[ANN][XCP] Counterparty - Pioneering Peer-to-Peer Finance - Official Thread

[poloskarted]

Seems oversold. But then again when it fell from .25 to .07 it seemed too much of a fall then. Who knows when it will finally find a stable floor that doesnt keep adjusting lower

Seems to be a dearth of mature market participants investing in projects with a long term purview.
All we ever see is occasional rises followed by sadly inevitable dumps often past the previous floor for no real logical reason - even if the news is groundbreaking andnoverwhelmingly positive. Guess people can profit at any levels trading waves or shorting

All of this news had been spelt out previously.
I cant understand nor explain rash dumping after that announcement unless english is not the native langauge seems like a gross misintepretation to me

[BitThink]

Now we know it very clear that Symbiont "supports" counterparty but not "relies" on counterparty any more. Symbiont relies on the counterparty technology instead. If Symbiont succeeds, it does not mean the success of counterparty, but only means there's a successful company backs up counterparty.

[Matt Y]

Now we know it very clear that Symbiont "supports" counterparty but not "relies" on counterparty any more. Symbiont relies on the counterparty technology instead. If Symbiont succeeds, it does not mean the success of counterparty, but only means there's a successful company backs up counterparty.

What's the difference between relying on Counterparty and Counterparty technology? Counterparty technology = Counterparty...

Besides that, Counterparty also relies on Symbiont as Symbiont actively funds Counterparty development. Seems like a pretty symbiotic relationship.

I'm really not sure what you guys were expecting. If you wanted more than what's in the announcement you should have sold a long time ago.

"Counterparty is a core part of the Symbiont “tech stack”, with entirely complementary technology to the other systems we are developing."

"nothing has changed with respect to our enthusiasm for the potential of Counterparty, and permissioned ledgers will augment Symbiont’s platform offerings, not compete with the many market uses for Counterparty."

"We will continue to support the Counterparty ecosystem by providing development resources, funding Ivana Zuber in her position as Executive Director of the Counterparty Foundation and handling incoming business development inquiries. "

"However, as we onboard more clients and partners, and develop more products, we will not be able to discuss if, why or how that client product uses or does not use Counterparty. (Determining use of Counterparty should be clear to anyone via a Counterparty block explorer.)"

"That's not what the post said at all. The technology that Symbiont has developed outside of Counterparty does not overlap or compete with Counterparty at all. They're different things for different uses, one being private network/private blockchain/permissioned access, and the other (Counterparty) being public blockchain, public ledger, open access."

"To reiterate, Counterparty is still being actively supported and developed (by symbiont staff members, nonetheless). You can see that just by looking at the github."

[poloskarted]

Now we know it very clear that Symbiont "supports" counterparty but not "relies" on counterparty any more. Symbiont relies on the counterparty technology instead. If Symbiont succeeds, it does not mean the success of counterparty, but only means there's a successful company backs up counterparty.

Symbionts ledger agnosticism / private v public chain design was known quite long ago to any investor doing their own due diligence,  (certainly before the recent run up and subsequent crashes) if you understand the differing requirements of the demographics targeted its clear there would never be a one sized fits all approach.

Regardless, the situation is a hell of a more promising reality than vast majority of "investment oppurtunities" in the crypto space today. It seems quite simple. Where there is demand for a counterparty like structure, counterparty will be to tool for the job. There is no other such investment opportunity in the promising crytofinance space, and now you have a corporate entity supporting this open source project, works for red hat. Not to get started on corps open source contributions in general.

Market reaction seems to imply precious few had done background research as this news has been surprising..or were expecting some totally different news but im confused as to what.?

[Matt Y]

Symbionts ledger agnosticism / private v public chain design was known quite long ago to any investor doing their own due diligence,  (certainly before the recent run up and subsequent crashes) if you understand the differing requirements of the demographics targeted its clear there would never be a one sized fits all approach.

Regardless, the situation is a hell of a more promising reality than vast majority of "investment oppurtunities" in the crypto space today. It seems quite simple. Where there is demand for a counterparty like structure, counterparty will be to tool for the job. There is no other such investment opportunity in the promising crytofinance space, and now you have a corporate entity supporting this open source project, works for red hat. Not to get started on corps open source contributions in general.

