, he is looking to shill for another company -- one that can actually make money.

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/24/opinion/the-dot-com-bubble-bursts.html

Great find Chase, thanks for sharing. It highlights some important lessons learned from our history that can be applied to cryptocurrency.

[DNotes]

The next series of Four Pillars of Business Success videos are now available.

Chapter 5 - Strategy

https://youtu.be/2fMOWZzES0M

Strategy and Course-Correction https://youtu.be/5Oww52110xE

How Can You Recognize When Your Strategy is Failing? https://youtu.be/yXmQ4DdSj0s

Strategy: Who’s in Charge, Anyway? https://youtu.be/kZnZFfsxR0I

[Dyna]

It's all so obvious in hindsight:


The Dot-Com Bubble Bursts:  New York Times - December 24, 2000

A year ago Americans could hardly run an errand without picking up a stock tip. Day-trading manuals were selling briskly. Neighbors were speaking a foreign tongue, carrying on about B2B's and praising the likes of JDS Uniphase and Qualcomm. Venture capital firms were throwing money at any and all dot-coms to help them build market share, never mind whether they could ever be profitable. It was a brave new era, in which more than a dozen fledgling dot-coms that nobody had ever heard of could pay $2 million of other people's money for a Super Bowl commercial.

What a difference a year makes. The Nasdaq sank. Stock tips have been replaced with talk of recession. Many pioneering dot-coms are out of business or barely surviving. The Dow Jones Internet Index, made up of dot-com blue chips, is down more than 72 percent since March. Online retailers Priceline and eToys, former Wall Street darlings, have seen their stock prices fall more than 99 percent from their highs.

Unlike the worrisome decline in the stock prices of solidly grounded technology firms due to a slowdown in profits, the sharper plunge taken by some of the trendy Internet companies that had no earnings in the first place has proved comforting to those who believe in the rationality of markets. After all, many of them lacked one key asset -- a sensible business plan. Even the most traditional brokers and investment banks set aside the notion that a company's stock price should reflect its profits and urged investors not to miss out on the gold rush. At the craze's zenith, Priceline, the money-losing online ticket seller, was worth more than the airlines that provided its inventory.

The current sense of despair in the dot-com universe may be as overdone as last year's euphoria. The Internet, after all, really is a transforming technology that has revolutionized the way we communicate. What recent months suggest, however, is that it may not be an indiscriminate, magical new means of making money.

Woeful tales of visionary innovators failing to capitalize on their revolutionary new technology are not new. The advent of railroads, the automobile and radio, to name other watershed innovations in history, also led to many a shattered dream. The number of failed auto makers far exceeded the number that ultimately succeeded.

In this holiday season, the financial implosion of so many dot-com retailers seems particularly cruel. It is not as if consumers do not appreciate shopping online. Online sales this season are expected to be about two-thirds greater than last year. But it is not the innovators who are reaping all the benefits. Online retailers are losing market share to the likes of Wal-Mart and Kmart. This holiday season, online sales of traditional retailers, initially hesitant to embrace the Web, will outpace those of the pure dot-coms for the first time.

The endearing Pets.com sock puppet is a fitting mascot for the demise of the dot-com mania. Less than a year ago the spokesdog for the online pet-supply retailer was starring in some of those $2 million Super Bowl commercials. Now, in the wake of his master's bankruptcy, he is looking to shill for another company -- one that can actually make money.

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/24/opinion/the-dot-com-bubble-bursts.html

Wow, that was over 17 years ago. Thanks for the reminder, Chase. That was an expensive lesson for some, but already forgotten by most.

But then, every lesson is different, and it may even come with a different price tag. My advice - don't give up, keep learning and learn to differentiate investments of substance from pipe-dreams. Always do your home and invest with caution. 

[Dyna]

A short clip from Alan's interview with Adam Chapnick from ICOInvestor.tv. ICOInvestor.tv is fairly new to the industry and they are just getting started, so we don't know when or if this interview will air, but here is just a short segment from the interview.

https://youtu.be/TPMuX0vgBhE

Great point in the video, I have a couple secondary questions on this (for anyone who feels like chiming in). There is some agreement in the industry that mass adoption will solve cryptocurrency's volatility. The problems I see in this are:

1) Any currency that has a severely restricted incoming supply would see prices absolutely skyrocket if there was a 'mass acceptance sized amount' of investment being pumped into the market, how could these currencies ever achieve stability once their growth period has ended?

