Topic: [ANN] QIBUCK COIN - X13 - POS/POBH - 1st Proof of Baghold and asset backed. - page 45. (Read 152955 times)

Wow, Couldn't have said it better.  Amen......   

1: The matter was discussed within the team and Qibucks told me to post the announcement in the thread.

2: It is ignorance at its finest, poornamelessme seem to be ignoring all of the effort that is being constantly put into this coin from all position, so with this guy claiming we have no "plan" or anything does seem ignorant. Its not an attempt to look "clever" as you put it.

3: "Future investors, well the smart ones at least, read all the posts before handing over their BTC. Try to keep that in mind as you spew your frustrations. Take a deep breath and maintain. The FUDsters are always going to be rude and disrespectful...no need to mirror that back. Not good for business." - I agree with this, and i apologise about the way i responded to the statement, it wasn't professional.

Finally had time to move my QBK off the exchange and into the wallet.  Bam! That was a quick transfer = nice!

Team Tip: on the OP always list current wallet version next to the link so the reader can tell if he/she has the up to date wallet without having to download and install. 


Any trolls that are hating on QBK please send your (insert derogatory term here)           QIBUCKS to my wallet address in signature.

Here is my 2 cents about all of this.

 Spending the money to add Anon features seems like a bit of a waste, this coin isn't geared towards anon nor does it need to be.  Now i know your all going to come in and say "Hey, but it was voted for"

 Well.. It was.. But it was voted for by anyone who came in here and clicked a fuckin radio button.  The way i would have preferred to see it done would have been for once the ico is completed and investor names or whatever is taken then the people with stake in this coin have the voice to vote for what should be done with this money.   As it stands, we are paying btc out for anon features that john dick and harry from wherever with no stake in this coin have voted for.  I don't say this to be slanderous but from a logical stand point the investors who put money up should have the say in the features added (that our btc will be paying for) not randoms who show up in here and decide to click a radio button.

 Burning the coins?   Meh, i could take it or leave it.  From my stand point it seems like a waste, but people who type big paragraphs about math will surely prove me wrong or something.   

 I am a strong believer in qiwoman, silverking and jtgangus and that is why my faith has not shifted.  I still believe this coin can do some great things once some wise investments are made and good decisions are made.  We just need to make sure the decisions we are voting on are done by us the investors and not the entire btctalk community who may or may not have any invested interest in this coin.

  It is only a few days after ICO and price is down, but this is just growing pains.  A few iffy issues out the gate which will need to be resolved.  Once we get back to where we need to be and we let our team work its magic I have full confidence we will be back at a stable price point where investors dont feel the need to dump to retain a % of their initial investment.

Busoni holding would be a logical choice... but still, nobody is ever considered a 100% trusted party. I'd still be concerned as far as trolls/fud go.  There is also a question of if the coins aren't burned, would it necessarily increase the coin's price on an exchange to a noticeable degree? Dividends would go up... so maybe. But it also ties up btc the team could use otherwise. And if the team needed to ever cash out those spare coins to buy other assets, they'd sort of tank the price of their own coin. Actually just giving away too many of them could influence the price negatively (freebie people tend to dump).

I'm against a buywall/burning coins and have said so, and would only like to see a buy wall done if absolutely needed. I don't think the coin is at that point yet, especially after just 3 days. Although I guess the devs simply talking about a potential buy wall probably does have a temporary benefit ... buys them some time even if they never implement it.

We apologize for any disrespect on the thread. We are a dedicated, but overworked team at present so bear with us as find our feet as we grow this business thank you.

Seems that way, but the risk is negligible if done right. Give the wallet access to busoni or tf2hb and have them cold store it until needed. Much safer than any other methods besides destruction. A couple problems with permanently removing coins from supply is that it's removing both holders and coins at the same time. For example, limiting supply works if there is already a certain level of sufficient buy demand already in place. If there is no real demand then removing the supply and holders would be putting weight on the clash of sellers' desire to sell with buyer's desire to buy. This extra emphasis (on top of the lomited buy demand) simply causes more problems. Essentially it would give urgency to sell because imagine you're one of 10 people holding a coin with no demand; the supply can be limited, but the mindset as you're holding is to get out ASAP, before the other 9 people sell.

Keeping the "burn wallet" would also allow for further incentive programs (free coins for whatever reasons/promotions). A healthy system can be kept supported with some small careful supply manipulation tactics; sometimes you want to remove supply, but other times you may need to inflate supply to allow growth.

It doesn't have to be burned, but if a substantial amount, it probably should be. If not burned, the coin would get trolls/fud spread about like how the dev team is sitting on half the available coins (or however many)... equivalent to if a dev team had a giant premine. There is always a danger when one party holds too large a percentage of a coin -- basically a sword hanging over everyone's heads.

Totally agree with you CryptoJohn.
Armin is on the team,I will have a word with him.

Is Armin22 the same as the Armin listed as a team member in the OP?

If so and as a bag holder I would like to see a higher level of professionalism then "ignorance at its finance" probably meant finest.   unless you were trying to be clever = fail.


Lets keep it together people.

Future investors, well the smart ones at least, read all the posts before handing over their BTC. Try to keep that in mind as you spew your frustrations. Take a deep breath and maintain. The FUDsters are always going to be rude and disrespectful...no need to mirror that back. Not good for business.

spelling & formatting count as well.

