[ANN] QIBUCK COIN - X13 - POS/POBH - 1st Proof of Baghold and asset backed.

[qiwoman2]

People will only be able to claim from one account per card. If they have a spouse or grown up kid that they can open another wallet for they can do so. For accounting purposes it makes our job easier, one wallet per bitcoin payee. .  Like for example I will have one wallet and my Husband will have his own wallet so that's o.k as we both will have each a card, so that is allowed. Or if you have another grown family member they can get their card and be paid for their wallet. Main thing is we encourage holders to baghold a healthy portion of their coins and not just dump them all for the next shiny coin.. Trading them in a healthy place is where we are at.. Trade some, stake some..

Yeah, but how will you verify that? By address?

Again, if I put my evil thinking cap on, it could be easily abused without a physical address, and still somewhat abused with an address.

Say they have a spouse, and 4 adult children. And 7 friends... and several PO boxes. And would like 30 reward accounts please.

That may be an exaggeration, but how would you stop someone from doing that? Doing IP checking, I hope? Which again, is pretty easy to abuse.

If you make so many addresses you will be diluting your pools.. Also there are only 500k coins and the staking will take years.. I will discuss also with the team but We are hoping that primarily people will be decent and honest..We could ask peeps to upload their photo i.d maybe? Unfortunately though not everyone wants to do that. There is an outcry that we must always show are faces and be transparent and I totally accept that, hence you have my lovely face on the Website lol   but if I ask that form the Bag holders what percentage you think is going to give me a proof of address and their passport or car i.d? ..That would solve the problem to a T.

[poornamelessme]

If you make so many addresses you will be diluting your pools.. Also there are only 500k coins and the staking will take years.. I will discuss also with the team but We are hoping that primarily people will be decent and honest..We could ask peeps to upload their photo i.d maybe? Unfortunately though not everyone wants to do that. There is an outcry that we must always show are faces and be transparent and I totally accept that, hence you have my lovely face on the Website lol   but if I ask that form the Bag holders what percentage you think is going to give me a proof of address and their passport or car i.d? ..That would solve the problem to a T.

I expect very few would be willing to provide proof of address -- if it required a passport/license, nobody would bother.

I suggest an IP check, maybe some social media checks, etc.  Basically the same methods used to block puppet accounts for freebie coins. Or just go with a proportional payout per coin and not the tiered model. Although then exchanges and giant whales could be an issue, as they'd get all the payouts really.

There probably isn't an ideal solution. I was mostly just curious how you guys planned to do it.

[armin22]

I think it will just be better to make each pool have an equal share?

[qiwoman2]

I think it will just be better to make each pool have an equal share?

We made the lower pool more because there will be more peeps in that one so less to share out..the other two pools will have less and less peeps in..Does that make sense?

[armin22]

I think it will just be better to make each pool have an equal share?

We made the lower pool more because there will be more peeps in that one so less to share out..the other two pools will have less and less peeps in..Does that make sense?

Tgats one way to go about it, but it would cause more hassle and confusion, and it will also lead lots of people just breaking up their wallets into smaller batches to receive more. Asking people for verification or id wont be very good for both parties. I think it'd save time and hassle and confusion in just making each pool have same %

[poornamelessme]

I think it will just be better to make each pool have an equal share?

We made the lower pool more because there will be more peeps in that one so less to share out..the other two pools will have less and less peeps in..Does that make sense?

Is there a proportional reward based on coins held for each specific pool?

Meaning, say investorX has 6000 coins and gets rewards from the first two pools. The way I am reading it is, he'd get more payouts by making 6 individual wallets at 1K each vs one wallet at 6K coins. Or am I misunderstanding how that works?

[Bitcoin_Mafia_Me]

I think it will just be better to make each pool have an equal share?

We made the lower pool more because there will be more peeps in that one so less to share out..the other two pools will have less and less peeps in..Does that make sense?

Is there a proportional reward based on coins held for each specific pool?

Meaning, say investorX has 6000 coins and gets rewards from the first two pools. The way I am reading it is, he'd get more payouts by making 6 individual wallets at 1K each vs one wallet at 6K coins. Or am I misunderstanding how that works?

Excepting that each BTC card is tied to only 1 wallet address. We'll be doing checks to the best of our abilities to verify
that the information that people give us when they sign up for a card is accurate and that there are no duplicates (e.g.
2 BTC cards going to the same person at the same address).

There is no 100% foolproof way to guard against it without going all "show us your papers, citizen!" on people, which
we do not want to do. Most people, I think, will abide by the 1 card - 1 address - 1 person rule. There's plenty of profit
for all without anyone having to get greedy.