Market reaction seems to imply precious few had done background research as this news has been surprising..or were expecting some totally different news but im confused as to what.?

Quoted for truth. What a great, sensible post.

[freedomfighter]

There were 3 advantages to CP

1) the platform
2) the dedication and commitment of at least one of the founders even in the overstock days
3) active foundation and PR that is headed by the founders as the front - pushing the platform and pulling interest with their knowledge and good name in the community in general.

The platform is ofcourse still here- and it is good that it will be relied upon by the founders team in their new project when time is right.

However the message that emphasized that there is a clear separation between both entities (as well as synergy- I understand that) communicated what too me is the biggest concern: while there is still support and backing the founders are off to the next project, and that while SYMB was developed with CP tech it might or might not be connected to the project in the future (possibly even in use cases that were classic CP ones).

At the very early stage that CP is - I believe that this is still too early and so did many that sold in the past 24 hours (I havent yet). It is not only about tech. it is about people behind it and the horizon that their presence promises.

this is parallel for example to Ethereum developers announcing their next project while announcing that they will just support the old one. would cause a serious drop because it is 5 years too early.

now- dont get me wrong- no one owes anything to no one here. the CP vision and opportunity is the founders' and not the investors who just shared in with their own risk and thus - it is what it is. As a private investor I might buy into the SYMB corporate IPO on a centralized Nasdaq one day...but this horizon is a bit less attractive it seems without the full presence of 1-3 of the founding team pusing forward. and not just as a resource.

as far as XCP itself- the same concern- before- it was perceived (maybe wrongly) that since SYMB. is based on CP tech that XCP will be the fuel behind any future SYMB transaction. From the message it seems clear that this is not the case and thus a major real-world use case is out of play.  

[Matt Y]

There were 3 advantages to CP

1) the platform
2) the dedication and commitment of at least one of the founders even in the overstock days
3) active foundation and PR that is headed by the founders as the front - pushing the platform and pulling interest with their knowledge and good name in the community in general.

The platform is ofcourse still here- and it is good that it will be relied upon by the founders team in their new project when time is right.

However the message that emphasized that the clear separation between both entities (as well as synergy- I understand that) communicated what too me is the biggest concern: while there is still support and backing the founders are off to the next project, and that while SYMB was developed with CP tech it might or might not be connected to the project in the future (possibly even in use cases that were classic CP ones). [1]

At the very early stage that CP is - I believe that this is still too early and so did many that sold in the past 24 hours (I havent yet). It is not only about tech. it is about people behind it and the horizon that their presence promises. [2]

this is parallel for example to Ethereum developers announcing their next project while announcing that they will just support the old one. would cause a serious drop because it is 5 years too early. [3]

now- dont get me wrong- no one owes anything to no one here. the CP vision and opportunity is the founders' and not the investors who just shared in with their own risk and thus - it is what it is. As a private investor I might buy into the SYMB corporate IPO on a centralized Nasdaq one day...but this horizon is a bit less attractive it seems without the full presence of 1-3 of the founding team pusing forward. and not just as a resource. [4]

as far as XCP itself- the same concern- before- it was perceived (maybe wrongly) that since SYMB. is based on CP tech that XCP will be the fuel behind any future SYMB transaction. From the message it seems clear that this is not the case and thus a major real-world use case is out of play. [5]

1. Clearly stated not to be the case

2. The same people are still there, just with corporate funding, which should be considered a good thing. How long would Adam, Evan, and Robby been able to work for free, with no funding?

3. Different projects. I could just as easily point to everyone in Bitcoin being happy that core developers have paid positions and this was widely considered to be a very good thing. Counterparty is more closely aligned with Bitcoin than Ethereum because... They did not take money like Ethereum did. There was no crowdfund for Counterparty. Counterparty is also more mature than Ethereum and a simpler technology.

4. They are still actively developing Counterparty tech and are highlighting the tech by creating a viable business on it. I could not be happier for them and how they've chosen to promote Counterparty for me as an investor. What would you rather have them do? Certainly the development is fast enough and still ongoing so I guess, what, biz dev calls with randos instead of getting the biggest people on Wall Street to back the technology through a company? Maybe you wanted these extremely high net worth individuals to just buy a bunch of XCP? I don't think that's a realistic vision.

