|
solix
|
 |
October 19, 2014, 10:19:43 PM |
|
http://www.nxtreporting.com/shareholder.php?a=12465186738101000735 is up again... more porpoises and dolphins than before (I think 34 holder was the closest thing we had to a whale that we know of, maybe more of a Beluga than a Blue at close to 1% share) About 10 folks own about 10 or more shares looks like. This does not include the "stealth" holders with spams of 2 share accounts of course. Not sure I want to know what the account "bots" is for or where its' capital was derived from  Edit: I'm surprised James only has 10 shares  .
|
Your Ad here! PM us now if you'd like to advertise here.
|
|
|
|
TaunSew
|
|
October 19, 2014, 10:30:16 PM |
|
http://www.nxtreporting.com/shareholder.php?a=12465186738101000735 is up again... more porpoises and dolphins than before (I think 34 holder was the closest thing we had to a whale that we know of, maybe more of a Beluga than a Blue at close to 1% share) About 10 folks own about 10 or more shares looks like. This does not include the "stealth" holders with spams of 2 share accounts of course. Not sure I want to know what the account "bots" is for or where its' capital was derived from Edit: I'm surprised James only has 10 shares . Maybe but this is a burden of proof / logical fallacy. People got 5% of NXT for $150. 5% of NEM costs like $200K. 1% is 40 million. Some do almost have 1%, makes you wonder how they got the capital but that's speculation / gossip |
There ain't no Revolution like a NEMolution. The only solution is Bitcoin's dissolution! NEM!
|
|
|
|
solix
|
|
October 19, 2014, 10:50:28 PM |
|
Forgive me for posting twice on the matter in rapid succession, but I want to propose a highly practical solution to our amount of minted coin problem after walking away and indulging in a spirit.
At this stage in the game given our time left until genesis
1) Do the devs feel this change is trivial? I presume it goes something like change a constant definition and re-run unit tests. Would need a senior dev to give the nod.
2) Do the community maintainers of our collective documentation feel they would have time and are willing to put forth the effort to update all the documentation and material we have in the wild with mentions of amount of coin in circulation? I have already seen a lot of dated stuff in some of that with the auction still mentioned and things of that nature.
If the answer to either of those is no, it is a moot point.
If the answer to both is yes, then I put forth the fact that 8 is no more arbitrary than 4. If you want to pull such a stunt now would be the time. If someone is aware of the presumably esoteric reason we chose 4, then forgive my ignorance and enlighten us with the error of our way in suggesting this change. If not, then 4 has nothing to stand on anymore than 8. I think we can afford a few bruises over the last minute changes if the supporting literature reflects the new information with a perhaps very delicate annotation about why the change, if it is even worth drawing attention to (might do more harm than good). It wouldn't in any way alter any of the existing mechanics around the claiming of stakes other than to say everything would be x2 in conversation and policy. One change to coin market cap (it is only an asset there anyway right?).
|
Your Ad here! PM us now if you'd like to advertise here.
|
|
|
|
yshin365new
|
|
October 19, 2014, 11:39:22 PM |
|
Merit of 8 billion NEM.(from a discussion until now)
1) Lucky number.---->popularity --------> large market
2) Soon, world population become 8 billion. ----> 1 NEM per 1 person!
3) 2 million NEM per 1 stakehloder (Double NEMillionaire) -------> Half sell, still NEMillionaire ----------> Wide distribution of NEM----------> NEM's popularity & prosperity.
Somebody please show me the merit of 4 billion NEM shortly.
If he shows the more merit, I will throw away 8 billion and support 4 Billion.
Thanks in advance.
The downsides of 8 bill are enough merrit for 4 bill. It was 4 bill for almost a year now and people are aware of that number. Changing it now will not only make people scratch their heads it will also look like we're all over the place changing stuff like this in the last possible moment out of superstition. Thanks. !. Would you please explain the downsides of 8 Billion NEM? 2. You pointed out "change of design(plan)". I understand your position. If I were a member of dev team, I would think like you,too. But Change of Design itself is not bad thing. Sometimes, Change of design is necessary for good result. !. Would you please explain the downsides of 8 Billion NEM? He just did. You can not make up the rules after the game has begun. Unless you want to lose investor confidence. This discussion is ridiculous. Crypto currency is not game. Rather Close to business. And do not confuse rule and design(plan). And,NEM did not launch yet. NEM's Change of design can be possible, if necessary, if there is no special technical difficulty and no additional expense. Blockbuster Movie "Titanic" experiensed change of design with paying magnificent sum of additional money. How was the result? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Djinou94
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1036
Merit: 1000
|
|
October 19, 2014, 11:58:55 PM |
|
OK, im lost here, i hold a NEMstake on the NXT AE.