2) Using fiat investment as the main driver of mass acceptance means that the exact same people who control most of the money now, will likely control cryptocurrency. Could this negate any chance there was at using cryptocurrency as a means of financial inclusion? People won't use cryptocurrency if it doesn't better their life, so why would they switch monetary systems if it's just going to put them further from the top?

As long as the interest and demand grows, if no new currency is created, then it has to rely supply of people willing to sell. I believe you are correct that something like a bitcoin, as it stands today, it would be difficult if not impossible to achieve equilibrium and relative stability over the longer term. DNotes goal of stability is not a perfect level of value, but growing value slowly over time without disrupting day to day financial activity.

There are multiple issues in regards to financial inclusion. I think in terms of equal financial opportunity rather than strict equality or equality of outcome. Whether you start with very little money, should not impact your ability to grow at an equal rate as everyone else. We know that fiat will have less value over time, a savings account offers a negligible yield, investing in stocks can be risky and require specialized knowledge, not to mention the cost can far outweigh any gains when dealing with small amounts, among many other things that make it difficult for someone with not a lot of money to benefit from the financial system. But imagine if the value of your money could grow slowly over time, because value isn't extracted from the currency, along with a modest interest.

Whether or not someone enters the system with a lot of money, in a system like DNotes is creating, should have no impact on the individuals starting with very little ability to benefit from the system. I believe that is very different than the existing financial system, and benefits everyone.

I really liked the above post, and the direction that DNotes is taking in regards to growing its ecosystem and money supply.

A lot of people do draw attention to Bitcoin's deflationary nature, but what a lot of people forget is that inflation is not necessarily a bad thing. Back in the 1800s banks would often issue more bank notes to allow seasonal workers and farmers to have enough money during harvest seasons etc. When demand for tokens outstrips the supply, there shouldn't be much of an issue with more units coming into existence, and this is an issue Bitcoin may face.

The real issue with inflation is when it occurs without any sort of intrinsic value attached to it. It no longer works in the central bank world in my view because the dollar is an infinitely printed token that isn't backed by anything. Currency is, and should always be a reflection of value produced. Inflation becomes a dirty word when it occurs without any new value created to back the issue of the newly minted units. In crypto, the new money works as a liquidity vessel, and in the case of DNotes in particular, the tokens represent an ownership claim against DNotes Global -- a company whose modus operandi is to create value for DNotes currency.

It is only when we cross the rubicon, and money creation becomes a value-soaking activity, rather than a value-creation activity that a currency is done for. It is my view that we see this when it comes to Central Bank operated currencies who print money for their government's spending purposes, without any actual new value being created in line with the new tokens.

In contrast DNotes Global will be creating additional value into the DNotes currency with an array of business activities that include a storage vault, book and business subscription property, crypto news website, and hopefully soon a regulated digital currency exchange among other exciting things the mini-IPO will enable us to offer. I can see (some) issues with the deflationary nature in Bitcoin, and definitely others in the valueless inflation in current mainstream money. I think DNotes has the right approach.

Been very busy working lately, apologies for being quiet.

Thanks, TeeGee. Excellent explanation.

One of our core missions is to make DNotes accessible to everyone worldwide as savings for the future and and subsequently as a medium of exchange in global commerce.

[Dyna]

Those are some very good questions, and ones that I hadn't thought of before.

At this point, anyone who gets involved with a cryptocurrency is an early adopter, and as such, will have early adopter advantage. I think that once cryptocurrencies truly go mainstream, it will be more difficult for people to put in small amounts of money and see their investments grow 100 times or more. However, I think that the next stage will be that people can use cryptocurrencies to buy stocks and things, and there will always be new ventures that people could invest in. I actually believe that some of the US regulations do make it more difficult for ordinary people who aren't wealthy to have access to some good investments. For example, recently there have been a number of ICOs launched in the US which will only allow accredited investors to participate. In that case, people like me are excluded and if they turned out to be good products, then I miss out on the financial opportunities. For this reason I am super excited about the micro-IPO provision that Dyna and the DNotes team discovered. That is seriously an amazing find!

