📢[ANN][PRESALE] Base Protocol: HOLD ONE TOKEN - HOLD ALL TOKENS | [BASE] 🚀🚀

[holydarkness]

I'll focus on this matter first before attending to other matters. Based on your example, you peg the price by doubling and reducing the amount your user hold? And how is this achievable? Doesn't it imply that you have control of every token circulating?

Price is pegged by adjusting the total supply of BASE correspondent to the peg disruption. That could be a 100% adjustment, 20% adjustment, or even a 1% adjustment.

The team does not have control over the rebases. It is a feature built into the smart contract that affects all tokens in the ecosystem. Anyone, anywhere can call the rebase to trigger at the rebase time.

Now this is rather confusing. On your first illustration with John, you regulate the price by adding more token to John (from 1 BASE to 2 BASE). By this recent illustration, it was the total supply that's affected, while the amount of BASE each member owned is not affected. Which one is correct? Because although they look the same by glance, they're actually extremely different.

[BaseProtocol]

...and Nick/Dylan did not take a salary at any point from 2018–2020

I see an open conversation. Could you give information about how and how much money you spent to develop a previous project? So far, I only see your words that the developers did not take a salary. These are words, I would like to see digits. Expanded information will give you a new reputation.

We will not be talking about this subject very much in the future because we have already commented on it, and it is mentioned on our website directly in our team section. I am providing this, so that you can actually see some numbers that we provided a long time ago in relation to the expenses. We were always extremely transparent about our expenses in the company. Last thing, we never said that developers did not take a salary; it was the two co-founders who did not take a salary in over two years. We ensured that our developers were paid a fair wage. You can check out this article, just to get an idea on our spending previously.

https://medium.com/spectiv-vr/2019-spectiv-status-update-5412b4f409a5

[BaseProtocol]

I'll focus on this matter first before attending to other matters. Based on your example, you peg the price by doubling and reducing the amount your user hold? And how is this achievable? Doesn't it imply that you have control of every token circulating?

Price is pegged by adjusting the total supply of BASE correspondent to the peg disruption. That could be a 100% adjustment, 20% adjustment, or even a 1% adjustment.

The team does not have control over the rebases. It is a feature built into the smart contract that affects all tokens in the ecosystem. Anyone, anywhere can call the rebase to trigger at the rebase time.

Now this is rather confusing. On your first illustration with John, you regulate the price by adding more token to John (from 1 BASE to 2 BASE). By this recent illustration, it was the total supply that's affected, while the amount of BASE each member owned is not affected. Which one is correct? Because although they look the same by glance, they're actually extremely different.

Very suspicious in my opinion and I see there is a red trust attached to you that something big is very suspicious here. A suspicious project.

I think there is a little confusion here. In the original example, John would go from 1 to 2 BASE tokens, that is still very true. We are simply saying that the rebase percentage can be any percentage, it all depends on the target price and current price of BASE. We actually built out a dashboard on our website, so that people can easily understand the numbers behind the rebases.  https://dashboard.baseprotocol.org/

As for the red trust... that is simply malicious activity from users on the site, and there is nothing we can really about that.

[holydarkness]

I'll focus on this matter first before attending to other matters. Based on your example, you peg the price by doubling and reducing the amount your user hold? And how is this achievable? Doesn't it imply that you have control of every token circulating?

Price is pegged by adjusting the total supply of BASE correspondent to the peg disruption. That could be a 100% adjustment, 20% adjustment, or even a 1% adjustment.

The team does not have control over the rebases. It is a feature built into the smart contract that affects all tokens in the ecosystem. Anyone, anywhere can call the rebase to trigger at the rebase time.

Now this is rather confusing. On your first illustration with John, you regulate the price by adding more token to John (from 1 BASE to 2 BASE). By this recent illustration, it was the total supply that's affected, while the amount of BASE each member owned is not affected. Which one is correct? Because although they look the same by glance, they're actually extremely different.

Very suspicious in my opinion and I see there is a red trust attached to you that something big is very suspicious here. A suspicious project.

I think there is a little confusion here. In the original example, John would go from 1 to 2 BASE tokens, that is still very true. We are simply saying that the rebase percentage can be any percentage, it all depends on the target price and current price of BASE. We actually built out a dashboard on our website, so that people can easily understand the numbers behind the rebases.  https://dashboard.baseprotocol.org/

And you're missing the point of my question here. I don't give a bother about the numbers, I understand it was just a rounded up numbers for an easy to grasp example. My question is, the way you regulate the value to be pegged at certain number, will it be done by increasing the total supply or will it be done by distributing token generated from the differences of previous total supply and new total supply to each of the holders in proportion of what they own?

[bluebit25]

I'll focus on this matter first before attending to other matters. Based on your example, you peg the price by doubling and reducing the amount your user hold? And how is this achievable? Doesn't it imply that you have control of every token circulating?

