Topic: [ANN] Lykke - Trade Bitcoin, Ethereum, FX and Digital Assets - page 42. (Read 144639 times)

1. Coinbase is a centralized exchange and around since 2012.
2. Lykke is a blockchain-project, a semi-decentralized exchange. Lykke just made it's first steps but at the same time has much higher ambitions.


It doesn't make that much sense to compare both projects to come to the conclusion that Lykke is overvalued. LKK moves with the whole market at the moment. Of course you are free to point out your opinion about it's value but if you ignore the context or even say misleading things like "LKK started selling off earlier and faster than the altcoin market as a whole", what is clearly false, I'm not so sure that your analysis has much base.

I mean, you just could take a look at one of your investments. When crashed Zencash again - before or after LKK went down?











Man, I don't get why it's necessary to spread such theories! Do you have any proof for that? Do you see that...

- Bitcoin bounces
- ETH bounces
- FCT bounces
- ZCash
- pretty much everything seems to recover at least temporarily...

But you have special theories for Lykke? See, what I find interesting is that you put in some effort in your price talking about Lykke. 2 threads on Bitcointalk and also on reddit.





No problem if that is your choice.

Definitely, one has to consider that we won't get any type of "fair" prices in this market or any other, even real estate for that matter. What I can say is that stocks were much easier to predict and estimate many years ago but now as RustyShackleford1950 mentioned they are trading many times their "true" value and they don't even distribute dividends which in my opinion is at least an easy and clear for conservative investors and newcomers. P/E ratio is becoming almost useless and pointless as it's almost impossible to find something below what was considered undervalued.

Also Coinbase may be looking to be valued at 1 billion, just like Snapchat was valued at 20 billion. Correct me if I'm wrong but that's not the true value of the company, only the public traded shares are considered (Snapchat founders hold what? 80-90% of that?). I'm not sure but I think Coinbase value is based on a similar distribution.

I agree with your idea behind comparing Lykke to coinbase playingpoodles, however, there is a fundamental difference in the setup of the companies, and the future plans of the companies. Lykke's future prospects are much, much more interesting and potentially lucrative.

That said, yes, you could argue that it was overvalued, however, so is something like Tesla, or Amazon, or any number of tech companies. It's all about pricing in future expected growth and success. This is the risk some people take, if you don't want to, that's cool too.

What's bullshit though, is your speculation about XXX person(s) propping up the price. I have no idea whether that's true or false - and neither do you! Stop writing your thoughts down as if they're fact, it's your wild speculation. That's ironic, considering you're complaining about people speculating on price, when you're there spinning your own brand of bullshit.

2 - Coinbase is ahead, which actually operates its business within the law unlike Lykke which provides unlicensed fiat transfers. Coinbase has approval in most US states, UK, most of EU. Plus it has 6-10 million users versus Lykke's less than 12,000 (you say 20K?).The whole point of my argument that Lykke is overvalued is comparing its value to Coinbase's.

12,000 users is there in black and white in the latest Lykke annual report - can you give us a link for your 20K?

Look, each person can do what he wants. Lykke has only stopped plunging because someone (Lykke's extremely wealthy owner perhaps?) has been pumping lots of liquidity into it. Highly risky, especially if that doesn't stem the price decline.

I'll say it again, only place to be until Segwit 2x activates on 1 August and Bitcoin's future becomes clear in the fortnight after that is in USD or Bitcoin.

Here comes all the experts after the fact. Monday night QB give it a rest. Tempus don't waste your time the same people bashing will be pumping after lykke moves back up after the fact again.

1) Maybe check the market again:

- whole market peaked on June 20 while it already became shaky about 1 week before: http://coinmarketcap.com/charts/
- ETH peaked at June 12, Ripple on May 17, etc.

LKK had it's peak on June 20 and started to fall later than most of the others.


2) To point on "lack of regulatory approval" is a bit funny if you think about the question which projects are ahead on that front?

3) Number of users doubled in June and is > 20k



Interesting theories... But Lykke went down like others did and is simply following the market as a whole. You don't see that pattern in Bitcoin and others? Bitcoin goes down below $2200 and is above $2300 now, others also seem to find at least a temporarily base but in Lykke it's an intervention from "Brother number one"?




Of course it can go down more. It also could go way more down for Bitcoin, because actually there is the reason for the whole uncertainty. But it's also possible that Segwit will be activated soon, that there won't be a split, that new money will flow into the whole market and so on.


The most important question is, whenever markets move hard and in whichever direction: Is it about the whole context or is it a certain reaction on a certain situation of a certain project. And the LKK price simply moves like it's usual these days in Crypto.

Not true, LKK started selling off harder than the altcoin market as a whole. Now, yes, the whole market has joined in the fun. I mean, there's probably other things more overvalued than Lykke, my point is Lykke is one of the obviously overvalued coins (based on present lack of any regulatory approval and tiny userbase less than 12000).

Personally, I feel that Lykke management has a very, very high degree of control over the Lykke price because there are no limit orders, and so Lykke is the only entity taht can determine its own price - I believe that has  has been used to (manipulate OR stabilise, choose your preferred word) the LKK price and counteract the natural sell/downward pressure that exists. For example, often the system rewards purchase of LKK but penalises sale of LKK for USD - for example the more LKK you sell for USD the less USD per LKK you get, and the more LKK you buy for USD the more LKK you get per USD.