When a coin starts getting adopted by a much wider group, the price will go up, but it will hit a point where people won't pay any more for it and then it will come down and eventually reach an equilibrium until another mass adoption event happens to push the price up. The secret here is to always have a good reason for someone to buy DNotes. If they didn't get in on the very first price hike, if it's a good project (which it is) then there will always be another price hike when it picks up a new market, and in between the price should be pretty stable I would think.

As for the current wealthy (hedge fund managers and the like) getting involved, I'm not too worried about them. Sure, it's great if you happen to be holding the coin that they're suddenly interested in. But if they're really buying your coin for their clients, that's a good time to take some profits, because I think they can pump the price a lot because they have plenty of money, and that pump is less sustainable than the kind of pump you get when your coin gets into a genuine new market, i.e., a new group of genuine adopters.

I obviously don't have a crystal ball, so no guarantee that any of this will actually happen. But that's how I see it. Ultimately, a coin will rise or fall on its fundamentals, and DNotes has some great ones. I tell people that DNotes currently is one of the most undervalued coins in existence. But honestly, all the coins that are good are very much undervalued because so few people (relatively speaking) even know about them.

Thanks, wiser. Let me share your quote:

"I actually believe that some of the US regulations do make it more difficult for ordinary people who aren't wealthy to have access to some good investments. For example, recently there have been a number of ICOs launched in the US which will only allow accredited investors to participate. In that case, people like me are excluded and if they turned out to be good products, then I miss out on the financial opportunities. For this reason I am super excited about the micro-IPO provision that Dyna and the DNotes team discovered. That is seriously an amazing find!"

Yes, "some of the US regulations do make it more difficult for ordinary people who aren't wealthy to have access to some good investments." We did consider taking that route using Reg D Rule 506 (c). It will allow us to raise unlimited amount from verified accredited investors. But the small investors (unaccredited investors) are left out. Unfortunately, this is becoming very popular on the heels of ICOs conundrum.

Most people are not aware that the tokens purchased in ICO sales have no ownership or voting rights to the company that received all the money. Again, “He who holds the gold makes the rules.” And they are seldom in the best interest of small investors.

I have been following the Jobs Act of 2012 closely and as a strategic positioning, we incorporated DNotes Global, Inc. on April 1, 2016. After significant research and serious considerations, we have been quite conclusive that our best funding program is one that is accessible to all interested investors worldwide, without excluding the non-accredited investors; and possibly without involving registered intermediaries. It can be done, but quite challenging and with a lot of demanding work.

Regulation A+ Mini IPO Title IV Tier 2 allows growth stage company like DNotes Global, Inc. to raise up to $50 selling it securities within a 12-month period subject to eligibility, disclosure, and reporting requirements including audited financial statements. It allows general solicitation and marketing worldwide to both accredited and non-accredited investors with a limit of 10% of annual income or net worth, whichever is greater.

Additionally, when qualified the company’s shares can be listed on OTCQX thereby creating a secondary market. That is a great option for those investors who need an early exit strategy.  

I certainly hope that more of DNotes stakeholders are beginning to connect the dots as to why our path is so different and strategic. We believe that for DNotes to be truly successful over the long-term and gain mass acceptance it must have an entity or group of individuals with sufficient self-interest to promote and protect the best interest of DNotes.

DNotes Global, Inc. is that entity. We are all those “individuals” by extension of owning DNotes. I trust that many of our stakeholders will support our efforts once they connected the dots.

[Chase]

It's great to see this type of 'DNotes thinking' finally being recognized as what the industry needs to succeed.


Cryptocurrency tech needs a proper ecosystem to realize its true potential

"Cryptocurrencies and related distributed technologies need a proper ecosystem to become a significant and meaningful part of the finance ecosystem..."

https://disruptive.asia/cryptocurrency-needs-proper-ecosystem/

[DNotes]

It's great to see this type of 'DNotes thinking' finally being recognized as what the industry needs to succeed.


Cryptocurrency tech needs a proper ecosystem to realize its true potential

"Cryptocurrencies and related distributed technologies need a proper ecosystem to become a significant and meaningful part of the finance ecosystem..."

https://disruptive.asia/cryptocurrency-needs-proper-ecosystem/

Agreed, this paragraph caught my attention.

To be clear, I fundamentally believe these new solutions and models can change the entire finance ecosystem. And obviously, we cannot expect to create the whole new ecosystem overnight. At the same time, it is crucial to understand the need to have a properly working ecosystem, some ideas on how to develop it and find the fundamental missing links.