Price is pegged by adjusting the total supply of BASE correspondent to the peg disruption. That could be a 100% adjustment, 20% adjustment, or even a 1% adjustment.

The team does not have control over the rebases. It is a feature built into the smart contract that affects all tokens in the ecosystem. Anyone, anywhere can call the rebase to trigger at the rebase time.

Now this is rather confusing. On your first illustration with John, you regulate the price by adding more token to John (from 1 BASE to 2 BASE). By this recent illustration, it was the total supply that's affected, while the amount of BASE each member owned is not affected. Which one is correct? Because although they look the same by glance, they're actually extremely different.

Very suspicious in my opinion and I see there is a red trust attached to you that something big is very suspicious here. A suspicious project.

I think there is a little confusion here. In the original example, John would go from 1 to 2 BASE tokens, that is still very true. We are simply saying that the rebase percentage can be any percentage, it all depends on the target price and current price of BASE. We actually built out a dashboard on our website, so that people can easily understand the numbers behind the rebases.  https://dashboard.baseprotocol.org/

As for the red trust... that is simply malicious activity from users on the site, and there is nothing we can really about that.

Okay I'm seeing the explanation from Base, anyway you guys started with a Blockchain project before (it failed). I don't want to make you difficult, but if it started and failed then the end is my experience. I was also curious about Base's upcoming fundraising process.

[Arrrvin]

And you're missing the point of my question here. I don't give a bother about the numbers, I understand it was just a rounded up numbers for an easy to grasp example. My question is, the way you regulate the value to be pegged at certain number, will it be done by increasing the total supply or will it be done by distributing token generated from the differences of previous total supply and new total supply to each of the holders in proportion of what they own?

I'm reading the Litepaper presently, and it's the latter.

Consider this example, where tp = $1:
t₁ : Starting Equilibrium
John has 1 BASE worth $1.
t₂ : Price Increases
John has 1 BASE worth $2.
t₃ : Ending Equilibrium
John has 2 BASE each worth $1.

As a non-dev I'm not sure yet how that will be achieved technically on Ethereum.

[iphone5s]

I'll focus on this matter first before attending to other matters. Based on your example, you peg the price by doubling and reducing the amount your user hold? And how is this achievable? Doesn't it imply that you have control of every token circulating?

Price is pegged by adjusting the total supply of BASE correspondent to the peg disruption. That could be a 100% adjustment, 20% adjustment, or even a 1% adjustment.

The team does not have control over the rebases. It is a feature built into the smart contract that affects all tokens in the ecosystem. Anyone, anywhere can call the rebase to trigger at the rebase time.

Now this is rather confusing. On your first illustration with John, you regulate the price by adding more token to John (from 1 BASE to 2 BASE). By this recent illustration, it was the total supply that's affected, while the amount of BASE each member owned is not affected. Which one is correct? Because although they look the same by glance, they're actually extremely different.

Very suspicious in my opinion and I see there is a red trust attached to you that something big is very suspicious here. A suspicious project.

I think there is a little confusion here. In the original example, John would go from 1 to 2 BASE tokens, that is still very true. We are simply saying that the rebase percentage can be any percentage, it all depends on the target price and current price of BASE. We actually built out a dashboard on our website, so that people can easily understand the numbers behind the rebases.  https://dashboard.baseprotocol.org/

As for the red trust... that is simply malicious activity from users on the site, and there is nothing we can really about that.

Okay I'm seeing the explanation from Base, anyway you guys started with a Blockchain project before (it failed). I don't want to make you difficult, but if it started and failed then the end is my experience. I was also curious about Base's upcoming fundraising process.

An experience will make us more careful about what we want. I agree with you but we should continue to monitor this project and to what extent they will develop in the future.

[holydarkness]

And you're missing the point of my question here. I don't give a bother about the numbers, I understand it was just a rounded up numbers for an easy to grasp example. My question is, the way you regulate the value to be pegged at certain number, will it be done by increasing the total supply or will it be done by distributing token generated from the differences of previous total supply and new total supply to each of the holders in proportion of what they own?

I'm reading the Litepaper presently, and it's the latter.

Consider this example, where tp = $1:
t₁ : Starting Equilibrium
John has 1 BASE worth $1.
t₂ : Price Increases
John has 1 BASE worth $2.
t₃ : Ending Equilibrium
John has 2 BASE each worth $1.

As a non-dev I'm not sure yet how that will be achieved technically on Ethereum.

Thanks for helping out with the answer, hope the litepaper explained things well! Rebasing is pretty standard at this point, and actually works on Ethereum in a very affordable way!

As we are now on the same page about how you'll "stabilize" your price, namely by airdropping token to each holder respective to the increment rate of total crypto marketcap, how will you execute this method for the case of total marketcap decrement? Just like they're subjected to increment by minting and birth of new tokens, cryptocurrency suppliws are also subjected to decrement by burning, delisting, etc. You'll take tokens from your holder, then?