[poornamelessme]

Tgats one way to go about it, but it would cause more hassle and confusion, and it will also lead lots of people just breaking up their wallets into smaller batches to receive more. Asking people for verification or id wont be very good for both parties. I think it'd save time and hassle and confusion in just making each pool have same %

If each pool was the same %, would it even matter really?

Again, I may be misunderstanding how this all works, but say we break it down like this. These will be hypothetical numbers of course (and ridiculously high, but I prefer using integers) --

InvestorX has 10000 qibucks.

And...

Group one gets 1 btc in payments  for the month. Yay, not bad at all.
Group two gets 4 btc for the month, due to less folks being in that pool -- the higher the requirement, the less folks who should be in the pool.
Group three gets 10 btc for the month. Even less people in this pool

So if he plays by the rules, he'd get 15 btc in payouts for that month.

But if InvestorX turns evil, and instead decides to make 10 wallets with 1K in each, he instead gets 41 btc. Of course there is some dilution of the pool by doing this, but it would likely be somewhat insignificant based on the number of overall investors.

And if InvestorX went super evil and instead made 100 wallets with 100 qibucks in each, he'd get 100 btc.

That's the problem I was getting at. That also assumes that's how payouts will even work, and I'm not completely confused by the whole thing. But also why changing the percentages wouldn't matter, unless it was a payout per coin, everyone in one single pool. But then whales and exchanges would eat up all the payouts.

[poornamelessme]

There is no 100% foolproof way to guard against it without going all "show us your papers, citizen!" on people, which
we do not want to do. Most people, I think, will abide by the 1 card - 1 address - 1 person rule. There's plenty of profit
for all without anyone having to get greedy.

Yep, I just wanted to see if I even understood how that worked correctly. There is no fullproof way to guard against abusers. Ip check, social media, could help, so would suggest that. I do agree that I think most will abide by the rules though, or at least I hope.

[qiwoman2]

There is no 100% foolproof way to guard against it without going all "show us your papers, citizen!" on people, which
we do not want to do. Most people, I think, will abide by the 1 card - 1 address - 1 person rule. There's plenty of profit
for all without anyone having to get greedy.

Yep, I just wanted to see if I even understood how that worked correctly. There is no fullproof way to guard against abusers. Ip check, social media, could help, so would suggest that. I do agree that I think most will abide by the rules though, or at least I hope.

Also the pool thing will help peeps not just have all their coins on exchange so they will just upload on exchange what they want to trade so it encourages good bagholding practices..
Also if peep think he is clever making too many addresses, he will earn less and less by over diluting the pool.

Less addresses makes for MORE INCOME..
This will turn from whale fest to shark fest as more and more peeps scramble for the top positions..Also once our assets and revenues grow and grow..the value will rise intrinsically and so will naturally - without brute force - the price.

[Nxtblg]

Excepting that each BTC card is tied to only 1 wallet address. We'll be doing checks to the best of our abilities to verify
that the information that people give us when they sign up for a card is accurate and that there are no duplicates (e.g.
2 BTC cards going to the same person at the same address).

There is no 100% foolproof way to guard against it without going all "show us your papers, citizen!" on people, which
we do not want to do. Most people, I think, will abide by the 1 card - 1 address - 1 person rule. There's plenty of profit
for all without anyone having to get greedy.

You've touched on a good point. Some people will game the system, but most won't. I can say that from my experience in getting the NFD distribution list straightened out.

I suppose it all comes down to how angry we get when we see someone game the system whose rules we followed...

[Marvell1]

Looks great !  I will baghold and even bag-mine this coin
TO THE MOON!!!

[istvandv]

id like to give a sample computation, lets say we have the following scenario
- profit for the month 10 BTC
- 1000 mini bagholders
- 50 midi bagholder


distribution would be:
- 1000 Mini Bagholders 20%
   > 20% of 10 BTC profit = 2 BTC for Mini bagholders
   > 2 BTC among 1000 mini bagholders = 0.002 for each bagholder

- 50 Midi Bagholder 15%
  > 15% of 10 BTC profit = 1.5 BTC for Midi bagholders
  > 1.5 BTC among 50 midi bagholders =  0.03 for each midi bagholder


lets say you have 1000 coins, that would make you a MIDI bagholder and would get the following:
- 0.002 mini + 0.03 midi = 0.032 BTC

now lets say you decide to be clever and split the 1000 coins instead to 10 different addresses and therefore have 10 Mini shares, you would get the following:
- .002 x 10 mini shares = .02 BTC

notice that you would get more by just having 1 MIDI baghold address
it depends also whether how many mini bagholders there are and how many midi bagholders there would be,

