[DVC]DevCoin - Official Thread - Moderated

[weisoq]

Because those who've earned them them are selling at lower and lower prices - implying that many value their efforts and those of others at a (far) lower level than that initially paid, or where they perceived that payment level to be. It's probably better this happens asap as gives a indicative clearing level of the value of e.g. writings by writers, and therefore I hope a means of re-assessing sustainable payments and shares.

That's the classic theory - in practice I think people are operating on fear and panic. They fear they'll get nothing if they wait to sell, so they sell. I've held onto all mine and sometimes I wonder if I'm a mug. Then I console myself with the thought that when fear and capitulation are greatest, that's when the market turns...

That may be true, but it doesn't really matter - it still implies shares for one or more projects (or perception of them) were overpriced else instead of selling on fear and panic at that price those people would be buying up the sales of others' efforts.

[weisoq]

I've held on to the vast majority of mine as well. Any that I did sell were at the high point of the market. Once it dropped below 82 (which was the highest I've personally seen) I pulled the orders I had up and I've been holding since.

The way I see it, the risk vs. reward of holding is much greater than doing panic selling at a fraction of the profitability. The only issue I have is that I think it may drop more from day to day before it hits the bottom... and even selling at 48 and buying at 47 when you have millions of coins boosts your holdings considerably!

I agree. This is one problem with apportioning such significant shares to potentially short-term individual work; it becomes quite straightforward to play around with the orderbook in fairly illiquid markets for personal short-term gain. There's nothing wrong with that - it's kind of the deal with paying somebody that you should relinquish the power to determine how they spend/sell - but with no necessary longer-term tie-in it undermines the rationale for the original broader compensation method, unless it's actually used as a means of establishing the true value of an effort.

Edit: as Icoin point out anyway, the exchange price is not necessarily indicative of devcoin's future at all - the volume of dvc on say vircurex is a very small fraction of total held and an interim lower price may work to the advantage of other projects.

[alyssa85]

Because those who've earned them them are selling at lower and lower prices - implying that many value their efforts and those of others at a (far) lower level than that initially paid, or where they perceived that payment level to be. It's probably better this happens asap as gives a indicative clearing level of the value of e.g. writings by writers, and therefore I hope a means of re-assessing sustainable payments and shares.

That's the classic theory - in practice I think people are operating on fear and panic. They fear they'll get nothing if they wait to sell, so they sell. I've held onto all mine and sometimes I wonder if I'm a mug. Then I console myself with the thought that when fear and capitulation are greatest, that's when the market turns...

That may be true, but it doesn't really matter - it still implies shares for one or more projects (or perception of them) were overpriced else instead of selling on fear and panic at that price those people would be buying up the sales of others' efforts.

Well we can always experiment with the price. How about in the next writing round, the pay is half a share per 1000 words. We can then assess whether there is the same dumping. If dumping stops and the price rises, we can declare a success and keep it at half a share per thousand words. I'm all for it. Half a share at 148 satoshis per devcoin is worth much more than a full share at 47 satoshis per devcoin.

What do we need to do to make this happen?

[ranlo]

Because those who've earned them them are selling at lower and lower prices - implying that many value their efforts and those of others at a (far) lower level than that initially paid, or where they perceived that payment level to be. It's probably better this happens asap as gives a indicative clearing level of the value of e.g. writings by writers, and therefore I hope a means of re-assessing sustainable payments and shares.

That's the classic theory - in practice I think people are operating on fear and panic. They fear they'll get nothing if they wait to sell, so they sell. I've held onto all mine and sometimes I wonder if I'm a mug. Then I console myself with the thought that when fear and capitulation are greatest, that's when the market turns...

That may be true, but it doesn't really matter - it still implies shares for one or more projects (or perception of them) were overpriced else instead of selling on fear and panic at that price those people would be buying up the sales of others' efforts.

Well we can always experiment with the price. How about in the next writing round, the pay is half a share per 1000 words. We can then assess whether there is the same dumping. If dumping stops and the price rises, we can declare a success and keep it at half a share per thousand words. I'm all for it. Half a share at 148 satoshis per devcoin is worth much more than a full share at 47 satoshis per devcoin.

What do we need to do to make this happen?

I don't want to call out anyone publicly but what I will say is that the tanking price occurred after a single specific event: someone dumped over 20 million coins on the market on their own, tackling the big buy walls that were already up. This is what caused the downward spiral and the "panic selling" we are seeing, and is what has killed the price for the time being. It wasn't a large group of people, it was a single one.

