in case you haven't notice - we posted two blog posts yesterday:
Legal - Part 1 written by Ervin, our legal lead
AND
ICONOMI Cryptocurrencies Index (ICNX) — UPDATE #1 about ICNX that measures the performance of cryptocurrencies that meet the ICONOMI eligibility criteria
Legal - Part 1 written by Ervin, our legal lead
AND
ICONOMI Cryptocurrencies Index (ICNX) — UPDATE #1 about ICNX that measures the performance of cryptocurrencies that meet the ICONOMI eligibility criteria
Personally, I'd prefer index based solely on math formulas instead of people voting.
The voting will be based not only on the eligibility criteria but also their individual preferences.
It's nothing too complex to come up with formula based on a set of pre-defined criteria, so what do you need the comittee for? Politics...?
The comittee could be used for criteria evaluation, but why for voting?
Quote
The currency must be based on blockchain technology and traded on at least one of recognised exchanges: Poloniex, Kraken and Bittrex (additional exchanges might be added later).
The currency must have an underlying concept which ICONOMI estimates as viable in the long term.
The currency must have an underlying concept which ICONOMI estimates as viable in the long term.
These two criteria require people voting
If you remove the 2nd criteria, the iconomi vote, then the decision of what gets included in the index fund is still indirectly requiring the vote of the people who run poloniex, kraken, bittrex
They probably put that in so they can easily trade the funds they put in it so it Always be based on people voting.
Yes, maybe they need some flexibility in terms of what's being placed in the index, but people voting also means biased opinions which can create not-so-fair output.
How else would you set it up? There has to be people voting to prevent a bad investment or a scam that temporarily pumps up to $50k daily volume and $1+ million market cap for 2 months from getting in there. There was a time when paycoin would have fit the technical criteria to be included, for example
I guess you could argue that the vote could go to token holders instead of centralized committee
Do you suggest that existing equity indices are based on comittee voting, and it's impossible to develop automatic, fair index that anyone can calculate or verify, based on published formula? For instance, you can create an initial set of coins that will be taken into consideration at rebalancing, and that could be done by the comittee to exclude all so-called shitcoins. Then the remaining "blue-chips" could be evaluated automatically.