Do i have to claim my stake now?
I dont have a NEM address, as ive only got the test NEM account on my computer.
No you don't have yet |
|
|
|
|
Djinou94
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1036
Merit: 1000
|
|
October 20, 2014, 12:04:18 AM |
|
I am leaning towards agreeing with everyone that this discussion should probably just be left alone. It seems like there are quite a few who do think we should change the total amount of coins, but I think that decision will ultimately undermine investor confidence, at least in the short-term. Long term, it really could go either way, but I think that the effects would be so minimal that risking short-term investor confidence is too much of a risk for a very minimal long-term gain (if any).
After thinking about it carefully for a significant amount of time since this discussion came about, I have come to the conclusion that the risk to reward ratio for this decision is simply not good enough for me to be able to support any changes.
Have you heard about the changes in companies' shares in stock markets? They usually come suddenly and then you have been given a letter, a notification that each share is splitted into 8 (for example). In such case the value of the owner's shares is the same, but the amount of shares has increased, not doubled but 8 times. I think that the investors do understand this kind of changes. No one has eaten his words  crypto markets are rarely, if ever logical and most of the counterintuitive. Even though the change would have no effect on the value of stakes, can you really trust such an illogical and irrational market to make the logical and rational choice to ignore such a change? There just doesn't seem to be enough gained from such a change to warrant making it. Like Amy said the risk:return ratio just isn't good enough for us to go ahead with this.. Why risk having a number that Asians consider unlucky or deadly? They are quite superstitious ,at least in my experience . If something negative were to happen however small they might be more likely to stay away. Isnt it a good thing that we are taking Asian beliefs , superstition and psychology into account ? Its respectful. Now as long as we have plenty coins to cover a fantastic future does it really matter how many there are? I will say again that Nemstakes are not a true representation of value as at the moment they fall under certain parameters and that price is not something to worry about. If anything the change to coin amount would bring increased news coverage and interest. The superstition is real, which is why I had to really think about this for a while. And of course it is good to take the concerns of other cultures into account, especially when we are dealing with something intended for use by everyone around the globe. However, the more I thought about it the more I realized that this is really not even a discussion worth having. Mainly because even though the supply will be 4 billion, this is only in the beginning. The total supply will not be 4 billion for very long, considering it is inevitable that some NEM will be burned for one thing or another. Therefore, to change the original plan simply so we can have something other than 4 billion in the beginning seems like a drastic measure simply to accommodate a superstition that likely will not make much of a difference in any real world scenario. Again, I live in Asia so I am very familiar with the superstition; but, the more I think about it, the more I think nobody is really going to care and the risk of making any changes to the original plan at this point after nearly a year of nobody caring is just too high, in my opinion. Also, I know to those of you who are not very familiar with this uniquely Asian superstition this sounds even more silly, but please understand that sometimes things that may seem strange or insignificant to one culture could be vastly important in another. So, I am glad that we are having this discussion but in the end I think we will probably be just fine with 4 billion. +1 For people who don't want to change Euro http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/currency/EUR.htmlUSD http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/currency/USD.htmlCNY http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/currency/CNY.htmlAll : http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/I think european should not give their opinion  |
|
|
|
|
|
TaunSew
|
|
October 20, 2014, 12:10:11 AM
Last edit: October 20, 2014, 12:21:32 AM by TaunSew |
|
You are assuming this is somehow an Asian thing. Here's an experiment: make a coin and give it a total supply of 666,666,666 and see how many people are interested in buying it. Maybe you could get some decent capitalization in the fringe world of alternate trading but you would probably just be attracting "l33t" people who think demonic numbers are cool.