[holydarkness]

Yes this is essentially correct. I highly recommend reading the whitepaper or litepaper on our site because it will explain everything about rebasing. Check it out at: baseprotocol.org

If that's your answer, then we're back to the point where I questioned your method to stabilize price, because that is where the confusion began. According to the general idea stated on this thread, as well as confirmed by you on the answer I quoted above, stability achieved by airdropping token to holders, proportional to the increment of crypto marketcap. But, at one point of your explanation on this thread, as well as what's stated on what I screenshotted from your WP below, your attempt to stabilize price only stretched to increasing and decreasing supplies, while the actualization of price correction themselves depends entirely on holders action to sell and buy. In other words, if they wanted to get (for example) from 1 BASE to 2 BASE, they need to bid 1 extra BASE at certain price. They need to BUY, because token will not be airdropped to them. And only after a transaction finalized, a stabilized price will occur.





Tell me, were the people who write WP and moderating this thread different people with different understanding of how the project works?

[frcat]

Base Protocol (BASE) is a token whose price is pegged to the total market cap of all cryptocurrencies at a ratio of 1 : 1 trillion. BASE allows traders to speculate on the entire crypto industry with one token.
If crypto market cap is $350B, BASE is $0.35.
If crypto market cap is $700B, BASE is $0.70.

How is your token can be plegged to overal crypto market? The value of tokens depend on demand. If mcap 350 bln but people dont want buy your token it will be dumped and vise-versa.

[shinratensei_]

Base Protocol (BASE) is a token whose price is pegged to the total market cap of all cryptocurrencies at a ratio of 1 : 1 trillion. BASE allows traders to speculate on the entire crypto industry with one token.
If crypto market cap is $350B, BASE is $0.35.
If crypto market cap is $700B, BASE is $0.70.

How is your token can be plegged to overal crypto market? The value of tokens depend on demand. If mcap 350 bln but people dont want buy your token it will be dumped and vise-versa.

The rebase method has been allowing the developers to did a modification to the total supply of coins to make it become stable on its initial price.
This project was taking the idea used by AMPL. Some projects have been doing the same too.
When the token price was getting dumped and the developers will be issued more tokens to make the price will be equally with the initial price before it gets dumped.
Im only sharing about my knowledge from AMPL. This project is actually wanna copying AMPL. The idea was almost the same.

[BaseProtocol]

Yes this is essentially correct. I highly recommend reading the whitepaper or litepaper on our site because it will explain everything about rebasing. Check it out at: baseprotocol.org

If that's your answer, then we're back to the point where I questioned your method to stabilize price, because that is where the confusion began. According to the general idea stated on this thread, as well as confirmed by you on the answer I quoted above, stability achieved by airdropping token to holders, proportional to the increment of crypto marketcap. But, at one point of your explanation on this thread, as well as what's stated on what I screenshotted from your WP below, your attempt to stabilize price only stretched to increasing and decreasing supplies, while the actualization of price correction themselves depends entirely on holders action to sell and buy. In other words, if they wanted to get (for example) from 1 BASE to 2 BASE, they need to bid 1 extra BASE at certain price. They need to BUY, because token will not be airdropped to them. And only after a transaction finalized, a stabilized price will occur.





Tell me, were the people who write WP and moderating this thread different people with different understanding of how the project works?

Rebasing only affects supply, what you're talking about now is about how arbitrage can affect price to also help stabilize. At the end of the day it's very simple:

BASE price above peg price = Supply increase

BASE price below peg price = Supply decrease

We do increase the supply. As it shows in our whitepaper, if supply is 1, and price doubles, then after a rebase supply will now be 2. That supply change affects the entire BASE ecosystem, and every single wallet accordingly.

[jacafbiz]

...and Nick/Dylan did not take a salary at any point from 2018–2020

I see an open conversation. Could you give information about how and how much money you spent to develop a previous project? So far, I only see your words that the developers did not take a salary. These are words, I would like to see digits. Expanded information will give you a new reputation.

We will not be talking about this subject very much in the future because we have already commented on it, and it is mentioned on our website directly in our team section. I am providing this, so that you can actually see some numbers that we provided a long time ago in relation to the expenses. We were always extremely transparent about our expenses in the company. Last thing, we never said that developers did not take a salary; it was the two co-founders who did not take a salary in over two years. We ensured that our developers were paid a fair wage. You can check out this article, just to get an idea on our spending previously.

https://medium.com/spectiv-vr/2019-spectiv-status-update-5412b4f409a5

I held on to this tokens through out 2018 and the project was left to die, and the big question is that, how are we sure that this project won't end up the way Spectiv did. I have always said it is naive of any team to hold on to the fund raised in crypto, atleast convert part to fiat that can cover your running cost for 2 years

[BaseProtocol]

Where can you buy the base token?