5. To use smart contracts on Counterparty you have to use XCP. But yeah, if they are not doing Counterparty transactions for some things, they will not be burning XCP. This makes sense, doesn't it? In order not use XCP for Counterparty transactions they would need to fork Counterparty and it's clear that that's not happening from the post.

[rikky05]

Was the decentralized exchange improved? I usted it and its really a needed thing but the one counter parte had was just too slow because of bitcoins blocks

[Matt Y]

Was the decentralized exchange improved? I usted it and its really a needed thing but the one counter parte had was just too slow because of bitcoins blocks

Not really, no. I think smart contracts represent a bigger market and I don't think it's even close, if that's any help.

[freedomfighter]

There were 3 advantages to CP

1) the platform
2) the dedication and commitment of at least one of the founders even in the overstock days
3) active foundation and PR that is headed by the founders as the front - pushing the platform and pulling interest with their knowledge and good name in the community in general.

The platform is ofcourse still here- and it is good that it will be relied upon by the founders team in their new project when time is right.

However the message that emphasized that the clear separation between both entities (as well as synergy- I understand that) communicated what too me is the biggest concern: while there is still support and backing the founders are off to the next project, and that while SYMB was developed with CP tech it might or might not be connected to the project in the future (possibly even in use cases that were classic CP ones). [1]

At the very early stage that CP is - I believe that this is still too early and so did many that sold in the past 24 hours (I havent yet). It is not only about tech. it is about people behind it and the horizon that their presence promises. [2]

this is parallel for example to Ethereum developers announcing their next project while announcing that they will just support the old one. would cause a serious drop because it is 5 years too early. [3]

now- dont get me wrong- no one owes anything to no one here. the CP vision and opportunity is the founders' and not the investors who just shared in with their own risk and thus - it is what it is. As a private investor I might buy into the SYMB corporate IPO on a centralized Nasdaq one day...but this horizon is a bit less attractive it seems without the full presence of 1-3 of the founding team pusing forward. and not just as a resource. [4]

as far as XCP itself- the same concern- before- it was perceived (maybe wrongly) that since SYMB. is based on CP tech that XCP will be the fuel behind any future SYMB transaction. From the message it seems clear that this is not the case and thus a major real-world use case is out of play. [5]

1. Clearly stated not to be the case
2. The same people are still there, just with corporate funding, which should be considered a good thing. How long would Adam, Evan, and Robby been able to work for free, with no funding?
3. Different projects. I could just as easily point to everyone in Bitcoin being happy that core developers have paid positions and this was widely considered to be a very good thing. Counterparty is more closely aligned with Bitcoin because... They did not take money like Ethereum did. There was no crowdfund for Counterparty.
4. They are still actively developing the technology and are highlighting this by creating a viable business on it. I could not be happier for them and how they've chosen to promote Counterparty. What would you rather have them do? Certainly the development is fast enough and still ongoing so I guess, what, biz dev calls with randos instead of getting the biggest people on Wall Street to back the technology through a company... I guess you wanted them to just buy a bunch of XCP?
5. To use smart contracts on Counterparty you have to use XCP. But yeah, if they are doing on Counterparty transactions, they will not be burning XCP. To not use XCP they would have to fork Counterparty and it's clear that that's not happening from the post.

Good answers for the most part. thanks Matt. I might be lacking some info from not being around for a few months

1. why is 1 not accurate? "while there is still support and backing the founders are off to the next project" (which can be percived positive based on your answer in 4, but it is a fact)

and that while SYMB was developed with CP tech it might or might not be connected to the project in the future (possibly even in use cases that were classic CP ones). where is the inaccuracy?

2-3  I didnt expect them to do anything and certainly not work unfunded. it is not my business and I am happy for them. it is just a matter of perception. when you are off to a next project even with some ties to CP and even with continued involvement at some level- it is not the same as the 1st year. BUT again I respect and accept- and maybe would do the same in their shoes. I hope that you are right on 4 and then 2-3 is really irrelevant.

