[ANN][PREICO] 🚀 🅱onum - Global backed loans and deposits on blockchain 🚀

[CanvinGale]

That the required collateral in fiat markets often consists of provenly valuable physical goods (real estate, $217 trillion globally), while the crypto markt is in its infancy and can be heavily manipulated. Again, I am not saying that projects like these shouldn't be started, but I am quite sure that the default rate will be quite high or the required collateral be too high in order for others to deem it proper. When Bitcoin was at $20,000, there was only very few people saying that they believe it'll go down by almost 75%. I didn't believe BTC would go down that much at all. If this platform had been operational, what do you think how many people might have defaulted?

Providing loans and avoiding market risks like fire sales and procyclicality will be much harder to do in the globally accessible and permissionless crypto world than in the currently somewhat restricted and regulated banking world. And from a dynamic standpoint, the banking world is so much slower but the financial crisis in 2008 demonstrated how quickly things can develop negatively regardless.

Risks are everywhere. In 2008, companies that cost billions a day or a little more went bankrupt. But this does not mean that the whole market is bad.

[MikePerry]

What are the fundamental differences between the collateral market in fiat and the collateral market in the crypt?

That the required collateral in fiat markets often consists of provenly valuable physical goods (real estate, $217 trillion globally), while the crypto markt is in its infancy and can be heavily manipulated. Again, I am not saying that projects like these shouldn't be started, but I am quite sure that the default rate will be quite high or the required collateral be too high in order for others to deem it proper. When Bitcoin was at $20,000, there was only very few people saying that they believe it'll go down by almost 75%. I didn't believe BTC would go down that much at all. If this platform had been operational, what do you think how many people might have defaulted?

Providing loans and avoiding market risks like fire sales and procyclicality will be much harder to do in the globally accessible and permissionless crypto world than in the currently somewhat restricted and regulated banking world. And from a dynamic standpoint, the banking world is so much slower but the financial crisis in 2008 demonstrated how quickly things can develop negatively regardless.

It turns out that you see the main difference is that on the one hand there are provenly valuable physical goods and on the other side crypto? And you think that the crypto is to some extent unreal?

[LightFork]

It turns out that you see the main difference is that on the one hand there are provenly valuable physical goods and on the other side crypto? And you think that the crypto is to some extent unreal?

Still, the crypto is somewhat less backed by real assets than for example real estate, so this point of view has the right to life.

[Holopopstyir]

If they constantly use such a service, yes. They usually have a very large cash turnover.

That's for sure. They win a lot, lose a lot. A small difference always goes in favor of the casino, but the turnover of money is really big.

So if the developers will order advertising on sites connected with gambling, they have a chance to attract this audience.

[Pay4youractivity]

It will be a fun situation - you show not your money under the guise of your own and then you give them away.

In fact, nothing funny since it's your real money. If you show the crypto currency, then not everyone will be able to correctly assess it.

Good observation. For some reason, the possession of a significant amount in crypto assets is not a sufficient confirmation of the solvency for everyone.

[Whitethoughts]

When the whole market falls, then any enterprise risks being in an unpleasant situation. Remember the last stock crisis. These are global problems and they affect everyone.

This is absolutely true. Maybe the developers still have to provide protection from the apocalypse? The risks of force majeure are everywhere, but no need to exaggerate them.

Sometimes the protection costs are more expensive than the damage from what they are trying to protect. I find such cases very amusing.

[LuckyNicky]

If they constantly use such a service, yes. They usually have a very large cash turnover.

That's for sure. They win a lot, lose a lot. A small difference always goes in favor of the casino, but the turnover of money is really big.

So if the developers will order advertising on sites connected with gambling, they have a chance to attract this audience.

Yes it is. I am not a supporter of gambling, but since there is already a demand for it, then someone must satisfy it.

[KateMoss]

Still, the crypto is somewhat less backed by real assets than for example real estate, so this point of view has the right to life.

Do you really think so? I think the value has only what people use. If people use real estate, then it is valuable. If people use crypto, then it is valuable.

[mv1986]

What are the fundamental differences between the collateral market in fiat and the collateral market in the crypt?

That the required collateral in fiat markets often consists of provenly valuable physical goods (real estate, $217 trillion globally), while the crypto markt is in its infancy and can be heavily manipulated. Again, I am not saying that projects like these shouldn't be started, but I am quite sure that the default rate will be quite high or the required collateral be too high in order for others to deem it proper. When Bitcoin was at $20,000, there was only very few people saying that they believe it'll go down by almost 75%. I didn't believe BTC would go down that much at all. If this platform had been operational, what do you think how many people might have defaulted?

Providing loans and avoiding market risks like fire sales and procyclicality will be much harder to do in the globally accessible and permissionless crypto world than in the currently somewhat restricted and regulated banking world. And from a dynamic standpoint, the banking world is so much slower but the financial crisis in 2008 demonstrated how quickly things can develop negatively regardless.

It turns out that you see the main difference is that on the one hand there are provenly valuable physical goods and on the other side crypto? And you think that the crypto is to some extent unreal?