I think the manipulation to keep Lykke's price up against natural market sentiment is not going to work, there's more blood in store for LKK (and yes, like you say every other altcoin, everything except Bitcoin and USD).

The team is in contact with CV. I can't be totally sure right now but it seems as if the issue is on their side. Hopefully it's up again soon.

---

Thing is that everything is down. If you look here, it's deeply red: http://coinmarketcap.com (only 3 exceptions in the top 100).

Kind of funny is that USDT is up above $1. That shows how much money flees into Fiat.

My personal opinion is: After the hype of the last months in the whole market, that totally ignored the trouble Bitcoin is still in, this is an overreaction into the opposite direction. Unfortunately it's very rare that Crypto moves "normal" ;-) But whatever scenario will realize in Bitcoin, finally things move and there is potential again. Bitcoin is still the biggest "money-mover" that gets Fiat into the markets or pushes it out.


Interesting article btw:

Countdown to SegWit: These Are the Dates to Keep an Eye On
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/countdown-segwit-these-are-dates-keep-eye/

I've been warning people for two weeks LKK was overvalued and will correct down.  Now it's down to 27 cents. Now given the altcoin sell off which I warned of has been faster and harder than I anticipated, I can see LKK shooting down below fair value, theoretically even below 10 cents, but certainly 10-15 range.

we have some issues with creditvouchers, the deposit is no longer working. they may have changed something on their site.

China’s Central Bank researcher names @LykkeCity a good example of connection between cryptocoin and company shares. http://buff.ly/2sKMrvz
https://twitter.com/LykkeCity/status/884294619688833024
 

I will try in about an hour.

drnash85, please write a mail to [email protected]

-this lykke wallet need to be serviced, I keep getting error messages on withdrawals to trading wallet-

Such things are only knowable after the fact. It's impossible to say in the midst of price changes.

You can try the same thing for stocks, but it also doesn't work.

Is TSLA overbought and correcting down? some might say yes, some might say no. The point is, neither is "right" until about 6 months in the future when we can see the outcome in the real world.

I wouldn't say I agree, because I personally always try to look at something out of different perspectives. There is the perspective on the status quo, what I said in my last two posts, and then yes: it's valued too high. But also important: I don't know of any blockchain-project that is not overvalued if only focused on the status quo.

More realistic and also more rational in my opinion is to focus on the question of future-potential. And of course that is about the question if the concept of Lykke has potential as profitable usecase, and if the team has all what's needed to realize it. I believe yes, but of course we are not speaking about facts. Investing is about anticipating the future.

If we focus on the market-situation right now: I don't think that it's possible to predict short-term moves and that is also very connected to the whole situation in this space, especially Bitcoin is likely to be a rollercoaster until the situation becomes more predictable again (in whatever way, split-scenario included) and of course that will/would have impact on all markets. It already has impact - high volatility and uncertainty on all markets that have some volume.


Yes, absolutely right. Not everything is totally under control of the team and even if: Since everything is new, all teams have to learn a lot. But if a team is good, the unknowns are mainly about time-frames.

I'm not that uncertain about the question if it will be possible to get the necessary licenses because that doesn't seem to be that much about conflicting interests in general. Countries want to regulate, even if there is no clear path yet.

What is not the case is your impression that Lykke would act as if there already would be regulatory approval. US-citizen can't even download the App for example. Or Margin Trading: It's in demo-mode for most countries.

Again the most interesting question is how to look at limitations like that. One could say: Lykke is still very limited. Technically it's far from being finished (no limit orders yet, no web-based-terminal etc.) and regarding the regulatory status it's the same. Especially users could say "Lykke is not that attractive until now if compared with other exchanges" and I'm sure that many see it that way. At the same time it's already pretty nice to buy Bitcoin or ETH for example.

What would be a rational perspective of somebody who thinks about the question if LKK is a buy? My approach always was and still is not to overrate current limitations, but to find an answer on the question if I believe that current limitations will be overcome in future, because if yes: It's pure potential. That becomes obvious if we see it the other way around: If Lykke already would be fully developed, already would have all necessary licenses, but still only 20k users - something would be wrong then.

And sure, the question about future potential is about anticipation. That is why I always focus on teams, on the question if the people behind have everything what's needed. In case of Lykke:

- If Lykke gets all needed licenses, especially that is huge potential
- If Lykke releases limit orders - it already will make the whole platform much more attractive.
- If Lykke releases the web-based-terminal - same
- If Lykke adds more wanted assets - same
- If Lykke releases the debit card - same
- If Lykke is able to connect into the existing financial system - same

...and so on. With other words: If somebody believes that the team is able to deliver, all current limitations can be seen as future potential. If somebody has too much doubts about that, he will decide not to invest, at least not now.

Good points. I think we agree then that LKK is overbought and correcting down? Only question is how far?

I'm not ill disposed to Lykke, I picked it up in that period when it was floating around issue price for a couple of months.

