[ANN][Blocknet] truly decentralized exchange | token ecosystem infrastructure

[GBattaglia]

Interested in buying in with a supported currency. How will those currencies have a 10% discount if tokens are just sold on Bittrex?

There will be pairs made like participating currency/blocknet on 10% discount

Thank you for your answer.

[sugarboy321]

Just curious why you would say you don't trust Dan?!  Isn't he now one of the most respected devs in crypto?!?!

Sorry, I mistook the name for someone else (brainfart). Most respected? Probably... I'm not convinced though, but I have nothing against him.

Trust is earned, not given out.

When blocknet code is released and reviewed you will trust more.

[mxxxxxx]

You can 'hear hear' all you want but also "- BlockNET real value SHOULD equate the total combined value of every coin, mathematically, practically is another story, but still there is not promise out there" is idiotic.

It's not like you take-over each of the participating coins and their intrinsic value becomes Blocknets value. This is just plain retarded. You're just trying to copy Supernet's idea and try to make some money in between. At least Supernet's assets are backed by a 10% buy in, which DOES give it an intrinsic value.

You are just talking crap about that Blocknet's value is derived by it's so called 'incredible utility'. This is fine and all but you need to prove that first. Stating that mathematically (or practically) the value should be equal to the combined value of the participating coins is just a complete SCAM where you try to screw people over by luring them with a fictional ROI.

And I'm not stating anything about the concept or the technology, I support that, but the way you try to make money is just, well... Shame on you...  

There are at least three fundamental differences between the Blocknet and Supernet:

- XBridge is not an RPC call protocol, it's a true P2P protocol
- There's no central or core currency, unlike SuperNET, which uses BTCD for this
- Joining the Blocknet does not involve 10% of a coin's money supply being bought and centrally controlled

Shame on you

Again, I'm not stating anything about the concept or technological part except for the fact that Supernet is the basis of this concept.
I'm talking about this ICO where they are trying to lure 'investors' based on fraudulent claims. They removed it now from the OP but really, is that the kind of people you want to do business with and just 'give' them 1 million dollar...

If you believe in your idea and business, just start and take some risk, just like the real world. Greedy devs over here all want to make a profit before even starting something, it's ridiculous. Entrepreneurship is about believing in your ideas, taking a risk by setting it up, investing your own time and money and maybe, just maybe, make some money if your succesfull and people believe in your idea. Not the other way around!

If you take a closer look i am a member of one of the participating teams

As you say we believe in our idea, business and BlockNet

We took a risk, started already and we are doing great, brought also some innovations already

We invested only our own time and money

We are setting up great services for investors who can benefit with BlockNet even more

Poeple are believing in our idea and want our coin to evolve more and more, and get our coin to the top as much as we do!

Good Luck

[synechist]

I get what you are saying Synechist.  The issue is that in the mean time you've got $1,000,000 up front.

You see where I'm going with this right?

$1,000,000 and no contractual obligations to produce anything, because "this is crypto".

Personally I see $1,000,000 as a little over the top for development funds(2500 x $400 BTC).  Half that would be stretching it, but would not be as hard a pill to swallow.

I would suggest an share offering capped to 1250 BTC @ .000125 per share.

And to those who are apologists for not having a demonstrable product for 2500 BTC up front by saying "this is crypto man", sorry that's a pathetic point of view.


"Here's a million bucks man...  No no don't worry man it's crypto just tell us when you're done..."

FFS can you imagine living life like that?



I have faith this project can succeed but man...  "this is crypto... here you go!" /hands over bag of money  --> Yoink!

Yes I agree completely about making solid investment decisions.

So, in addition to personally hoping for proof-of-developer and some sort of proof of concept, the following facet of this situation is significant:

All participating coins stand to benefit hugely from the Blocknet.

Therefore their devs (and communities) have a strong incentive to get things done.

And since our developer pool is uniquely strong, there's a very high chance that we'll deliver.

Yes I see what you mean.

But ultimately this is a big and far-reaching project that simply won't be feasible without proper funding.

Secondly - and perhaps more significantly - investors make a decision based on their calculation of risk-to-reward. This is no different to any other investment.

Thirdly - and perhaps most significantly - investors aren't locked in to their investments. They can buy and sell on any timescale, so they do not bear the risk of the project even launching, never mind developing fully.