The PS4 argument isn't a particularly good one anyway. Samsung Galaxy 4 (Korean company) doesn't even market a Samsung Galaxy 4 under its' western name in Asia but labels it: "SHV-E300K/S/L" (300 as opposed to 400").
|
There ain't no Revolution like a NEMolution. The only solution is Bitcoin's dissolution! NEM!
|
|
|
|
solix
|
|
October 20, 2014, 12:19:33 AM |
|
You are assuming this is somehow an Asian thing. Here's an experiment: make a coin and give it a total supply of 666,666,666 and see how many people are interested in buying it. Maybe you could get some decent capitalization in the fringe world of alternate trading but you would probably just be attracting "l33t" people who think demonic numbers are cool.
The PS4 argument isn't a particularly good one anyway. Samsung Galaxy 4 (Korean company) doesn't even market a Samsung Galaxy 4 under its' western name in Asia but labels it: "SHV-E300K/S/L" (300 as opposed to 400").
Didn't we have a post a few pages back from a bank note collector stating there was very clear evidence to support this position and it clearly defied logic (as most markets do)? I can tell you my landlord rented my flat to me for superstitious reasons despite the fact that I didn't offer the most money (aspects of my financial history met their lucky number formulas that are well beyond my understanding; they are Chinese). That isn't anecdotal, but very real exposure first hand and I am just one person with no cultural context for that. I also directly experienced this with one of my suppliers in China surrounding an order for 4 thousand units of something . No joke. I'm not Asian, and I don't live in Asia, but I was told by a few friends of mine who meet both of those criteria that the general observation is that no one admits it, but everyone privately observes it. Of course that is a generalization, but when I asked many people on their opinion on this exact subject there was never surprise, or even the need to have to explain further, just a quiet nod of the head with a smile. |
Your Ad here! PM us now if you'd like to advertise here.
|
|
|
|
TaunSew
|
|
October 20, 2014, 12:21:00 AM |
|
I am leaning towards agreeing with everyone that this discussion should probably just be left alone. It seems like there are quite a few who do think we should change the total amount of coins, but I think that decision will ultimately undermine investor confidence, at least in the short-term. Long term, it really could go either way, but I think that the effects would be so minimal that risking short-term investor confidence is too much of a risk for a very minimal long-term gain (if any).
After thinking about it carefully for a significant amount of time since this discussion came about, I have come to the conclusion that the risk to reward ratio for this decision is simply not good enough for me to be able to support any changes.
Have you heard about the changes in companies' shares in stock markets? They usually come suddenly and then you have been given a letter, a notification that each share is splitted into 8 (for example). In such case the value of the owner's shares is the same, but the amount of shares has increased, not doubled but 8 times. I think that the investors do understand this kind of changes. No one has eaten his words crypto markets are rarely, if ever logical and most of the counterintuitive. Even though the change would have no effect on the value of stakes, can you really trust such an illogical and irrational market to make the logical and rational choice to ignore such a change? There just doesn't seem to be enough gained from such a change to warrant making it. Like Amy said the risk:return ratio just isn't good enough for us to go ahead with this.. Why risk having a number that Asians consider unlucky or deadly? They are quite superstitious ,at least in my experience . If something negative were to happen however small they might be more likely to stay away. Isnt it a good thing that we are taking Asian beliefs , superstition and psychology into account ? Its respectful. Now as long as we have plenty coins to cover a fantastic future does it really matter how many there are? I will say again that Nemstakes are not a true representation of value as at the moment they fall under certain parameters and that price is not something to worry about. If anything the change to coin amount would bring increased news coverage and interest. The superstition is real, which is why I had to really think about this for a while. And of course it is good to take the concerns of other cultures into account, especially when we are dealing with something intended for use by everyone around the globe. However, the more I thought about it the more I realized that this is really not even a discussion worth having. Mainly because even though the supply will be 4 billion, this is only in the beginning. The total supply will not be 4 billion for very long, considering it is inevitable that some NEM will be burned for one thing or another. Therefore, to change the original plan simply so we can have something other than 4 billion in the beginning seems like a drastic measure simply to accommodate a superstition that likely will not make much of a difference in any real world scenario. Again, I live in Asia so I am very familiar with the superstition; but, the more I think about it, the more I think nobody is really going to care and the risk of making any changes to the original plan at this point after nearly a year of nobody caring is just too high, in my opinion. Also, I know to those of you who are not very familiar with this uniquely Asian superstition this sounds even more silly, but please understand that sometimes things that may seem strange or insignificant to one culture could be vastly important in another. So, I am glad that we are having this discussion but in the end I think we will probably be just fine with 4 billion. +1 For people who don't want to change Euro http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/currency/EUR.htmlUSD http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/currency/USD.htmlCNY http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/currency/CNY.htmlAll : http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/I think european should not give their opinion Well the way you put that could offend the Europeans on here. I hope that wasn't your intent. However, it's true that digital currencies are becoming popular faster in East Asia than they are in North America and Europe. This isn't a guaranteed thing, I mean PayPal is used by many people in the United States and that userbase (150 million) is much larger than Bitcoin (2 million max) However you also have to remember that digital currencies seems to be attracting the remittance market and $capital bypass market which *drum roll* is predominately East Asian and South East Asian. Bitcoin allows you to get $USD equivalents if you live in the developing world. |
There ain't no Revolution like a NEMolution. The only solution is Bitcoin's dissolution! NEM!