4. I accept...... no- i didnt want them to buy a bunch of XCP... I already did it myself a year  +ago-- not enough for everybody :-)

5. got it

[Matt Y]

Good answers for the most part. thanks Matt. I might be lacking some info from not being around for a few months

1. why is 1 not accurate? "while there is still support and backing the founders are off to the next project" (which can be percived positive based on your answer in 4, but it is a fact)

and that while SYMB was developed with CP tech it might or might not be connected to the project in the future (possibly even in use cases that were classic CP ones). where is the inaccuracy?

2-3  I didnt expect them to do anything and certainly not work unfunded. it is not my business and I am happy for them. it is just a matter of perception. when you are off to a next project even with some ties to CP and even with continued involvement at some level- it is not the same as the 1st year. BUT again I respect and accept- and maybe would do the same in their shoes. I hope that you are right on 4 and then 2-3 is really irrelevant.

4. I accept...... no- i didnt want them to buy a bunch of XCP... I already did it myself a year  +ago-- not enough for everybody :-)

5. got it

1. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=395761.msg12194589#msg12194589 (Phantom's comment in particular)

1a. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=395761.msg12194589#msg12194589 (xnova's comment mostly. You can also reference the bolded stuff I quoted from the announcement a few posts up which clearly addresses this)

2-3. They are still not off to the next project. Are the Bitcoin devs off to the next project or are they still Bitcoin devs? What project (with direct no profit model) has three of three founders working for free and paying to fund the project out of pocket on top of that? You think you may have done the same by not continuing to do that? Yeah, I think you're right about that, for sure. I don't think anyone would do what they have done for the project, it's basically unheard of.

Happy to help.

[freedomfighter]

Good answers for the most part. thanks Matt. I might be lacking some info from not being around for a few months

1. why is 1 not accurate? "while there is still support and backing the founders are off to the next project" (which can be percived positive based on your answer in 4, but it is a fact)

and that while SYMB was developed with CP tech it might or might not be connected to the project in the future (possibly even in use cases that were classic CP ones). where is the inaccuracy?

2-3  I didnt expect them to do anything and certainly not work unfunded. it is not my business and I am happy for them. it is just a matter of perception. when you are off to a next project even with some ties to CP and even with continued involvement at some level- it is not the same as the 1st year. BUT again I respect and accept- and maybe would do the same in their shoes. I hope that you are right on 4 and then 2-3 is really irrelevant.

4. I accept...... no- i didnt want them to buy a bunch of XCP... I already did it myself a year  +ago-- not enough for everybody :-)

5. got it

1. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=395761.msg12194589#msg12194589 (Phantom's comment in particular)

1a. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=395761.msg12194589#msg12194589 (xnova's comment mostly. You can also reference the bolded stuff I quoted from the announcement a few posts up which clearly addresses this)

2-3. They are still not off to the next project. Are the Bitcoin devs off to the next project or are they still Bitcoin devs? What project has three of three founders working for free and paying to fund the project out of pocket on top of that? You think you may have done the same by not continuing to do that? Yeah, I think you're right about that, for sure. I don't think anyone would do what they have done for the project, it's basically unheard of.

Happy to help.

I'll look again on 1-1a

2-3- I hear you loud and clear on what you are emphasizing which was not really my point. From the get-go I would buy each of them a beer and have actually invested many many thousands in their vision from an ideological point of view. Their individual contribution is certainly rare and is much appreciated.

My point again was one of market perception at this point on --- and not backwards and what it means for the direct future development of the project. You have a strong point on 4 above but you would also agree that few full time developers working directly on CP are better for CP than the current situation.

The only solution is probably community contributions (through both XCP bounties and through time investment resources like what you do here (which is also appreciated). Thus- again I have no problem with the founders (only appreciation) and thus there is no need to protect them. but I'd prefer an active development team (even aside from the founding team) that is dedicated full time. but no one has to fund it for me...

Not being around for 8 months - maybe I missed some developments- are there programmers aside from the founders working on this or is it just the General manager?

[BitThink]

I don't want to argue with anyone here. What I did is just try to clarify things previously I am not very clear myself. If you think counterparty = counterparty technology, then I think you are just as I was before that news. That announcement said very clearly the private ledger is based on "counterparty technology" but has key differences compared with counterparty itself. This is quite understandable, since the protocol is easy to be re-implemented and a complete new "counterparty" just needs some different parameters. Easier than From BTC to LTC.

