To ignore someone because they have a differing opinion from your own shows some pretty low ethics.
Maybe what some of you guys don't understand is what you call an IPO is not an IPO.
Buying into an IPO gives you part ownership in a company, buying into a crypto IPO gives you coins, not ownership.
a crypto IPO is nothing more than a presale.
A presale of coins you intend to sell at a later date.
Mechanics-wise, this is the same as buying a bond or loaning.
I can't make that any simpler.
For anyone to actually read that and somehow fool themselves into not agreeing with that is pretty sad and shows they are not interested in listening to any differing opinions than their own.
I see where you are coming from, but it's not really a loan. It is a sale, a transfer of asset with a pre-order system. When you go to the mall to trade your USD for Euros you are just buying Euros for $.
Also, a loan implies an agreement that this will be paid back. Qora signed no such promissory note against the "IPO" funds. He basically provided a pre-order system trading one asset (BTC) for another asset (Qora).
Please can we stop the Ad hominem attacks? There really is no need for the name calling and insults. It really hurts the signal to noise ratio.
It's nice to see someone actually absorbed what I said and the gears in their brain are actually turning to produce a response.
You are mostly right. But I didn't say buying into an IPO is a loan, I did say that
mechanically they are the same. I guess maybe I needed to be more specific and say a "crypto IPO"? You are correct in that in essence it is a sale in its most basic sense. But this sale is made with the intention of returning these coins to the market. Correct?
No one ever buys cryptocoins with the intention of never selling them, ever. I think we can agree on that.
If you buy into cryptocoins with the intention of selling them at a later point, again, I stand by what I said, that is the same as loan. You are "loaning" your money to the market or an investor with the intention of making that money back with interest in the future. Whether your funds go to one party (developer) and are returned through another (market) makes no difference in this argument.
It has the same risks as a loan; the person you are loaning the money to may flee the country, waste it or otherwise die. The same could be said for cryptocurrency. You may invest into a cryptocurrency with the intention of selling it for more later and the market could tank. This would be the same result as if you loaned the money and the person you loaned it to died. They both started the same and both ended the same.
For example you may think investing in a mutual fund is completely different than loaning money to a borrower, because a mutual fund through a bank is a safe investment, whereas loaning money to someone is inherently risky. This is incorrect. They both have the same risks. With the loan you are betting that the person can and will pay you back. When you invest with a bank you are still betting that that bank won't go bankrupt or won't mismanage your funds. The risk is greatly (by magnitudes) reduced, but it is still there.
Look at the royal bank of Scotland, they just lost 46 Billion of taxpayers money this past year.
You are definitely right that a loan has an explicit agreement that it will be paid back. I would counter that a crypto IPO has an "implied agreement" that it will be worth MORE than the IPO price. Hence the being paid back part of the
loan conjecture.
So when people say investing in an IPO is different than a loan its not really true. A loan IS an investment. They are just financial instruments accomplishing the same thing.
I feel like we are pretty far off topic though.
The hivemind is strong in this thread.