|
|
|
Djinou94
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1036
Merit: 1000
|
|
October 20, 2014, 12:23:56 AM |
|
I am leaning towards agreeing with everyone that this discussion should probably just be left alone. It seems like there are quite a few who do think we should change the total amount of coins, but I think that decision will ultimately undermine investor confidence, at least in the short-term. Long term, it really could go either way, but I think that the effects would be so minimal that risking short-term investor confidence is too much of a risk for a very minimal long-term gain (if any).
After thinking about it carefully for a significant amount of time since this discussion came about, I have come to the conclusion that the risk to reward ratio for this decision is simply not good enough for me to be able to support any changes.
Have you heard about the changes in companies' shares in stock markets? They usually come suddenly and then you have been given a letter, a notification that each share is splitted into 8 (for example). In such case the value of the owner's shares is the same, but the amount of shares has increased, not doubled but 8 times. I think that the investors do understand this kind of changes. No one has eaten his words crypto markets are rarely, if ever logical and most of the counterintuitive. Even though the change would have no effect on the value of stakes, can you really trust such an illogical and irrational market to make the logical and rational choice to ignore such a change? There just doesn't seem to be enough gained from such a change to warrant making it. Like Amy said the risk:return ratio just isn't good enough for us to go ahead with this.. Why risk having a number that Asians consider unlucky or deadly? They are quite superstitious ,at least in my experience . If something negative were to happen however small they might be more likely to stay away. Isnt it a good thing that we are taking Asian beliefs , superstition and psychology into account ? Its respectful. Now as long as we have plenty coins to cover a fantastic future does it really matter how many there are? I will say again that Nemstakes are not a true representation of value as at the moment they fall under certain parameters and that price is not something to worry about. If anything the change to coin amount would bring increased news coverage and interest. The superstition is real, which is why I had to really think about this for a while. And of course it is good to take the concerns of other cultures into account, especially when we are dealing with something intended for use by everyone around the globe. However, the more I thought about it the more I realized that this is really not even a discussion worth having. Mainly because even though the supply will be 4 billion, this is only in the beginning. The total supply will not be 4 billion for very long, considering it is inevitable that some NEM will be burned for one thing or another. Therefore, to change the original plan simply so we can have something other than 4 billion in the beginning seems like a drastic measure simply to accommodate a superstition that likely will not make much of a difference in any real world scenario. Again, I live in Asia so I am very familiar with the superstition; but, the more I think about it, the more I think nobody is really going to care and the risk of making any changes to the original plan at this point after nearly a year of nobody caring is just too high, in my opinion. Also, I know to those of you who are not very familiar with this uniquely Asian superstition this sounds even more silly, but please understand that sometimes things that may seem strange or insignificant to one culture could be vastly important in another. So, I am glad that we are having this discussion but in the end I think we will probably be just fine with 4 billion. +1 For people who don't want to change Euro http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/currency/EUR.htmlUSD http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/currency/USD.htmlCNY http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/currency/CNY.htmlAll : http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/I think european should not give their opinion Well the way you put that could offend the Europeans on here. I hope that wasn't your intent. However, it's true that digital currencies are becoming popular faster in East Asia than they are in North America and Europe.