Now, with that said, I think the current reward system is good. People just need to start paying more attention to what they're doing before they make drastic decisions.

[weisoq]

Well we can always experiment with the price. How about in the next writing round, the pay is half a share per 1000 words. We can then assess whether there is the same dumping. If dumping stops and the price rises, we can declare a success and keep it at half a share per thousand words. I'm all for it. Half a share at 148 satoshis per devcoin is worth much more than a full share at 47 satoshis per devcoin.

What do we need to do to make this happen?

I don't think that's what it's about. If it was simply a matter of say halving the share payout to achieve the levels you refer to, by now with a price that has more than halved that end point would already have been reached. As devtome became more popular the share payout was always going to find an equilibrium value via the dvc/btc price amongst those transacting on exchange - that's what its doing and at this point it may be best to leave the value discovery alone to see where it ends. The bigger issue is that I think many authors ascribe near-zero added value to their writings being on devtome, and therefore it's difficult to begin ascribing any value to anybody else in supporting the price for the sake of those same writings. That’s not a statement on general writing quality (any quality issues can and will be addressed over time), or all writing, but that by for example rewarding writing that has already been compensated for and/or assessed via publishing or blogs or college or school etc there’s an incentive mismatch.

i.e. if I’ve already been paid for work, and/or an assessment process has already deemed my work to be of a certain value and so I’ve already been rewarded for it (be that in terms of money, notoriety, qualification, pride) I’m incentivised to view any additional payment for the same effort as superfluous and cash it in asap before the opportunity ends.

So if it was up to me - and it isn't up to me - I'd probably either have a small nominal payment for time submitting/editing entries or no payment at all - and let writings and writers stand on their own merits. If successful that would likely catalyse more interest in monetising it by those submitting and serve as a largely self-administered quality check. Alternatively nobody would submit anything and we could better appreciate the distinction between paid in dvc and supporting dvc. Either way it would increase the proportion for other projects, bounties and incentives - perhaps creating a self-reinforcing cycle of greater value for a greater number of interests. To give greater value to devcoins and devtome, people need to have a reason to acquire them at a cost - be that monetary or labour or time - the essence of working.

[markm]

They have gone down to thirty-something satoshis per DeVCoin in the past, then back to over 200 maybe even 300.

But maybe nowadays the vast majority of the people receiving stipends are dumpers. Maybe in the past most dumpers were one-shot bounty recipients not people getting coins every round.

Still, we haven't even gone back down to the thirty-something buying-opportunity yet that we've seen before so hey if people want to dump them cheap that is more cheap coins for people to buy, right?

I am waiting for even cheaper prices before increasing my buying though, right now I still just have my same old offers at every satoshi of price that have been there all along.

-MarkM-

[ranlo]

They have gone down to thirty-something satoshis per DeVCoin in the past, then back to over 200 maybe even 300.

But maybe nowadays the vast majority of the people receiving stipends are dumpers. maybe in the past most dumpers were one-shot bounty recipients not people getting coins every round.

Still, we haven't even gone back down to the thirty-something buying-opportunity yet that we've seen before so hey if people want to dump them cheap that is more cheap coins for people to buy, right?

I am waiting for even cheaper prices before increasing my buying though, right now I still just have my same old offers at every satoshi of price that have been there all along.

-MarkM-

Ahhh, so this is normal? I think part of what is causing the dumping (other than the 20m from a single person) is how many people got shares the last round. At almost 1.5k shares across tons of people... those who got a few shares likely throw theirs up for sale because they don't feel it's worth holding since they won't accumulate more. It's possible that once this pay round ends, it will slow down on the selling end.

[wiser]

I don't want to call out anyone publicly but what I will say is that the tanking price occurred after a single specific event: someone dumped over 20 million coins on the market on their own, tackling the big buy walls that were already up. This is what caused the downward spiral and the "panic selling" we are seeing, and is what has killed the price for the time being. It wasn't a large group of people, it was a single one.

Now, with that said, I think the current reward system is good. People just need to start paying more attention to what they're doing before they make drastic decisions.

Perhaps the guy who dumped the 20 million is planning to rebuy them all when the price drops to 35 sat...

I agree with Ranlo that we should leave the reward system as is.  That's what we agreed to as writers.  What we do with our earnings is up to us.  Personally, I use my DVC to better my life.  For me, DVC will become more valuable as more options to use them (without having to first trade them) to better my life open up.  People who develop such opportunities are welcome to promote them to me.

