Oh that chap is Vlad?
Haven't seen anything yet confirming that hypothesis though I suppose proving it could just cause the ban to be extended to the new avatar/alias/identity/username.
We are crazy-fortunate that DeVCoin, IXCoin and I0Coin continue to be merged-mined after all these years, notice that many others just don't make it into the merges of most who merged-mine.
CoiLedCoin doesn't, even GRouPcoin which preceded DeVCoin and was where/how to prototyped and tested ideas for how to implement DeVCoin doesn't.
So even with merged mining Proof of Work blockchains are a crappy idea for new assets, better to leave the concerns of securing a blockchain to platforms that offer built-in token-ability like HORIZON and Stellar, of which Stellar is much much easier to use because it allows trading-pairs of any token versus and token instead of forcing you, like in HORIZON, to pair only against the platform's native currency.
As to that Nakamoto dot com it seems rather a treasury for fiat rather than a treasury for bitcoin, as it contains bitcoins; a treasury
for bitcoin, from which to be able to calculate a value per eventual bitcoin by dividing the total value of the treasury by 21 million, or to calculate a value per currently existing bitcoin by dividing the total value of the treasury by however many bitcoins have so far been minted, would not contain any bitcoins, just as the treasuries of each of the other "treasury-based" assets do not contain any of themselves.
Bitcoin, despite not being itself a "treasury-based" asset as in having itself a "treasury" from which its value per unit can be calculated by dividing the total value of its "treasury" by the number of units minted, is clearly a very popular asset for use in "treasuries" but in the
Galactic Milieu although we do permit its use as a "reserve asset", meaning an asset one can use in one's "treasury", it is actually for many years now deprecated for such use, partly because it is much much more useful really as a "slush fund asset" for building "buy sides" on trading venues.
Using in treasuries assets that are not themselves treasury-based complicates calculations of total value of treasuries, by getting "spot markets" involved in such calculations.
So assets that are not treasury-based are better used as buy offers on spot markets, basically creating and upholding for other assets the kind of value - spot market price - that sites along the lines of CoinMarketCap and CoinGecko like to use for their own approach toward guessing estimating or pronouncing what things are "worth".
In general it has emerged that in contemplaying launching an asset it seems best not even to simply put half of its net worth into its treasury and half into a slush find for building buy-sides for other things and obtaining other things to add to its treasury but, rather, to put more like one-third of its net worth into its treasury, another third out on trading venues as buy offers upholding the prioces on such venues of things that it does hold in its treasury, and a third third as a petty-cash or operating expenses type account for funding whatever actually productive enterprises it intends to run to generate actual income for itself.
This approach is of course part of why the whole treasuries based setup for calculating value deliberately results in an underestimation of the values, which in turn makes it even weirder that the spot market values often fail to even be as high as the calculated values.
IXCoin is a good example of this because it can be see from the
statistics, all ultimately tabulated and plotted from all the
Latest Rates include-files published over time, that as I write, and actually quite a bit of the time through the periods covered by many previous Latest Rates, IXCoin has often been much cheaper on spot markets than its calculated value.
That is despite the fact that calculated value does not even count so many categories of things, even things along the lines of "real estate"; the only way to someday be able to represent real estate in "treasuries" would be things long the lines of having actual "collateral units" based on actual coins or tokens - such as bitcoins or IXCoins or whatever - be associated with the real-estate, like the suggestions I long ago made in various DeVCoin threads on various venues of allowing some of the "collateral units" held by for example DeVCorp or the DeVCoin foundation to be represented by items of real-estate, so for example a Corp owning three DVC100k units could have three offices or factories or housing units or shops or whatever located somewhere that could be pointed to as the current manifestation of that original-cost-1-million-DeVCoins unit of collateral at a given moment.
In other words real estate has no value in the treasuries-based system, it is actual "collateral units" that count but one can for narrative or play or whatever purposes point to items of real estate as possible current manifestations of that much collateral. We know those buildings are worth that much as collateral because those units of collateral, that actually exist on blockchains, are attribured to them, the collateral is actual crypto, the real estate has value only insofar as actual crypto is on a blockchain somewhere representing their value, the crypto provides value to the real estate not the other way around.
(Very much akin to CoinMarketCap type sites' idea that no buy offers in place for a thing means the thing has no value...)
-MarkM-