[jc12345]

I considered QBK long and hard but then decided against it for the following reasons:

How things will probably go based on alt-coin history so far:
1. Roadmap mentions merchant adoption which is what every coin so far tried to achieve. Even BTC is struggling with that and merchant adoption to create demand will take many months/years to achieve. After QBK there will be many other coins launched with the same goal. Apart from possible benefits from the u-ci plans I could not see any plausible real life use for QBK that will create demand and this is long term.
2. ICO is a no-no. All ICO coins so far have failed. How will the ICO host in anyways really know what the withdrawals are used for? Apologies if I am skeptic. If you want a coin to succeed you need to have enough real life funding to do it and have a company capitalised with enough funds so that you do not need investor funds to do it. Having said this there are exceptions though like Kickstarter where something tangible or useful have been created but with specific characteristics. In RL using investor funds in companies are regulated and needs to comply with certain criteria and conditions - including venture capital companies.
3. 20k sats ICO. Really??
4. All coins except for a few follow the same price and volume graphs - Initial pump up and after the first rise a dump and gradual decline over a number of weeks/months to eventual low price and low volume followed by a de-listing. What will make QBK different?
5. At the initial pump the ICO purchasers will dump at their respective risk thresholds - some at 5% some at 10-20%%, some will try their luck for 50% and when the bell rings big dumping back to 20k or lower.
6. 95%+ of crypto people are just there for the quick profits. Very few are in it for the long term. The ratio for ICO purchasers will probably be the same, meaning that after the initial dump there will be no interest left and they will move on to the next coin launch.
7. After the initial dump there will be bag holders that at least will earn BTC. BUT unless you have a plan to fund that for at least 1 year, you will run out of funds to pay the BTC.
8. There will be daily moaning on the ANN thread about when is the next innovation, what is going on FUDding will be rife in the backdrop of pice and volume decrease. The downward trend will continue unless you can find another way of creating demand and keeping people interested. However unless there is something big that creates a lot of volatility the initial profit takers will not return and you will have to work with the remaining bagholders to achieve your objectives. The key will be to keep interest, momentum and demand until you can achieve something with merchant adoption or u-ci.
9. POS coins have a dismal track record so far.

On the plus side:
1. If you are as dynamic as you say you are and if want QBK to be successful you need to address the above points. All coins except maybe one or two have failed to achieve that.
2. Women rights is a hot topic currently. So if people are into that then support something run by women (if you are women of course).
3. Accounts mentioned to be involved are at least not raw newbie accounts.

The above sounds skeptical but 20k is too high in my view for an ICO. Maybe there is some BTC to make on the first rise. Hopefully you can prove me wrong.

[Bitcoin_Mafia_Me]

I considered QBK long and hard but then decided against it for the following reasons:

How things will probably go based on alt-coin history so far:
1. Roadmap mentions merchant adoption which is what every coin so far tried to achieve. Even BTC is struggling with that and merchant adoption to create demand will take many months/years to achieve. After QBK there will be many other coins launched with the same goal. Apart from possible benefits from the u-ci plans I could not see any plausible real life use for QBK that will create demand and this is long term.
2. ICO is a no-no. All ICO coins so far have failed. How will the ICO host in anyways really know what the withdrawals are used for? Apologies if I am skeptic. If you want a coin to succeed you need to have enough real life funding to do it and have a company capitalised with enough funds so that you do not need investor funds to do it. Having said this there are exceptions though like Kickstarter where something tangible or useful have been created but with specific characteristics. In RL using investor funds in companies are regulated and needs to comply with certain criteria and conditions - including venture capital companies.
3. 20k sats ICO. Really??
4. All coins except for a few follow the same price and volume graphs - Initial pump up and after the first rise a dump and gradual decline over a number of weeks/months to eventual low price and low volume followed by a de-listing. What will make QBK different?
5. At the initial pump the ICO purchasers will dump at their respective risk thresholds - some at 5% some at 10-20%%, some will try their luck for 50% and when the bell rings big dumping back to 20k or lower.
6. 95%+ of crypto people are just there for the quick profits. Very few are in it for the long term. The ratio for ICO purchasers will probably be the same, meaning that after the initial dump there will be no interest left and they will move on to the next coin launch.
7. After the initial dump there will be bag holders that at least will earn BTC. BUT unless you have a plan to fund that for at least 1 year, you will run out of funds to pay the BTC.
8. There will be daily moaning on the ANN thread about when is the next innovation, what is going on FUDding will be rife in the backdrop of pice and volume decrease. The downward trend will continue unless you can find another way of creating demand and keeping people interested. However unless there is something big that creates a lot of volatility the initial profit takers will not return and you will have to work with the remaining bagholders to achieve your objectives. The key will be to keep interest, momentum and demand until you can achieve something with merchant adoption or u-ci.
9. POS coins have a dismal track record so far.