This isn't a guaranteed thing, I mean PayPal is used by many people in the United States and that userbase is much larger than Bitcoin. I'm from Europe I'm poor  |
|
|
|
|
|
TaunSew
|
|
October 20, 2014, 12:27:18 AM |
|
I am leaning towards agreeing with everyone that this discussion should probably just be left alone. It seems like there are quite a few who do think we should change the total amount of coins, but I think that decision will ultimately undermine investor confidence, at least in the short-term. Long term, it really could go either way, but I think that the effects would be so minimal that risking short-term investor confidence is too much of a risk for a very minimal long-term gain (if any).
After thinking about it carefully for a significant amount of time since this discussion came about, I have come to the conclusion that the risk to reward ratio for this decision is simply not good enough for me to be able to support any changes.
Have you heard about the changes in companies' shares in stock markets? They usually come suddenly and then you have been given a letter, a notification that each share is splitted into 8 (for example). In such case the value of the owner's shares is the same, but the amount of shares has increased, not doubled but 8 times. I think that the investors do understand this kind of changes. No one has eaten his words crypto markets are rarely, if ever logical and most of the counterintuitive. Even though the change would have no effect on the value of stakes, can you really trust such an illogical and irrational market to make the logical and rational choice to ignore such a change? There just doesn't seem to be enough gained from such a change to warrant making it. Like Amy said the risk:return ratio just isn't good enough for us to go ahead with this.. Why risk having a number that Asians consider unlucky or deadly? They are quite superstitious ,at least in my experience . If something negative were to happen however small they might be more likely to stay away. Isnt it a good thing that we are taking Asian beliefs , superstition and psychology into account ? Its respectful. Now as long as we have plenty coins to cover a fantastic future does it really matter how many there are? I will say again that Nemstakes are not a true representation of value as at the moment they fall under certain parameters and that price is not something to worry about. If anything the change to coin amount would bring increased news coverage and interest. The superstition is real, which is why I had to really think about this for a while. And of course it is good to take the concerns of other cultures into account, especially when we are dealing with something intended for use by everyone around the globe. However, the more I thought about it the more I realized that this is really not even a discussion worth having. Mainly because even though the supply will be 4 billion, this is only in the beginning. The total supply will not be 4 billion for very long, considering it is inevitable that some NEM will be burned for one thing or another. Therefore, to change the original plan simply so we can have something other than 4 billion in the beginning seems like a drastic measure simply to accommodate a superstition that likely will not make much of a difference in any real world scenario. Again, I live in Asia so I am very familiar with the superstition; but, the more I think about it, the more I think nobody is really going to care and the risk of making any changes to the original plan at this point after nearly a year of nobody caring is just too high, in my opinion. Also, I know to those of you who are not very familiar with this uniquely Asian superstition this sounds even more silly, but please understand that sometimes things that may seem strange or insignificant to one culture could be vastly important in another. So, I am glad that we are having this discussion but in the end I think we will probably be just fine with 4 billion. +1 For people who don't want to change Euro http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/currency/EUR.htmlUSD http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/currency/USD.htmlCNY http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/currency/CNY.htmlAll : http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/I think european should not give their opinion Well the way you put that could offend the Europeans on here. I hope that wasn't your intent. However, it's true that digital currencies are becoming popular faster in East Asia than they are in North America and Europe.
This isn't a guaranteed thing, I mean PayPal is used by many people in the United States and that userbase is much larger than Bitcoin. I'm from Europe I'm poor Well unless your Grandfather was a King or a Lord, aren't most people in Europe?  People think Europe is a rich land but it isn't really anymore for most ordinary people. Like wages in coastal China are now higher than most of Europe (have to remember Europe is not something that ends in the middle of Germany but extends to the Urals and includes many countries where ordinary people are struggling). |
There ain't no Revolution like a NEMolution. The only solution is Bitcoin's dissolution! NEM!
|
|
|
|
|
|
solix
|
|
October 20, 2014, 12:43:53 AM |
|
I am leaning towards agreeing with everyone that this discussion should probably just be left alone. It seems like there are quite a few who do think we should change the total amount of coins, but I think that decision will ultimately undermine investor confidence, at least in the short-term. Long term, it really could go either way, but I think that the effects would be so minimal that risking short-term investor confidence is too much of a risk for a very minimal long-term gain (if any).