Lastly though, it's in our interest to lower this risk as far as possible, and we will do so - perhaps with some sort of structured escrow contract that returns portions of funds to investors if milestones are not met.

[EmilioMann]

^^ Thanks Mxxxxxx!

Dont forget you get a 10% discount on the ITO price when purchasing with participating coins. There's surely some profits to be made on the deal.

Regards
Killa

FIBRE Thread
Fibre Twitter

How i get this discount? Thanks

Buy Blocknet tokens with any participating currency.

Very nice! I will buy with XST and SSD

Thanks!

[TheGer]

"Is asking for a million bucks up front crazy?"  WTF dude...  I'm sorry but... LOL ya...



@Synechist:

As for a solution I suggest this.

Stagger investment in this project.  Say initially you put up 500,000 shares as a startup.  People buy in, you have some startup funds to get the ball rolling and start delivering.  As each milestone in development is reached offer another batch of shares to continue funding.

This will alleviate a lot of tension people are feeling with this huge 2500 BTC horse pill you've put in front of us.  Actually it's the whole horse you've put in front of us.

I freed up funds to invest in this project but this 2500 BTC has me doing a double take.

I feel this allows us as investors to ease into this with some semblance of confidence instead of blind faith.  And allows you to grow that confidence into a large following for future share offerings.  I see this as a fair and logical compromise to all parties.  We both win and no one loses.  Hopefully.


Edit:

I think a staggered investment is a better choice.  Escrow is nice but you are asking for everyone to pony up first, and that makes peoples buttholes clench tight.

"perhaps with some sort of structured escrow contract that returns portions of funds to investors if milestones are not met."

Frankly all supported currencies involved in Blocknet [XCurrency being the biggest] is worth way more than the $1,000,000 in funds.
Is asking for that much upfront crazy? Quite. But with the reputation of these currencies on the line, I have some trust in the legitimacy of BlockNet

[synechist]

Cryptoleak, kindly engage constructively and non-abusively.

That post of yours was of negligible benefit to anyone.

[infinitechaos]

Re: the monetary aspect of this...

Synechist, am I understanding it correctly that the funds gathered and how they are spent will be made transparent to investors on a periodic basis and that the expenditure of funds will be overseen by the foundation?

If so, then I think the money-grab argument here doesn't apply as there seems to be a feedback loop mechanism in place here to allow everyone involved some level of input as to how the money is spent? Or at least the ability to see how it is being spent so that investors can sell and get out if they don't like what they see?

[synechist]

Re: the monetary aspect of this...

Synechist, am I understanding it correctly that the funds gathered and how they are spent will be made transparent to investors on a periodic basis and that the expenditure of funds will be overseen by the foundation?

If so, then I think the money-grab argument here doesn't apply as there seems to be a feedback loop mechanism in place here to allow everyone involved some level of input as to how the money is spent? Or at least the ability to see how it is being spent so that investors can sell and get out if they don't like what they see?

Yes, spending will be made transparent - but holders will still need to trust the Blocknet Foundation, and foundation members are from each participating coin.

You're right that this doesn't make it a money grab.

I'm quite tempted by TheGer's suggestion of staggered funding separated by milestones... will see what the team thinks.

[TheGer]

Thanks for looking into that Synechist

Re: the monetary aspect of this...

Synechist, am I understanding it correctly that the funds gathered and how they are spent will be made transparent to investors on a periodic basis and that the expenditure of funds will be overseen by the foundation?

If so, then I think the money-grab argument here doesn't apply as there seems to be a feedback loop mechanism in place here to allow everyone involved some level of input as to how the money is spent? Or at least the ability to see how it is being spent so that investors can sell and get out if they don't like what they see?

Yes, spending will be made transparent - but investors will still need to trust the Blocknet Foundation, and foundation members are from each participating coin.

You're right that this doesn't make it a money grab.

I'm quite tempted by TheGer's suggestion of staggered funding separated by milestones... will see what the team thinks.

[deftonikus]

Self moderated topic from the beginning..and only positive feedback? 
No, thank you.

[synechist]

Self moderated topic from the beginning..and only positive feedback? 
No, thank you.

Huh?

No.

- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=829576.msg9277862#msg9277862

- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=829576.msg9277603#msg9277603

[synechist]

Thanks for looking into that Synechist

Re: the monetary aspect of this...

