Topic: [ANN] QIBUCK COIN - X13 - POS/POBH - 1st Proof of Baghold and asset backed. - page 52. (Read 152955 times)

Last time I'll post this as people don't seem to get it, but here it is again:

Any coins they burned would not receive a dividend.  Any non-burned coins would have their dividend increased by the previous dividends of the burned coins.

For instance, if the dividend was 100 BTC a year (100% profit), each coin would receive (100/500,000 =) 0.0002 BTC a year.

If 25 BTC went into burning half the coins and the dividend was only 75 BTC (100% profit), each coin would receive (75/250,000 =) 0.0003 BTC a year.

If 49.999 BTC went into burning all but one of the coins and the dividend was only 50 BTC (100% profit), each coin would receive (50/1 =) 50 BTC a year.

We are spending part of the funds on coin features. We have a very good Dev on board but we want to do this over a period of time. We already have 2 features paid for and we want to do the features as we invest and earn also. I hope a few months from now everyone will be looking back and seeing what was all the fuss about.

Sorry we had a power failure in our area today so need to read all the rest and catch up.

I really think it's pointless right now. If the first month's dividends are good then the price will rise dramatically. We should invest every single Bitcoin to maximize potential returns.

What do you think about using a little bit of the ICO funds to put up a buy wall at .0001 and burning all coins purchased?

POS interest dilutes the value of a coin through inflation(creation of new coins). This is different. We will be getting actual dividends paid in Bitcoin. The higher the dividends, the higher the price of the coin will become.

I haven't followed all the Xcurrency stuff, so don't know their status or if they are truly anonymous.

We'll have to agree to disagree on new coin features. Problem is, crypto people won't have patience for that. They already don't have patience and it's only been a couple of days. Folks should have just bought some mining contracts on cryptsy or a mutual fund, instead of crypto then.

Bigger dividends only matter when a coin's price is stable. It's sort of like POS. It's great to say, hey, I'm getting 10-15% back yearly on my investment. But only if the coin's price doesn't go down like 33% in the meanwhile (or at current prices much more than that). People simply won't be patient enough.

Hence why I think some new coin features will be needed.

Yeah, agreed on Dark, it looks like XCurrency will be the one. I don't want to waste a penny on coin features. I see this coin as more of an investment fund that happens to be a coin. I'd like to see the whole 100BTC from the ICO put to work making money for us. That will pay us bigger dividends and then the price will naturally rise.


A multipool is a very good idea.

Yeah, ring signatures would be extremely unlikely as a candidate to add, I agree. Drk, perhaps, just not sure how the node thing would work since this is a staked coin, not mined.

I do disagree with the idea they have all they need now. It doesn't have to be anonymity they add, but they do need to add some new coin features with the ICO money. The plan shouldn't be to only add features based on profits from whatever assets they obtain.

They need a multipool and they could use some wallet enhancements, for starters. A stabilization fund is needed (and I believe it was stated they plan to do this). They have to do more than buy up assets if they want to increase volume  + add some buy support.

Cryptonote is completely new code and would be next to impossible to implement into QBK. Either Dark or XCurrency would be the ideal candidates. I think they are both committed to open source on a time delayed basis. I disagree that we can do everything all at once. I think ICO investment strategy should come first. That is where the money will be made with this coin. Later, when it is successful and we want to try to develop some new features then that's fine. For now we have all we need and we can get what we don't have from open source developments in other coins.

Well, cryptonote is opensource. Dark.. not yet, but should be soon. There are other ways to go too, like tor or stealth addresses. With the funding they have, I think people may be looking at this the wrong way. The team could look into adding anon now PLUS buy assets PLUS do other stuff as well. They have enough resources money-wise to do several things at once, if they wanted to.

If it was me, I'd get a multipool going + create a stabilization fund to add some buy support (just not a giant buy wall). And at least look at adding some new coin features, even small ones that may be quick to add ... just to show investors new things are being added. Then I'd say they should look at getting on Bittrex + other exchanges.

Agreed. What people do not understand is that the value of QBK lies outside of the price on polo or any other exchange. The PnD folks are dumping plain and simple because it didnt move 10, 15, 20 or 100% the first day after ICO so they assume they got duped.

Anyone who did not see this as a long term hold was not paying attention or did not read the OP. The only reason I wish I did not buy into the ICO is so I could be scooping up all the QBK's now @ current prices. Don't misinterpret this as buyers remorse, this is only wishing I had twice as much QBK

I would love to see some buyer support but agree that the QBK team should not spend the ICO cash on propping up the coin to satisfy some juvenile traders wishes. If the ICO cash is spent on pushing the price up the same PnD monkeys will dump it back down and there will be no money left for investments. For those that did not read the OP those investments eventually mean dividends paid to bag holders.