[weisoq]

Maybe expand the Devcoin ecosystem. A couple of suggestions, not well thought out and some obvious flaws:

Allow anyone with DVC to issue bounties.
Offer subsidies on items or services priced in DVC and relevant to development projects.

Something else worth considering, Devcoin may fall outside regulatory definitions for currencies in places where Bitcoin's feeling regulatory pressure. In that case fiat donations to a system that promotes open source development could be a more open route to the Bitcoin ecosystem. Risky but I think its plausible.

I can’t see why anyone or group with dvc can’t already offer bounties. In fact that seems like a pretty straightforward solution or process for those with ideas or frustrations with particular aspects but without the technical expertise to do it themselves.

Ranlo – I know what you’re referring to. The problem with that perspective in isolation is (1) The price had already been falling for some time (whether just in trend with other cryptos, or dvc specific) (2) that the seller(s) sold into a wall is perhaps better than if they had just sold right down the orderbook. Those with dvc have the right to sell them, even if it’s just to buy them back cheaper via trying to provoke a capitulation, so rather than appealing to justness perhaps it’s better to simply ask why there has been more selling pressure than buying.

Wiser - that's fine, but then people (not referring to anybody in particular, including you) shouldn't complain about the price, lack of incentive to initiate or develop upon other projects at that price, or any resulting dearth of bid interest.

[ranlo]

Maybe expand the Devcoin ecosystem. A couple of suggestions, not well thought out and some obvious flaws:

Allow anyone with DVC to issue bounties.
Offer subsidies on items or services priced in DVC and relevant to development projects.

Something else worth considering, Devcoin may fall outside regulatory definitions for currencies in places where Bitcoin's feeling regulatory pressure. In that case fiat donations to a system that promotes open source development could be a more open route to the Bitcoin ecosystem. Risky but I think its plausible.

I can’t see why anyone or group with dvc can’t already offer bounties. In fact that seems like a pretty straightforward solution or process for those with ideas or frustrations with particular aspects but without the technical expertise to do it themselves.

Ranlo – I know what you’re referring to. The problem with that perspective in isolation is (1) The price had already been falling for some time (whether just in trend with other cryptos, or dvc specific) (2) that the seller(s) sold into a wall is perhaps better than if they had just sold right down the orderbook. Those with dvc have the right to sell them, even if it’s just to buy them back cheaper via trying to provoke a capitulation, so rather than appealing to justness perhaps it’s better to simply ask why there has been more selling pressure than buying.

Wiser - that's fine, but then people (not referring to anybody in particular, including you) shouldn't complain about the price, lack of incentive to initiate or develop upon other projects at that price, or any resulting dearth of bid interest.

Why there hasn't been more buying pressure is an easy one to answer: there is no true value to DVC outside of converting it to BTC. At least as of now.

A market, while it would help with some of this, would lead to the same general issue: if I want to sell something for $100 each... I have to get the money somewhere. So I sell for DVC, then sell the DVC to get money so I can get more items to sell.

A game would be different, in that you don't necessarily need to keep converting to fiat to keep the ball rolling. For example, take Facebook's credits (or any F2P game for that matter). There are millions of dollars being poured into the fake currencies to be used in the game. This is what we really need -- something that gives the DVC true value without requiring us to keep cycling it straight back to fiat just to sustain the process.

[weisoq]

Why there hasn't been more buying pressure is an easy one to answer: there is no true value to DVC outside of converting it to BTC. At least as of now.

A market, while it would help with some of this, would lead to the same general issue: if I want to sell something for $100 each... I have to get the money somewhere. So I sell for DVC, then sell the DVC to get money so I can get more items to sell.

A game would be different, in that you don't necessarily need to keep converting to fiat to keep the ball rolling. For example, take Facebook's credits (or any F2P game for that matter). There are millions of dollars being poured into the fake currencies to be used in the game. This is what we really need -- something that gives the DVC true value without requiring us to keep cycling it straight back to fiat just to sustain the process.

I don't really agree (other projects in the works as you say, and stan's point about anyone's ability to fund anything of value in dvc) - I understood the 'true value' of dvc as supporting open-source work and what they may encompass.