Not at all. Sad you didn't capture my message, but maybe I am bad at expressing my thoughts. To me personally cryptos are provenly valuable, but for how many other people does that also count at this very specific point in time? Not too many. As a result the whims in the crypto market are much much harder than anywhere else. Hence, running a loan business with reliable collateral rates is extremely hard to do. When you have a house people are only willing to write off so much value because there is this damn house that they can walk into and sleep and live. With cryptos this is still very different. Many people tend to believe in it, but aren't really certain about it. If whales start manipulating crypto it can go much further down than the value of a "provenly valuable physical" asset. I am not saying that applies to you in specific, but it still does to the global majority of people. That's what we saw during this last crash wiping out almost 75% while I severely doubt that the value of a house could drop from $300,000 to $75,000 within just a few weeks. Hope you get my point now. I am not against this project at all!

[AleXcreig]

Do you think that there are people who, in order to pick up somebody's mortgages, can bring down the whole market? Sounds unbelievable and illogical.

Are you seriously comparing the mortgage market to the crypto market? We have seen real flash crashes, for example with Ethereum on GDAX. It is still a possibility whereas in the mortgage market it isn't.

What are the fundamental differences between the collateral market in fiat and the collateral market in the crypt?

That the required collateral in fiat markets often consists of provenly valuable physical goods (real estate, $217 trillion globally), while the crypto markt is in its infancy and can be heavily manipulated. Again, I am not saying that projects like these shouldn't be started, but I am quite sure that the default rate will be quite high or the required collateral be too high in order for others to deem it proper. When Bitcoin was at $20,000, there was only very few people saying that they believe it'll go down by almost 75%. I didn't believe BTC would go down that much at all. If this platform had been operational, what do you think how many people might have defaulted?

Providing loans and avoiding market risks like fire sales and procyclicality will be much harder to do in the globally accessible and permissionless crypto world than in the currently somewhat restricted and regulated banking world. And from a dynamic standpoint, the banking world is so much slower but the financial crisis in 2008 demonstrated how quickly things can develop negatively regardless.

I agree that the market of crypto currency is more volatile. This is due to the fact that there are very fast transactions and high liquidity, but not the reason that the market is "young."
About what I identified in blue - when Fanny Mei and Freddie Mac collapsed, it was also a surprise for everyone. Everyone thought that this is a super reliable company from the real estate world.

[CanvinGale]

In fact, nothing funny since it's your real money. If you show the crypto currency, then not everyone will be able to correctly assess it.

Good observation. For some reason, the possession of a significant amount in crypto assets is not a sufficient confirmation of the solvency for everyone.

Soon the situation will change and we will not have to resort to such exotic schemes.

[MikePerry]

It turns out that you see the main difference is that on the one hand there are provenly valuable physical goods and on the other side crypto? And you think that the crypto is to some extent unreal?

Still, the crypto is somewhat less backed by real assets than for example real estate, so this point of view has the right to life.

It seems to me that money (even in the form of a crypto currency) is more a real asset than even real estate.

[LightFork]

It turns out that you see the main difference is that on the one hand there are provenly valuable physical goods and on the other side crypto? And you think that the crypto is to some extent unreal?

Still, the crypto is somewhat less backed by real assets than for example real estate, so this point of view has the right to life.

It seems to me that money (even in the form of a crypto currency) is more a real asset than even real estate.

If you approach this issue from this side, then yes. But if people do not use crypto currency, then it will not exist, but if the house does not in use, it does exist anyway.

[Pay4youractivity]

Good observation. For some reason, the possession of a significant amount in crypto assets is not a sufficient confirmation of the solvency for everyone.

Soon the situation will change and we will not have to resort to such exotic schemes.

While this happen this platform will have time to make a significant amount of money on this.

[Holopopstyir]

I agree that the market of crypto currency is more volatile. This is due to the fact that there are very fast transactions and high liquidity, but not the reason that the market is "young."
About what I identified in blue - when Fanny Mei and Freddie Mac collapsed, it was also a surprise for everyone. Everyone thought that this is a super reliable company from the real estate world.

The crypto market is not young, but it lags behind other classical markets in terms of capitalization and regulatory level.

[Whitethoughts]

If you approach this issue from this side, then yes. But if people do not use crypto currency, then it will not exist, but if the house does not in use, it does exist anyway.

If the house exists (in the physical sense), but it is not needed by anyone, then there is no difference whether it is whole or not, burned or still stands. In this sense, there is no difference with crypto currency.

[zyrenhufalar11]

 i will follow and join the bounty program hope will be luck.

[Bonum]

We are in d10e. If you want more info about us, let`s talk.

Write in Telegram

[CanvinGale]

Good observation. For some reason, the possession of a significant amount in crypto assets is not a sufficient confirmation of the solvency for everyone.

Soon the situation will change and we will not have to resort to such exotic schemes.

While this happen this platform will have time to make a significant amount of money on this.

Reasonably. Until the process came to its logical conclusion, you can simply make money.

[Zeppelins]

We are in d10e. If you want more info about us, let`s talk.

Write in Telegram

You already have a fairly large community in Telegram. I've been looking for something like that for a long time. It's great, I'm already with you.