After thinking about it carefully for a significant amount of time since this discussion came about, I have come to the conclusion that the risk to reward ratio for this decision is simply not good enough for me to be able to support any changes.
Have you heard about the changes in companies' shares in stock markets? They usually come suddenly and then you have been given a letter, a notification that each share is splitted into 8 (for example). In such case the value of the owner's shares is the same, but the amount of shares has increased, not doubled but 8 times. I think that the investors do understand this kind of changes. No one has eaten his words crypto markets are rarely, if ever logical and most of the counterintuitive. Even though the change would have no effect on the value of stakes, can you really trust such an illogical and irrational market to make the logical and rational choice to ignore such a change? There just doesn't seem to be enough gained from such a change to warrant making it. Like Amy said the risk:return ratio just isn't good enough for us to go ahead with this.. Why risk having a number that Asians consider unlucky or deadly? They are quite superstitious ,at least in my experience . If something negative were to happen however small they might be more likely to stay away. Isnt it a good thing that we are taking Asian beliefs , superstition and psychology into account ? Its respectful. Now as long as we have plenty coins to cover a fantastic future does it really matter how many there are? I will say again that Nemstakes are not a true representation of value as at the moment they fall under certain parameters and that price is not something to worry about. If anything the change to coin amount would bring increased news coverage and interest. The superstition is real, which is why I had to really think about this for a while. And of course it is good to take the concerns of other cultures into account, especially when we are dealing with something intended for use by everyone around the globe. However, the more I thought about it the more I realized that this is really not even a discussion worth having. Mainly because even though the supply will be 4 billion, this is only in the beginning. The total supply will not be 4 billion for very long, considering it is inevitable that some NEM will be burned for one thing or another. Therefore, to change the original plan simply so we can have something other than 4 billion in the beginning seems like a drastic measure simply to accommodate a superstition that likely will not make much of a difference in any real world scenario. Again, I live in Asia so I am very familiar with the superstition; but, the more I think about it, the more I think nobody is really going to care and the risk of making any changes to the original plan at this point after nearly a year of nobody caring is just too high, in my opinion. Also, I know to those of you who are not very familiar with this uniquely Asian superstition this sounds even more silly, but please understand that sometimes things that may seem strange or insignificant to one culture could be vastly important in another. So, I am glad that we are having this discussion but in the end I think we will probably be just fine with 4 billion. +1 For people who don't want to change Euro http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/currency/EUR.htmlUSD http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/currency/USD.htmlCNY http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/currency/CNY.htmlAll : http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/I think european should not give their opinion Well the way you put that could offend the Europeans on here. I hope that wasn't your intent. However, it's true that digital currencies are becoming popular faster in East Asia than they are in North America and Europe. This isn't a guaranteed thing, I mean PayPal is used by many people in the United States and that userbase is much larger than Bitcoin. However you also have to remember that digital currencies seems to be attracting the remittance market and $capital bypass market which *drum roll* is predominately East Asian and South East Asian. Other then sending money over there as remittance, nobody in the US is actually interested in acquiring Asian currencies but things like Bitcoin allow people to acquire $USD equivalents. Oh I certainly am not intending to offend anyone. What I'm saying is all things being equal (which appears to be the consensus from North American's and Europeans here?), 8 is as arbitrary as 4, but apparently is less upsetting to the largest number of people. It also seems like Asia just generally adapts quicker to new technology culturally than European and North American markets. I had Japanese friends laugh at our cell phones (this was the pre iPhone days) in the states and tell us they'd had features like that for years. "Every kid in Japan is already banking by phone" or whatever it was that now escapes me. I believe I read North America has the least inertia with broadband too despite being a major initial developer. I Believe I also read that North America severely lags behind Europe and Asia in math and science. I'm always reading about some viral technology thing going on in Asia that I have never even heard of. Some mobile app, cyborg conversions, biometric implants, whatever. On the other hand I see things like Facebook and Twitter as an American invention (for better or for worse). Maybe American's want to play bejeweled, post pictures of their food or check in to the gym but not take control of their personal finances or use cool prosthetics. Granted this is somewhat baseless and purely on observation from the news, but it just seems like Asian markets adapt quicker to new ways of doing things, and therefore they seem the natural catalyst to break a cryptocurrency out of its infancy so long as it doesn't get under the noses of regulators too quickly. I remember all the trollbox FUD about "China banning exchanges!" and the purported associated crash of BTC to sub 1000, then 900, then 800 and so on levels earlier this year. There are assertions floating about in the interwebs that much of the value of BTC was Chinese nationals using it to bypass the strict limitations on moving currency in and out of the country. I would just easily believe it was Wall Street investors, drug dealers, and libertarians too, who knows. I would have to guess laundering money, whether criminal or benign in intent is a natural companion to the utility provided by Bitcoin. If I have offended you with these statements my apologies in advance. For the record, I am in one of those "Slow" North American markets with crappy broadband before you accuse me of elitism. |
Your Ad here! PM us now if you'd like to advertise here.