But assuming that's correct, by saying there is no true value outside of converting to btc that implies that - at least as of now - the visible rewarded projects (primarily devtome) have no intrinsic value, because value is underwritten by rewarding or paying for those projects undertaken. And so if that's the case why are writers being paid in dvc when to realise any value they will convert it to btc?

[ranlo]

Why there hasn't been more buying pressure is an easy one to answer: there is no true value to DVC outside of converting it to BTC. At least as of now.

A market, while it would help with some of this, would lead to the same general issue: if I want to sell something for $100 each... I have to get the money somewhere. So I sell for DVC, then sell the DVC to get money so I can get more items to sell.

A game would be different, in that you don't necessarily need to keep converting to fiat to keep the ball rolling. For example, take Facebook's credits (or any F2P game for that matter). There are millions of dollars being poured into the fake currencies to be used in the game. This is what we really need -- something that gives the DVC true value without requiring us to keep cycling it straight back to fiat just to sustain the process.

I don't really agree (other projects in the works as you say, and stan's point about anyone's ability to fund anything of value in dvc) - I understood the 'true value' of dvc as supporting open-source work and what they may encompass.

But assuming that's correct, by saying there is no true value outside of converting to btc that implies that - at least as of now - the visible rewarded projects (primarily devtome) have no intrinsic value, because value is underwritten by rewarding or paying for those projects undertaken. And so if that's the case why are writers being paid in dvc when to realise any value they will convert it to btc?

DVC supports open source but... where is that value from? People aren't going out and saying "I have $100... I'll go buy some Devcoins so I can support open source stuff." You can give people billions of DVC's but if there is no outside reason to purchase into them, it has no value regardless.

[sidhujag]

Because those who've earned them them are selling at lower and lower prices - implying that many value their efforts and those of others at a (far) lower level than that initially paid, or where they perceived that payment level to be. It's probably better this happens asap as gives a indicative clearing level of the value of e.g. writings by writers, and therefore I hope a means of re-assessing sustainable payments and shares.

That's the classic theory - in practice I think people are operating on fear and panic. They fear they'll get nothing if they wait to sell, so they sell. I've held onto all mine and sometimes I wonder if I'm a mug. Then I console myself with the thought that when fear and capitulation are greatest, that's when the market turns...

That may be true, but it doesn't really matter - it still implies shares for one or more projects (or perception of them) were overpriced else instead of selling on fear and panic at that price those people would be buying up the sales of others' efforts.

Well we can always experiment with the price. How about in the next writing round, the pay is half a share per 1000 words. We can then assess whether there is the same dumping. If dumping stops and the price rises, we can declare a success and keep it at half a share per thousand words. I'm all for it. Half a share at 148 satoshis per devcoin is worth much more than a full share at 47 satoshis per devcoin.

What do we need to do to make this happen?

I don't want to call out anyone publicly but what I will say is that the tanking price occurred after a single specific event: someone dumped over 20 million coins on the market on their own, tackling the big buy walls that were already up. This is what caused the downward spiral and the "panic selling" we are seeing, and is what has killed the price for the time being. It wasn't a large group of people, it was a single one.

Now, with that said, I think the current reward system is good. People just need to start paying more attention to what they're doing before they make drastic decisions.

You need to understand what moves price. That buy wall created some interest but it quickt fell when ppl realized there was no pump. As days went buy small sells broke into it. Like i said before when price sits on support for a while it will fall like a knife or be a long term bottom. As dvc the true value was lower because noone was willing to buy above market
not at market.

I said it before and wiser contradicted me but there is a science involved in creating interest in rising prices. You have to buy a bit above market a bit below as limits and a bit at market as you support a rise. Walls are only good from a distant price at it invokes fear greed.

[The Goat Master]

..
Is there still a bounty for a trading card game?  it would be a big undertaking, but not as big with crowdsourcing from the devcoin community.  We could make use of 3d printers too (first 3d trading cards would gain big publicity for devcoin)

After looking at the Open Source Card Game WTactics CCG:
http://wtactics.org/

I see that it takes much longer to develop than I expected, so there won't be a direct bounty since we can't afford to pay for an entire game. However, we can pay for a limited amount of developers, so the first five people developing that game can apply to Metazilla to go on the devcoin share list and be paid that way. If there is more interest in the game and no objections, then we'll let more people go on the share list.

Ok.  I can make card templates and creature names.
We can have an artist, storyliner, and some other guys, if you're interested, quote and reply!