My issue is, not everything is necessarily up to the Lykke team. Whether and when US state regulators grant a license to a Swiss competitor to US incumbent Coinbase is very much up to those regulators, and I don't think Lykke help their chances when they skirt or flout lots of legal regulations like giving fiat money transfer to US and UK nationals without license approval. I am nervous at the push of Lykke to act like they're Coinbase already, everyone wants to act like Lykke's got regulatory authorisation, and Lykke sort of acts like it has, but really it hasn't.

It's an interesting comparison! If you compare:

1) Ripple and Lykke - of course Ripple is worth more, already very successful and indeed banks are obviously interested.
2) XRP and LKK - what exactly is the connection between Ripple and the currency?

I know that for LKK: It represents ownership - 100% of the supply is 100% Lykke. But I have no idea why XRP should be at a billion-dollar valuation, I don't even know for what it's needed and the Ripple-team didn't care much about it. I also don't believe that Ripple as company is already worth $25 billions.

And no, I also don't want to say that Lykke, the status quo, is already worth $425 millions. But if Lykke should become successful it could be 1) much more interesting and valuable than Ripple and 2) like already said: LKK is directly connected to the value of the company.


Value of blockchain-projects in general: There is no project that is not overvalued if we focus on the status quo. There is no project that already could be seen as kind of established. At the same time it's also true that this space has huge potential in general.



I know that's not a reply on my post, but it's an interesting point: Of course it's part of the game that those who are invested write more positive and those who are not more into the other direction. But the question about valuation and what is rational or not is not that easy to reply on. I'll give you my favorite example: Factom. In Factom it's possible to calculate what the price of 1 FCT should be, because whenever Entry Credits (necessary to use the system) are bought, Factoids are burned. Once Factom will be fully developed one could say: The price of 1 FCT should be at least at a level that not more Factoids are burned than new created over the protocol. The price is at $25 right now and that is totally overvalued if we focus on the status quo. It already was overvalued when it was $2.5. Was it irrational to buy it at $2.5? Obviously not. Is it irrational to buy it at $25? That question can't be answered because it will depend on the future and if I wouldn't be invested in Factom I would buy, because the possibility that Factom will be used for billions of entries per month or maybe even per day at some point is absolutely there.

Same is true for pretty much all projects. If they should fail they are very overvalued. Those projects that will succeed are most likely not. And measured on the status quo - I know of no project that would not be overvalued.



Limit orders would mean that there are more orders on both sides, more buy-support included. To say that Lykke couldn't be dumped because users can't set limit orders yet is not correct. Of course the price could fall hard if a big Investor would sell 100% in one moment.

Regarding price-decline: We have seen a hype over the last months that had impact on pretty much all projects. I've seen pumps of projects that are not even in development anymore, "walking deads". LKK moves a little bit slower, is not that "over-sensitive" like others, but of course: also LKK was bought up and corrects now.

I believe one important aspect is the Bitcoin-situation that brings some uncertainty into the whole market - Bitcoin might have more up-potential if things go right but also the opposite if a bad-case-scenario should realize. And most of the newcomers, who came into this space because the ongoing hype attracted them, bought high. It's natural that they are highly uncertain now because 1) they bought high and 2) they can't overlook the situation.



To imply that there would be something like a "proven value" anywhere in this space is not right. If I should be wrong, it should be possible to point on a blockchain-project and say "yes, that is already worth it's valuation".

Regarding 11k users: That's the status of early june and has doubled since. The vanatu-license is only the beginning. In my opinion it's never about the status quo at all but about the question if the tendency is positive, basically about the questions:

1) what is planned for the project?
2) can those plans be seen as high potential?
3) do I believe the team behind is able to deliver?

And everybody has to come to own conclusions, but in my opinion it's yes yes yes. If the team delivers and builds a platform how Lykke is meant to be in future, we are talking about a billion-dollar-company  - all risks included of course, like in all projects. Nothing is safe and I'm still the opinion that there is nothing objective to find.

If you want to compare Lykke to anything, the fairest thing to compare it to is OANDA, Lykke is looking to be OANDA but expanded to include crypto and eventually securities. Take the value of a OANDA in the early years and in my mind, that's Lykke.

Why compare it with Ripple, which seeks to be the go-to-point for interbank transfers with a distributed ledger, when Lykke seeks to be an exchange for digital assets with initial focus on small retail traders?

Why not compare it to Bitcoin that's worth over 40 billion, or ether's 25 billion? Why not compare it to Amazon with 300 billion or whatever it's worth? Because the only reason to do this is your reason and that is that you are an LKK holder and you want to instill irrational exuberance to make Lykke's price inflate beyond fair value.

Sorry to tell you, that's already happened, which was my point. Could it rise on further irrational exuberance? Of course that's always possible. That's not happening now, LKK continues a slow decline. (It can't decline fast, because Lykke is its only market for itself and doesn't allow limit orders).

My point is when an asset's price is grossly in excess of its proven value the downside risks magnify. An idea, a Vanuatu brokerage license, 11,442 users and a nice iPhone and Android app don't make something worth $460 million (last time I looked, LKK has probably gone down since then).