I'd refrain from shooting from the hip. Big announcement coming? Have the entire team discuss them before they are broadcast so there is not differing opinions being expressed in the thread.

I'm now accepting donations for my public advice/project management. Address in signature.

Hi qibuck

Just popped in to say hi...hadn't realized you'd launched your own coin, gratz

The coin is very similar to the model I was working on a few weeks back in anticipation of launching my own crypto (at least in terms of the ICO, dividends, and investor-roi focus). Now I'm gonna have to change my idea up a bit

Read through much of the thread as well as looked at the Poloniex trend. Here's the important part:

Forgot who it was that brought up the "support wall", but I had this idea as a key apect of my own coin model. For my own numbers, I did the math a while back and was able to come up with an ICO allocation ratio so that you can use ~50-60% of the ICO funds to create a liquidity/buyback wall at 50% the ICO price. Furthermore the wall will be exactly large enough so that it can soak up the whole available coin supply.

There is much reasoning and ideas behind this model. It acts as a guaranteed buffer (50% loss is helluva better than 70,80,90% losses we see from fail coins and runaway devs). It artificially bumps up the "weight" of each holder as any dumps into the wall will be held by thedev/foundation/trusted party, effectively "burning" these dumped coins (as far as the accounting an numbers go) without actually destroying anything.

This pay-back of 50% combined with a good method for ROI on investments pretty much guarantees that the devs have funds for coin code development, reinvestment, as well as keeping investors safe in the medium-long run. For example, my model w/ the numbers and investments I'm looking at, will leave ~59% of the ICO funds intact for this emergency buy-back wall, 6% for coding dev work and unpredicted costs, and 35% for investment purposes. The opportunities I'm looking at provide ROI's of around 3-5 months. Accounting for reinvestment allocation, fees, etc, the model shows that by ~6-7months you'd have enough BTC funds to cover the entire IPO; after this point, any returns are purely profit.

Would highly suggest you do the math and research behind EVERYTHING that has to do with the investment opportunities you've lined up. Account for ROI period, perceived vs actual risk, unpredicted losses in profit, funding allocation including a failsafe, etc.

Just sharing this to reinforce the math that's been posted a couple people, also to share some insights into the concepts and reasonings behind this sort of coin model. Of course the "make it or break it" aspect of this model is the quality and ROI period of your various investments. Took me a lot of work and research to find two 3-5 month ROI opportunities (a very conservative estimate of ROI).


EDIT: For those wondering about the coinburn; a buyback wall doesn't mean you have to burn/destroy the bought back coins. Just keep those coins in a separate wallet held by a trusted party. Work the accounting and dividend distribution model to neglect this address for payouts. The "extra" payout simply goes towards bumping up remaining holder's payouts.

I agree.

One interesting thing is, if they simply set up their dividend signup page, I expect we'd see a decent number of coins leave the exchange. That should ideally result in less sell orders, and also a greater potential for a price rise (whales hate to see tons of coins on an exchange ready to sell).

I'd much rather they focus on that, assets they plan to purchase, and possible coin developments, than this burning stuff.

Anyway I cant imagine how it would be possible to burn the coins when all 500 000 have been already distributed, there is only 100 000 coins at sell orders anyway and you would have to buy them all the way up .. unless someone bought coins from his personal assets and wants to burry them now ..

so why do we all waste time discussing burning coins when we should rather focus on the development and how funds should be used for futher development

Burn the coins? Could you explain it for a noob?

you have 100 BTC for QBC development :/ capitalization with current price is about 50BTC that is the same like coins that are dead have
If you just invest anything of that funds to development, the price should rise rapidly because inner value of the coin will rise. I cant imagine any other scenario unless you invest those funds really badly (for anonymity and useless things like that) so the inner value would not be increased then.

My first question is, who is in charge of the coin? I assumed you were. If you are not in favor of it, then don't burn it.

The danger in a vote is that the majority could easily vote for something that is against the longterm interest of the coin. It's happened with other coins. Then, even if you don't burn, you have just created fud food ... which I expect trolls to bring up if the price doesn't do well.

And it is a quick bandaid fix. If things turn south, if the dev team doesn't release anything... price tanks... sure, do the burn then. It should be considered a last resort. But if the dev team seriously considers using a last resort within a week of their coin's release, I question if the dev team really knows what it is doing.

Personally I am not in favor for burning the coins at all. I prefer that the market and coin grow organically. We haven't run away or are dead so for me Burnings irrelevant. We are just thinking to maybe do a vote but that is not a 100% go ahead. There seems to be a great for and against. I am personally against it. It just seems to me a quick band aid fix but that is just me. In the mean time we are doing our best for the coin. We have a press release coming out soon and other stuff in the works.

Ignorance at its finance

And would you be surprised at all if many vote for burning because they simply wanted a quick return/pump, didn't get it, and now want to dump? I remember XBC asking its community about burning coins too... and then when the dev left with all the ico money, they realized they had no funds to do anything with. People tend to vote for shortterm benefit over longterm here.

If the devs can't come up with a better plan than burning their own coin, might as well burn it and I'll cash out then. It means you have no actual plan.