[wiser]

You need to understand what moves price. That buy wall created some interest but it quickt fell when ppl realized there was no pump. As days went buy small sells broke into it. Like i said before when price sits on support for a while it will fall like a knife or be a long term bottom. As dvc the true value was lower because noone was willing to buy above market
not at market.

I said it before and wiser contradicted me but there is a science involved in creating interest in rising prices. You have to buy a bit above market a bit below as limits and a bit at market as you support a rise. Walls are only good from a distant price at it invokes fear greed.

That thing I never said keeps coming back up LOL.  The quote you are referring to where I contradicted you was wrongly attributed to me.  I actually would like to understand better how walls and pumps work.  You refer to a wall without a pump.  I get what a wall is--a very large order or group of orders to buy or sell at a particular price.  What is a pump?  Is that when someone keeps adding orders to the wall to keep it up?  Like for example, if I put an order to buy 20 million DVC at 65 sat, and then 1 million of them get sold, I then place another order to buy 1 million DVC at 65 sat so as to keep the wall right at 20 million?  Do I understand this correctly?  Or is a pump something else altogether?  If so, then what is it?

Would you be willing to write an article about the science involved in creating interest in rising prices and then send me the link?  I want to learn how that works.  Thanks

[wiser]

Wiser - that's fine, but then people (not referring to anybody in particular, including you) shouldn't complain about the price, lack of incentive to initiate or develop upon other projects at that price, or any resulting dearth of bid interest.

Fair enough, at least about the price.  I understand that if I sell DVCs that does contribute to the prices falling.  This isn't a complaint but I do have a difficult time finding ways to use my Devcoins as Devcoins, and that's why I sell them for BTC (or did--the current price is a bit too low for my taste so I'm holding for now).  At this point, there is more to do with BTC.  I'm optimistic that this will change for the better over time, and I'm looking forward to learning more about that, and hopefully being among the first to invest my DVC in some of those new projects.  But in the mean time, I'm not content to just sit on my DVCs.  I do want to do something useful with them--something that will in some way improve my life now (not just in some hypothetical future where DVCs are worth a dollar each and I'm glad I sat on millions of them now), whether that is to cash them out and pay bills or buy some dividend paying stocks.

[ranlo]

You need to understand what moves price. That buy wall created some interest but it quickt fell when ppl realized there was no pump. As days went buy small sells broke into it. Like i said before when price sits on support for a while it will fall like a knife or be a long term bottom. As dvc the true value was lower because noone was willing to buy above market
not at market.

I said it before and wiser contradicted me but there is a science involved in creating interest in rising prices. You have to buy a bit above market a bit below as limits and a bit at market as you support a rise. Walls are only good from a distant price at it invokes fear greed.

That thing I never said keeps coming back up LOL.  The quote you are referring to where I contradicted you was wrongly attributed to me.  I actually would like to understand better how walls and pumps work.  You refer to a wall without a pump.  I get what a wall is--a very large order or group of orders to buy or sell at a particular price.  What is a pump?  Is that when someone keeps adding orders to the wall to keep it up?  Like for example, if I put an order to buy 20 million DVC at 65 sat, and then 1 million of them get sold, I then place another order to buy 1 million DVC at 65 sat so as to keep the wall right at 20 million?  Do I understand this correctly?  Or is a pump something else altogether?  If so, then what is it?

Would you be willing to write an article about the science involved in creating interest in rising prices and then send me the link?  I want to learn how that works.  Thanks

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but based on my understanding, a pump is when people remove their buy orders and buy down a lot of the sell ones. For ex:

Buy orders are at: 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Sell orders are at: 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

For the pump, those buying at 5-10 take their orders down and buy out all the 11, 12, 13, 14, leaving up 15. Then they re-list at 15, 16, 17, 18. This theoretically boosts the value because now the lowest sell price is much higher than it was before.

[wiser]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but based on my understanding, a pump is when people remove their buy orders and buy down a lot of the sell ones. For ex:

Buy orders are at: 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Sell orders are at: 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

For the pump, those buying at 5-10 take their orders down and buy out all the 11, 12, 13, 14, leaving up 15. Then they re-list at 15, 16, 17, 18. This theoretically boosts the value because now the lowest sell price is much higher than it was before.

And the wall would be where they put in a massive buy order at 15 so no one can sell at a lower price for a while.