On the plus side:
1. If you are as dynamic as you say you are and if want QBK to be successful you need to address the above points. All coins except maybe one or two have failed to achieve that.
2. Women rights is a hot topic currently. So if people are into that then support something run by women (if you are women of course).
3. Accounts mentioned to be involved are at least not raw newbie accounts.

The above sounds skeptical but 20k is too high in my view for an ICO. Maybe there is some BTC to make on the first rise. Hopefully you can prove me wrong.

You are welcome to your opinion, of course.

The key difference between QiBuck and every other ICO and / or pure POS coin that has come before is that QiBuck has real
incentive for people to hold onto their coins. I'm not just talking about the staking interest, though 5% per annum is a nice
perk it isn't enough to keep most people from selling. QiBuck is the ONLY altcoin I know of that will pay monthly 'dividends'
to bagholders in Bitcoin. The amount each person receives is dependent upon the number of coins they are bagholding.

QiBuck is asset-backed. Some of those assets have been in place for some time and are ready to start generating revenue. As
I understand the breakdown, 50% of all asset revenues go directly to the bagholders. The remaining 50% is broken down like this:

• 22% is paid to QiBuck staff for their ongoing work on developing and promoting the coin
• 23% gets rolled back into additional investments
• 5% is for giveaways, bounties, etc...

The benefit to holding onto the coins far outweighs any short term profit to be made by dumping them.

[jc12345]

I considered QBK long and hard but then decided against it for the following reasons:

How things will probably go based on alt-coin history so far:
1. Roadmap mentions merchant adoption which is what every coin so far tried to achieve. Even BTC is struggling with that and merchant adoption to create demand will take many months/years to achieve. After QBK there will be many other coins launched with the same goal. Apart from possible benefits from the u-ci plans I could not see any plausible real life use for QBK that will create demand and this is long term.
2. ICO is a no-no. All ICO coins so far have failed. How will the ICO host in anyways really know what the withdrawals are used for? Apologies if I am skeptic. If you want a coin to succeed you need to have enough real life funding to do it and have a company capitalised with enough funds so that you do not need investor funds to do it. Having said this there are exceptions though like Kickstarter where something tangible or useful have been created but with specific characteristics. In RL using investor funds in companies are regulated and needs to comply with certain criteria and conditions - including venture capital companies.
3. 20k sats ICO. Really??
4. All coins except for a few follow the same price and volume graphs - Initial pump up and after the first rise a dump and gradual decline over a number of weeks/months to eventual low price and low volume followed by a de-listing. What will make QBK different?
5. At the initial pump the ICO purchasers will dump at their respective risk thresholds - some at 5% some at 10-20%%, some will try their luck for 50% and when the bell rings big dumping back to 20k or lower.
6. 95%+ of crypto people are just there for the quick profits. Very few are in it for the long term. The ratio for ICO purchasers will probably be the same, meaning that after the initial dump there will be no interest left and they will move on to the next coin launch.
7. After the initial dump there will be bag holders that at least will earn BTC. BUT unless you have a plan to fund that for at least 1 year, you will run out of funds to pay the BTC.
8. There will be daily moaning on the ANN thread about when is the next innovation, what is going on FUDding will be rife in the backdrop of pice and volume decrease. The downward trend will continue unless you can find another way of creating demand and keeping people interested. However unless there is something big that creates a lot of volatility the initial profit takers will not return and you will have to work with the remaining bagholders to achieve your objectives. The key will be to keep interest, momentum and demand until you can achieve something with merchant adoption or u-ci.
9. POS coins have a dismal track record so far.

On the plus side:
1. If you are as dynamic as you say you are and if want QBK to be successful you need to address the above points. All coins except maybe one or two have failed to achieve that.
2. Women rights is a hot topic currently. So if people are into that then support something run by women (if you are women of course).
3. Accounts mentioned to be involved are at least not raw newbie accounts.

The above sounds skeptical but 20k is too high in my view for an ICO. Maybe there is some BTC to make on the first rise. Hopefully you can prove me wrong.