The counterparty is more than counterparty technology. It's the technology plus the network effect, including the XCP distribution and all the assets built on it already. To XCP holders, the latter is utterly important., but not necessary to big companies and banks. If the big companies and banks are just intested in the technology, they can just build their own network with counterparty technology, just as what have already been done by Symbiont. As a private ledger they certainly don't need the existing network (holders and assets).

Counterparty or more precisely XCP certainly still has its value as an established public platform supports smart contracts. However, next time don't to be too excited when we see news that XYZ company or ABC  bank invests in Symbiont or intested in counterparty technology.

BTW I haven't sold all my holdings. I am still holding quit a lot and have no plan to sell and leave. Even if I want, I cannot because of the extremely low liquidity of XCP in all exchanges.

[gumcruise]

If Symbiont is both using Counterparty for its main use cases, and funding XCP development with bankster dollars I don't think anyone should be complainin

[flayway]

Why you dumping all XCP for me? Relax and buying, pretty cheap coins available and better devs than BTC core have   Instead of fighting they play with Wall Street guys.  

They are still here. Maybe they are building so huge system that can't telling everything. After overstock news I thought it was here, but they stay and doing even more. We can not know how everything are after 5 years, how all bitcoin system coming work.

[deliciousowl]

That's correct, except laptops vs. desktops isn't a great metaphor, because laptops *are* competing with desktops to some degree. A better comparison would be laptops and phones, where neither competes with the other at all.

The takeaway should be that Symbiont has a lot more resources than Counterparty has alone, so we'll be working on products that are orthogonal to Counterparty *as well*. (We'll also have more resources than ever dedicated to Counterparty itself.)

That's too clever, and too long-term of a strategy for most Bitcoiners to understand. Let's just pretend it's a dump 

[BldSwtTrs]

I don't want to argue with anyone here. What I did is just try to clarify things previously I am not very clear myself. If you think counterparty = counterparty technology, then I think you are just as I was before that news. That announcement said very clearly the private ledger is based on "counterparty technology" but has key differences compared with counterparty itself. This is quite understandable, since the protocol is easy to be re-implemented and a complete new "counterparty" just needs some different parameters. Easier than From BTC to LTC.

The counterparty is more than counterparty technology. It's the technology plus the network effect, including the XCP distribution and all the assets built on it already. To XCP holders, the latter is utterly important., but not necessary to big companies and banks. If the big companies and banks are just intested in the technology, they can just build their own network with counterparty technology, just as what have already been done by Symbiont. As a private ledger they certainly don't need the existing network (holders and assets).

Counterparty or more precisely XCP certainly still has its value as an established public platform supports smart contracts. However, next time don't to be too excited when we see news that XYZ company or ABC  bank invests in Symbiont or intested in counterparty technology.

BTW I haven't sold all my holdings. I am still holding quit a lot and have no plan to sell and leave. Even if I want, I cannot because of the extremely low liquidity of XCP in all exchanges.

I have said something about that two months ago:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=395761.msg11611297#msg11611297
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=395761.msg11613566#msg11613566
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=395761.msg11614770#msg11614770

"Valuation of startups like Coinbase and Symbiont are only partially related to the valuation of one specific protocol."

[bitcoinrocks]

Am I the only one that was hoping Symbiont's first project (their blockchain-based security issuance) would incorporate Counterparty?  For me, that's what this dump was about.  We potentially had a near-term, real world, major use case for Counterparty by a VC-backed company and yesterday we found out that we don't.  That's not to say Counterparty is dead, far from it, but this news was a letdown for me for that reason.

[Bitinvestor]

Yesterday's news was worded very generally without any details and that's why the interpretations vary so widely. It raises more questions than it answers. It would help if they would give some specific examples about what Symbiont plans to do with Counterparty, and also some specific examples about what can't be done with it.

[bitcoinrocks]

Yesterday's news was worded very generally without any details and that's why the interpretations vary so widely. It raises more questions than it answers. It would help if they would give some specific examples about what Symbiont plans to do with Counterparty, and also some specific examples about what can't be done with it.

Quite right.  I was mocked after asking for any information on any Counterparty project in the works at Symbiont.  Currently, we don't know of one.