It would have to be a coordinated effort among all the people who want to buy.  And all those people have to be willing to buy at a higher price than they might otherwise be able to get.  So they would have to have a very good reason to drive the price up, enough that they'd be willing to buy some at the inflated price.  Maybe they do this in order to then dump at the higher price?  Would that be a pump and dump?  What other reasons might people have to be involved in a pump?

[ranlo]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but based on my understanding, a pump is when people remove their buy orders and buy down a lot of the sell ones. For ex:

Buy orders are at: 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Sell orders are at: 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

For the pump, those buying at 5-10 take their orders down and buy out all the 11, 12, 13, 14, leaving up 15. Then they re-list at 15, 16, 17, 18. This theoretically boosts the value because now the lowest sell price is much higher than it was before.

And the wall would be where they put in a massive buy order at 15 so no one can sell at a lower price for a while.

It would have to be a coordinated effort among all the people who want to buy.  And all those people have to be willing to buy at a higher price than they might otherwise be able to get.  So they would have to have a very good reason to drive the price up, enough that they'd be willing to buy some at the inflated price.  Maybe they do this in order to then dump at the higher price?  Would that be a pump and dump?  What other reasons might people have to be involved in a pump?

The general theory behind it is that when you pump, there is a slight permanence attached. For example, you may boost a coin from being worth (arbitrary numbers here for show) 1 up to being worth 10. While it is likely going to drop down again, it may only drop down to 2 this time, meaning that not only is the rest of your fortune worth more, but the future fortune you're still building is worth more as well. In some pumps, the change has been more drastic, such as going from 1 to 10 and settling back down at 5-6. In these cases, the small loss is easily made up for it in the massive gains there will be even over a short period.

[sidhujag]

You need to understand what moves price. That buy wall created some interest but it quickt fell when ppl realized there was no pump. As days went buy small sells broke into it. Like i said before when price sits on support for a while it will fall like a knife or be a long term bottom. As dvc the true value was lower because noone was willing to buy above market
not at market.

I said it before and wiser contradicted me but there is a science involved in creating interest in rising prices. You have to buy a bit above market a bit below as limits and a bit at market as you support a rise. Walls are only good from a distant price at it invokes fear greed.

That thing I never said keeps coming back up LOL.  The quote you are referring to where I contradicted you was wrongly attributed to me.  I actually would like to understand better how walls and pumps work.  You refer to a wall without a pump.  I get what a wall is--a very large order or group of orders to buy or sell at a particular price.  What is a pump?  Is that when someone keeps adding orders to the wall to keep it up?  Like for example, if I put an order to buy 20 million DVC at 65 sat, and then 1 million of them get sold, I then place another order to buy 1 million DVC at 65 sat so as to keep the wall right at 20 million?  Do I understand this correctly?  Or is a pump something else altogether?  If so, then what is it?

Would you be willing to write an article about the science involved in creating interest in rising prices and then send me the link?  I want to learn how that works.  Thanks

Hehe sorry funny if someone was to read our posts they would laugh at the misunderstanding then..
Ok so its all to do with phsycology I believe. Think about what happens in the trading pits when they were around.. Someone comes in with confidence and buys ok noone notices except a few but then as price comes back to test more orders to buy pop up from this mysterious buyer.. ok so now people want in thinking he or she knows something.. so now people buy above market the mystery shopper buys a bit above to exasberate the rise and imagine someone who had been waiing for low prices now believes the bottom may be in they buy into the rally aswell. When i say starting a pump thats what i mean. Its percieval of future pricing is what drives equilibrium.

So what happena when price fades back down? the smart mystery buyer decides he got a good avg price and wants to avg in some more with half of his intended buying. He sets up another wal above and buys above market each time a sell comes. What does this do? It will bring in hesitant money which thought this pump and dump is unlike any other and its the real deal. This is where the real demand will come from and a sustained pump will allow for dvc to start looking good to those developers looking at potentially some of the biggsr bounties as market cap rises. Its a chicken and egg argument and dvc is very intriguing in this manor as the higher it goes the more successful it will be. I expect that to look like an exponential curve with no pause as people will be greedy at higher and higher potential targets to sell. Kinda what happened with btc as the
hope there was that it was going to dethrone usdx and thats kind of priceless when compared to usdx.

When someone puts up a buy or sell wall they have to follow thru or let others follow thru for them.. Seems like we are still in a large bear market on this currency until i start seeing those things. I suspect it wl be quick and probably because of maybe a new project or breakthrough. At that time you wont be able to buy enough dvc as it will rise quickly without pause.