You are welcome to your opinion, of course.

The key difference between QiBuck and every other ICO and / or pure POS coin that has come before is that QiBuck has real
incentive for people to hold onto their coins. I'm not just talking about the staking interest, though 5% per annum is a nice
perk it isn't enough to keep most people from selling. QiBuck is the ONLY altcoin I know of that will pay monthly 'dividends'
to bagholders in Bitcoin. The amount each person receives is dependent upon the number of coins they are bagholding.

QiBuck is asset-backed. Some of those assets have been in place for some time and are ready to start generating revenue. As
I understand the breakdown, 50% of all asset revenues go directly to the bagholders. The remaining 50% is broken down like this:

• 22% is paid to QiBuck staff for their ongoing work on developing and promoting the coin
• 23% gets rolled back into additional investments
• 5% is for giveaways, bounties, etc...

The benefit to holding onto the coins far outweighs any short term profit to be made by dumping them.

I hope you are right.

[istvandv]

The benefit to holding onto the coins far outweighs any short term profit to be made by dumping them.

I hope you are right.

the first month dividend would be crucial

if the first month dividend is substanstial, it would keep bagholders to hold on to their coins
at the same time will spark interest from new investors
but there would be scarce coins for sale because of the incentive to hold
resulting in higher prices of remaining coins in the market

[JDS1000]

I considered QBK long and hard but then decided against it for the following reasons:

How things will probably go based on alt-coin history so far:
1. Roadmap mentions merchant adoption which is what every coin so far tried to achieve. Even BTC is struggling with that and merchant adoption to create demand will take many months/years to achieve. After QBK there will be many other coins launched with the same goal. Apart from possible benefits from the u-ci plans I could not see any plausible real life use for QBK that will create demand and this is long term.
2. ICO is a no-no. All ICO coins so far have failed. How will the ICO host in anyways really know what the withdrawals are used for? Apologies if I am skeptic. If you want a coin to succeed you need to have enough real life funding to do it and have a company capitalised with enough funds so that you do not need investor funds to do it. Having said this there are exceptions though like Kickstarter where something tangible or useful have been created but with specific characteristics. In RL using investor funds in companies are regulated and needs to comply with certain criteria and conditions - including venture capital companies.
3. 20k sats ICO. Really??
4. All coins except for a few follow the same price and volume graphs - Initial pump up and after the first rise a dump and gradual decline over a number of weeks/months to eventual low price and low volume followed by a de-listing. What will make QBK different?
5. At the initial pump the ICO purchasers will dump at their respective risk thresholds - some at 5% some at 10-20%%, some will try their luck for 50% and when the bell rings big dumping back to 20k or lower.
6. 95%+ of crypto people are just there for the quick profits. Very few are in it for the long term. The ratio for ICO purchasers will probably be the same, meaning that after the initial dump there will be no interest left and they will move on to the next coin launch.
7. After the initial dump there will be bag holders that at least will earn BTC. BUT unless you have a plan to fund that for at least 1 year, you will run out of funds to pay the BTC.
8. There will be daily moaning on the ANN thread about when is the next innovation, what is going on FUDding will be rife in the backdrop of pice and volume decrease. The downward trend will continue unless you can find another way of creating demand and keeping people interested. However unless there is something big that creates a lot of volatility the initial profit takers will not return and you will have to work with the remaining bagholders to achieve your objectives. The key will be to keep interest, momentum and demand until you can achieve something with merchant adoption or u-ci.
9. POS coins have a dismal track record so far.

On the plus side:
1. If you are as dynamic as you say you are and if want QBK to be successful you need to address the above points. All coins except maybe one or two have failed to achieve that.

Appreciate your points, JC12345

1,2,8,9 - Don't appear to be questions but your beliefs.  They seem to make a lot of sense and be accurate commentaries to what we've seen from other coins in the marketplace.  Much of the intent behind this coin is a response to such trends...
3 -   The 20,000 Satoshi number is irrelevant to established investors, as number of shares is essential in making investment decision.  The number seasoned investors would challenge would be more apt to challenge is the valuation. 
4 - This has been addressed and is the root of rewarding bagholders.
5, 6, 7 - This coin and team are making a effort to end the vicious cycle of pump & dump, short-term emphasis but putting their names on the coin and by rewarding holders...  We'll see how it works!
 

[TheFridge]

So what exactly are the assets the team owns?

[Bitcoin_Mafia_Me]

So what exactly are the assets the team owns?

They're listed in the ASSETS section of the OP