Synechist, am I understanding it correctly that the funds gathered and how they are spent will be made transparent to investors on a periodic basis and that the expenditure of funds will be overseen by the foundation?

If so, then I think the money-grab argument here doesn't apply as there seems to be a feedback loop mechanism in place here to allow everyone involved some level of input as to how the money is spent? Or at least the ability to see how it is being spent so that investors can sell and get out if they don't like what they see?

Yes, spending will be made transparent - but investors will still need to trust the Blocknet Foundation, and foundation members are from each participating coin.

You're right that this doesn't make it a money grab.

I'm quite tempted by TheGer's suggestion of staggered funding separated by milestones... will see what the team thinks.

Sure. Of course.

Speaking of this stuff, there's another factor that might alter people's perceptions:

It's not necessary for all the tokens to be sold. If less sell, the rest are destroyed and each token represents a larger portion of the Blocknet.

So it's not as if there's this enormous amount hanging over our heads. It's better to think of it like a lovely amount of headroom for its value to grow into.

After the ITO the tokens will trade normally regardless of how many are sold, so it comes to the same thing risk-wise. No-one needs to spend more so that all the tokens can be sold.

[synechist]

Kenji, kindly refrain from posting unconstructive and abusive remarks.

[Come-In-Behind]

You can 'hear hear' all you want but also "- BlockNET real value SHOULD equate the total combined value of every coin, mathematically, practically is another story, but still there is not promise out there" is idiotic.

It's not like you take-over each of the participating coins and their intrinsic value becomes Blocknets value. This is just plain retarded. You're just trying to copy Supernet's idea and try to make some money in between. At least Supernet's assets are backed by a 10% buy in, which DOES give it an intrinsic value.

You are just talking crap about that Blocknet's value is derived by it's so called 'incredible utility'. This is fine and all but you need to prove that first. Stating that mathematically (or practically) the value should be equal to the combined value of the participating coins is just a complete SCAM where you try to screw people over by luring them with a fictional ROI.

And I'm not stating anything about the concept or the technology, I support that, but the way you try to make money is just, well... Shame on you...  

There are at least three fundamental differences between the Blocknet and Supernet:

- XBridge is not an RPC call protocol, it's a true P2P protocol
- There's no central or core currency, unlike SuperNET, which uses BTCD for this
- Joining the Blocknet does not involve 10% of a coin's money supply being bought and centrally controlled

Shame on you

I want to clarify, that although without some sort of tangible proof-of-concept I believe this is purely a vehicle for market manipulation, I also fully support this project and will be following it closely.  

Personally I'd love some proof-of-concept code to be released prior to the ITO.

Part of the XBridge code is actually completed so this might be possible.

Regardless of that, the XBridge protocol is based on the Xnode protocol that XC uses. If anyone is worried about development talent or the ability to deliver, take a look at XC's timeline.

Now pool all the developer talent from all the participating coins.

This code will get nailed down good and proper.

I have to agree with mxxxxxx overall, However, I believe having one currency as the central core or group of currencies that compose the core would be better than, "There's no central or core currency, unlike SuperNET, which uses BTCD for this"

[synechist]

I have to agree with mxxxxxx, a central core or group of currencies that compose the core however, might be best.

What advantages do you see in a centralised approach?

The Blocknet is open and democratic (non-centered) because it needs to be an open and indefinitely extensible framework.

After all, why go through a core currency network when all of them will work just fine?

[StarFire]

I have been buying some of each coin in the Blocknet! I think they are full of the moon!

[crackfoo]

You can 'hear hear' all you want but also "- BlockNET real value SHOULD equate the total combined value of every coin, mathematically, practically is another story, but still there is not promise out there" is idiotic.

It's not like you take-over each of the participating coins and their intrinsic value becomes Blocknets value. This is just plain retarded. You're just trying to copy Supernet's idea and try to make some money in between. At least Supernet's assets are backed by a 10% buy in, which DOES give it an intrinsic value.

You are just talking crap about that Blocknet's value is derived by it's so called 'incredible utility'. This is fine and all but you need to prove that first. Stating that mathematically (or practically) the value should be equal to the combined value of the participating coins is just a complete SCAM where you try to screw people over by luring them with a fictional ROI.

And I'm not stating anything about the concept or the technology, I support that, but the way you try to make money is just, well... Shame on you...  