|
|
|
|
TaunSew
|
|
October 20, 2014, 01:06:28 AM |
|
I think this option could result in a lot of dissent from existing stakeholders. Or maybe people will like it? I think it's possible that a larger market cap could boost NEM capitalization significantly. For one, there's probably people who are pricing NEM in just NXT and therefore the prices could hold to an extent if you boosted the total supply. Your NEMstake would scale in this option and you would benefit from this market capitalization increase. Then there is the psychological. Look at the Doge effect - 90+ billion coins and it brought in many people who were able to afford millions. Being a millionaire of something is a psychological thing that appeals to many. Masses of people spending $10-$100 is always going to be better than a dozen guys pumping in tens of thousands. Doge I think did ok. It wasn't the total supply itself in Doge that was controversial - it was the hyper inflation from PoW mining and then the instamine whales who got in early dumping on the new comers (which is arguably no different than NXT and a factor why people ceased coming to NXT. Why buy something that never goes up because as soon as it rebounds some whale dumps? As much as people groan about speculators - in actuality - nobody intentionally buys something with the intent of losing money). |
There ain't no Revolution like a NEMolution. The only solution is Bitcoin's dissolution! NEM!
|
|
|
|
amytheplanarshift
|
|
October 20, 2014, 01:13:43 AM |
|
Oh I certainly am not intending to offend anyone. What I'm saying is all things being equal (which appears to be the consensus from North American's and Europeans here?), 8 is as arbitrary as 4, but apparently is less upsetting to the largest number of people. It also seems like Asia just generally adapts quicker to new technology culturally than European and North American markets. I had Japanese friends laugh at our cell phones (this was the pre iPhone days) in the states and tell us they'd had features like that for years. "Every kid in Japan is already banking by phone" or whatever it was that now escapes me. I believe I read North America has the least inertia with broadband too despite being a major initial developer. I Believe I also read that North America severely lags behind Europe and Asia in math and science. I'm always reading about some viral technology thing going on in Asia that I have never even heard of. Some mobile app, cyborg conversions, biometric implants, whatever. On the other hand I see things like Facebook and Twitter as an American invention (for better or for worse). Maybe American's want to play bejeweled, post pictures of their food or check in to the gym but not take control of their personal finances or use cool prosthetics.
Granted this is somewhat baseless and purely on observation from the news, but it just seems like Asian markets adapt quicker to new ways of doing things, and therefore they seem the natural catalyst to break a cryptocurrency out of its infancy so long as it doesn't get under the noses of regulators too quickly. I remember all the trollbox FUD about "China banning exchanges!" and the purported associated crash of BTC to sub 1000, then 900, then 800 and so on levels earlier this year. There are assertions floating about in the interwebs that much of the value of BTC was Chinese nationals using it to bypass the strict limitations on moving currency in and out of the country. I would just easily believe it was Wall Street investors, drug dealers, and libertarians too, who knows. I would have to guess laundering money, whether criminal or benign in intent is a natural companion to the utility provided by Bitcoin.
If I have offended you with these statements my apologies in advance. For the record, I am in one of those "Slow" North American markets with crappy broadband before you accuse me of elitism.