Any venture you are associated with gets its true value from the people involved and not from outsiders spewing their dislike for decisions made. I agree with candlestick, If no longer feel QBK is a good move then get out and pass the benefit along to the smart buyer that will pick up your QBKs. What you gain from getting out is you no longer have to post here with your "monday morning quarterback" analysis.

The bottom line is the QBK team is made up of quality humans who are looking farther down the road than satisfying your need to make a quick profit. Of course I'm not trying to speak for the team this is just my belief.

The only thing that would get people really excited is if we were to get real anon like Dark, XCurrency, and  the Cryptonotes have or are working on. We can't compete at that level right out of the gate and it would be foolish to try. We can add anon later when it is open source. I really don't think we should be focusing on anything right now other than a good investment strategy for the ICO funds.

Assuming DrkSend is working (I haven't kept track of RC4 very closely), they are better off waiting a couple of weeks and just adding DrkSend when it goes opensource. I'm not sure how feasible that is due to this being a staked coin, while Drk obviously is mined ... so masternodes here would have to pay via staking rewards vs mining rewards. Sounds rather forky...

I'm for anonymity being added, so long as it's a reasonable add-on. Meaning it doesn't cost a fortune nor take forever. I'd look at opensource options first. I'm sort of partial to ring signatures myself (yet strangely don't actually own any cryptonote coins), but don't think that would be so easy to implement here.

We'd need a coder type to present feasible anonymity options, costs and timeframe, to really make an educated decision about adding it or not.

Anon was voted by a majority of the people and should be added ASAP, whats the point of adding it if shes not going to honor it as the first feature, what do you think most people (the 42%) that bought and voted for this would feel and do? Add it and destroy DRK coin in the process

They should have been better organized, had their pool payouts set up differently and had a wallet working faster than they did. Otherwise... basically it comes down to people expecting a 2-4x return or more, and bailing when it didn't happen. The FUD and such was just an extra bonus that helped decrease the value of the coin, but it wasn't the underlying cause. The underlying cause was there were no whales pumping this coin from the start... which sadly seems to be a requirement for any major coin price hikes.

It really takes more than a couple of days for a team to add new features to a coin, or buy up assets, or do most coin related things with the ICO money. Basically it requires some patience, which in cryptotime I guess equates to 12 hrs or so.... but that doesn't work so well in real life.

Those who sold early on... yeah, they would have been better off. Those who dumped at like < 5K ... that is to be seen.

Yes this! Pls do not waste time and funds on anon!

I was in the chat. If you blame 'trollbox speculation' for the dumpage, then your team is blind to the facts. I'm not sure if im the one who should say this, since I didnt invest in the ICO, but so far this coin has offered nothing more then 'we are working hard', 'we are under attack as women' and 'the MOB did it'. Truth is you raised 100 BTC with nothing to show for.  I really believe this is an honest attempt to build something special and not some quick design to scam people out of their money, but you need to stop looking for excuses. If you had anything to put against all the FUD, people woulndt be selling at a loss and would actually protect their investment and it would've shown on the orderbook. Also, the people who actually did sell at a loss, are better of today then if they held.. 

From my understanding the dividend thing is part of the coin, but the entire purpose of the coin. Read the OP... and the fact there is a poll up top here should have been a tipoff that the coin will be developed too.

Plenty of coders for hire out there in cryptoland.

I was also referring to ICO coins and meant that many devs didn't put funds into the coin itself (XLC, XBC, Harmony, DCM, etc), not every single coin out there. There are exceptions of course even as far as icos go, just that is one key reason I think throwing away 25 btc is a bad idea.

You didn't mention that before.  My understanding was that this was primarily a dividend coin to reward bagholders.  Finding someone who's creative enough to innovate well and competent enough to execute who would work for a low wage wouldn't be that easy, but maybe they could hire a mid-20s programmer who's between jobs or something.  I'm not sure that's the direction they're taking the coin though.

There are definitely coins that have had well over 100 BTC worth of work put into them, such as Blackcoin, especially if you include Blackhalo, possibly Reddcoin, and a number of the 1M+ marketcap coins.

I support the dev team and their plans to use the ICO funds for investing in alt coins and projects. My only concern is the idea of taking a poll and deciding to implement "anon". It's not an easy undertaking and I don't think this coin needs it right now. Some brilliant people are working on it and will eventually open source it. Then it can be implemented easily into QBK.