There are at least three fundamental differences between the Blocknet and Supernet:

- XBridge is not an RPC call protocol, it's a true P2P protocol
- There's no central or core currency, unlike SuperNET, which uses BTCD for this
- Joining the Blocknet does not involve 10% of a coin's money supply being bought and centrally controlled

Shame on you

I want to clarify, that although without some sort of tangible proof-of-concept I believe this is purely a vehicle for market manipulation, I also fully support this project and will be following it closely.  

Personally I'd love some proof-of-concept code to be released prior to the ITO.

Part of the XBridge code is actually completed so this might be possible.

Regardless of that, the XBridge protocol is based on the Xnode protocol that XC uses. If anyone is worried about development talent or the ability to deliver, take a look at XC's timeline.

Now pool all the developer talent from all the participating coins.

This code will get nailed down good and proper.

I have to agree with mxxxxxx overall, However, I believe having one currency as the central core or group of currencies that compose the core would be better than, "There's no central or core currency, unlike SuperNET, which uses BTCD for this"

Keep in mind this statement isn't true. SuperNET doesn't rely on BTCD. BTCD is simply the flagship coin that offers the Teleport technology. SuperNET can be run standalone and will do that along with being embedded into the core coins wallets. SuperNET actually runs on the NXT blockchain

[Come-In-Behind]

I have to agree with mxxxxxx, a central core or group of currencies that compose the core however, might be best.

What advantages do you see in a centralised approach?

The Blocknet is open and democratic (non-centered) because it needs to be an open and indefinitely extensible framework.

After all, why go through a core currency network when all of them will work just fine?

I though of that after a while in the future(having a core group of currencies), in the blocknet would become diluted? If every currency was equal, then ones without features could be added and not provide any extra service that coins with features(XC) would provide. Also having a core woul act as an incentive o obtain those currencies.

Maybe it could go by a decentralized ranking system, where currencies that contribute the most are placed in a higher pecking order in the blocknet, solving the issue of incentive to buy those currencies and dilution?

[Come-In-Behind]

You can 'hear hear' all you want but also "- BlockNET real value SHOULD equate the total combined value of every coin, mathematically, practically is another story, but still there is not promise out there" is idiotic.

It's not like you take-over each of the participating coins and their intrinsic value becomes Blocknets value. This is just plain retarded. You're just trying to copy Supernet's idea and try to make some money in between. At least Supernet's assets are backed by a 10% buy in, which DOES give it an intrinsic value.

You are just talking crap about that Blocknet's value is derived by it's so called 'incredible utility'. This is fine and all but you need to prove that first. Stating that mathematically (or practically) the value should be equal to the combined value of the participating coins is just a complete SCAM where you try to screw people over by luring them with a fictional ROI.

And I'm not stating anything about the concept or the technology, I support that, but the way you try to make money is just, well... Shame on you...  

There are at least three fundamental differences between the Blocknet and Supernet:

- XBridge is not an RPC call protocol, it's a true P2P protocol
- There's no central or core currency, unlike SuperNET, which uses BTCD for this
- Joining the Blocknet does not involve 10% of a coin's money supply being bought and centrally controlled

Shame on you

I want to clarify, that although without some sort of tangible proof-of-concept I believe this is purely a vehicle for market manipulation, I also fully support this project and will be following it closely.  

Personally I'd love some proof-of-concept code to be released prior to the ITO.

Part of the XBridge code is actually completed so this might be possible.

Regardless of that, the XBridge protocol is based on the Xnode protocol that XC uses. If anyone is worried about development talent or the ability to deliver, take a look at XC's timeline.

Now pool all the developer talent from all the participating coins.

This code will get nailed down good and proper.

I have to agree with mxxxxxx overall, However, I believe having one currency as the central core or group of currencies that compose the core would be better than, "There's no central or core currency, unlike SuperNET, which uses BTCD for this"

Keep in mind this statement isn't true. SuperNET doesn't rely on BTCD. BTCD is simply the flagship coin that offers the Teleport technology. SuperNET can be run standalone and will do that along with being embedded into the core coins wallets. SuperNET actually runs on the NXT blockchain

Ah. In that case then I'd have to believe that having a core group of currencies that offer special features(anonymity, web "3.0, etc) would be best or some sort of ranking system like I proposed in my prior post.