Unfortunately, your view of Japan as a "fast-adapting hub of technology" is a very antiquated view of Japan. Japan has been lagging behind in the technology sector for years now, and I would say Japan is anything but "quick to adapt" when it comes to trying new things. Yes, we have NFC payments on our phones already, and we have a few things here and there that might seem "cutting edge", but in reality barely anyone here even knows how to use a PC at the most basic level unless they are trained on the job for it. I mean, I still have to FAX or snail mail most of my documents for business here as 99% of my clients refuse to accept digitally signed PDF files via e-mail. Japan is, on the whole, scarily xenophobic and simply does not want to use any non-Japanese technology. It took years for Japanese people to warm up to non-Japanese cell phones (like the iPhone, which was a huge flop when it first hit the market here), Facebook (which only in the past couple of years has started to become more common than the Japanese-created SNS mixi), or even YouTube (which still I do not think is as popular as the Japanese-created video site niconico douga). Anyway, I don't mean this to be a Japan-bashing post or anything like that... I just want to give you some perspective and remind you that America is still the leader of the world when it comes to technological innovation and adoption. Just because you have slow broadband does not mean you guys are losing the technology arms race. I know "the grass is always greener on the other side" and it is easy to fall into a sense of despair when you only cherry-pick the good things from every other country and only focus on the bad within your own, but reality usually tells a different story. |
|
|
|
|
Conurtrol
|
|
October 20, 2014, 01:14:54 AM |
|
This is completely wrong. Market cap will be exactly the same. The supply will double and each nemcoin will be worth half of current price. |
|
|
|
|
|
solix
|
|
October 20, 2014, 01:15:11 AM |
|
I think this option could result in a lot of dissent from existing stakeholders. Or maybe people will like it? I think it's possible that a larger market cap could boost NEM capitalization significantly. For one, there's probably people who are pricing NEM in just NXT and therefore the prices could hold to an extent if you boosted the total supply. Your NEMstake would scale in this option and you would benefit from this market capitalization increase. Then there is the psychological. Look at the Doge effect - 90+ billion coins and it brought in many people who were able to afford millions. Masses of people spending $10-$100 to become a is always going to be better than a dozen guys pumping in tens of thousands. Doge I think did ok. It wasn't the total supply itself in Doge that was controversial - it was the hyper inflation from PoW mining and then the instamine whales who got in early dumping on the new comers (which is arguably no different than NXT and a factor why people ceased coming to NXT. Why buy something that never goes up because as soon as it rebounds some whale dumps?). Not a lot not to like really. Worst case the supply equalizes the demand and we aren't really worse for the wear right? The important thing here is that it isn't like someone paid 50k nxt on Poloniex to get 1,000,000 and then gets screwed when it suddenly halves in value (worst case) as the supply is doubled. That would kind of piss me off. Anyone that has paid or will pay for a piece of the pie will be sorted in proportion. I guess I personally don't understand the mechanics of inflationary coins that well and the psychology it induces on the market in terms of value to make a good judgement other than a highly ignorant statement like "doubling the supply should halve the value per unit" in a perfectly efficient market. |
Your Ad here! PM us now if you'd like to advertise here.
|
|
|
gd_kuaile
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 36
Merit: 0
|
|
October 20, 2014, 01:17:46 AM |
|
I can't understand why we need to change the total number of coins.
A small group of people said that 4 bill was unluck, it's so ridiculous.
Just keep on the original plan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
jkoil
|
|
October 20, 2014, 01:22:55 AM
Last edit: October 20, 2014, 01:35:22 AM by jkoil |
|
Number of coins, number of stakeholders When NEM was announced almost a year ago, then was mentioned 4000000000 coins and 4000 stakeholders. The latter has already been changed. It would have been possible to just mention in the very beginning that there will be 1000000000 - xx000000000 coins and 1000 - xx000 stakeholders - depending on the popularity of the NEM. If the first definition was "1000000000 - xx000000000 coins", would it affected so that you would not be in NEM? Here and there are comments, which seem to steer this discussion to /dev/null (to its end without any results). I think that is too hasty. Because: 1) Asia is a big economy and in the future it will be bigger. 2) The change of Number of coins is possible (and it has no actual effect to stakeholders). |
|
|
|
|
|