Right now there is no way to "buy" BASE. You can sign up for the presale application on our website: baseprotocol.org/presale

[BaseProtocol]

...and Nick/Dylan did not take a salary at any point from 2018–2020

I see an open conversation. Could you give information about how and how much money you spent to develop a previous project? So far, I only see your words that the developers did not take a salary. These are words, I would like to see digits. Expanded information will give you a new reputation.

We will not be talking about this subject very much in the future because we have already commented on it, and it is mentioned on our website directly in our team section. I am providing this, so that you can actually see some numbers that we provided a long time ago in relation to the expenses. We were always extremely transparent about our expenses in the company. Last thing, we never said that developers did not take a salary; it was the two co-founders who did not take a salary in over two years. We ensured that our developers were paid a fair wage. You can check out this article, just to get an idea on our spending previously.

https://medium.com/spectiv-vr/2019-spectiv-status-update-5412b4f409a5

I held on to this tokens through out 2018 and the project was left to die, and the big question is that, how are we sure that this project won't end up the way Spectiv did. I have always said it is naive of any team to hold on to the fund raised in crypto, atleast convert part to fiat that can cover your running cost for 2 years

I can confidently say that we will be converting all of the initial money received to a stable currency.

[holydarkness]

Yes this is essentially correct. I highly recommend reading the whitepaper or litepaper on our site because it will explain everything about rebasing. Check it out at: baseprotocol.org

If that's your answer, then we're back to the point where I questioned your method to stabilize price, because that is where the confusion began. According to the general idea stated on this thread, as well as confirmed by you on the answer I quoted above, stability achieved by airdropping token to holders, proportional to the increment of crypto marketcap. But, at one point of your explanation on this thread, as well as what's stated on what I screenshotted from your WP below, your attempt to stabilize price only stretched to increasing and decreasing supplies, while the actualization of price correction themselves depends entirely on holders action to sell and buy. In other words, if they wanted to get (for example) from 1 BASE to 2 BASE, they need to bid 1 extra BASE at certain price. They need to BUY, because token will not be airdropped to them. And only after a transaction finalized, a stabilized price will occur.

Tell me, were the people who write WP and moderating this thread different people with different understanding of how the project works?

Rebasing only affects supply, what you're talking about now is about how arbitrage can affect price to also help stabilize. At the end of the day it's very simple:

BASE price above peg price = Supply increase

BASE price below peg price = Supply decrease

We do increase the supply. As it shows in our whitepaper, if supply is 1, and price doubles, then after a rebase supply will now be 2. That supply change affects the entire BASE ecosystem, and every single wallet accordingly.

Well, let's just say I failed to understand your WP although I've read them, and instead of us talking in circles and went further and further from your truest concept, let's just eliminate the confusion. If you'd be so kind to directly and as simple as possible to answer these questions:

1. Will you or will you not directly give more token to holders, in case of crypto total supply increment, to stabilize price?
2. In case you will, in question number 1, what will you do for the case of crypto total supply decrement? You certainly can't take tokens stored on holders personal wallet

[holydarkness]

So Dev, your thread were flooded with spam from bumping service, and you were online few days ago but didn't bother to answer my question, how is this suppose to encourage investing in you?

[nimogsm]

So Dev, your thread were flooded with spam from bumping service, and you were online few days ago but didn't bother to answer my question, how is this suppose to encourage investing in you?

I don't think he will answer anymore) it's easier to launch bots and pretend that people are interested in it. I don't know who will lead to such a pitiful sight. The project's reputation after this is simply negative.

[holydarkness]

So Dev, your thread were flooded with spam from bumping service, and you were online few days ago but didn't bother to answer my question, how is this suppose to encourage investing in you?

I don't think he will answer anymore) it's easier to launch bots and pretend that people are interested in it. I don't know who will lead to such a pitiful sight. The project's reputation after this is simply negative.

Yeah, in their defense, it was due to the failed project they had and they've do the best responsible possible by refunding at a higher price than market, although it's still lower than ICO. I came with full intention to give them benefits of the doubt, but it seems there's nothing to be benefitted from the doubt

[shinratensei_]

So Dev, your thread were flooded with spam from bumping service, and you were online few days ago but didn't bother to answer my question, how is this suppose to encourage investing in you?

I don't think he will answer anymore) it's easier to launch bots and pretend that people are interested in it. I don't know who will lead to such a pitiful sight. The project's reputation after this is simply negative.

The dev is only actively giving response on the tele group. It seems like this thread has started to be abandoned by them all. It's quite interesting to see the developers who failed to develop a project tried to the money again. These bumpers were also flooding another thread too.
I don't know how's behind these bumpers but it's really annoying to see that.