Topic: [ANN] Signatum 2.0 - page 43. (Read 102049 times)
Idea is great! Good luck!
The max. supply is already decided to be about 150 million. Choosing 1:20 seems the obvious choice for existing holders.
However, there still needs to be a balanced reward to incentivize mining the new coin. Considering the reward scheme and block time have yet to be determined and are probably dependent on the path taken, the choice between 1:4 or 1:20 may turn out to be moot.
There is a trust issue with option 1. If holders send coins to a burn address, how can they be sure the swap and burn actually takes place? How can they be sure this is not a scheme to have holder send their coins to be sold by the recipient?
The arguments are that Signatum coins are almost worthless, there are barely buyers, there is no development. In other words what do you have to lose?
But then one could retort, why bother burning them?
We do not believe it is conscionable that some benefit at the expense of others when such significant information asymmetries exist.
There is also such a thing as due diligence.
It almost looks like a false dichotomy.
However, there still needs to be a balanced reward to incentivize mining the new coin. Considering the reward scheme and block time have yet to be determined and are probably dependent on the path taken, the choice between 1:4 or 1:20 may turn out to be moot.
There is a trust issue with option 1. If holders send coins to a burn address, how can they be sure the swap and burn actually takes place? How can they be sure this is not a scheme to have holder send their coins to be sold by the recipient?
The arguments are that Signatum coins are almost worthless, there are barely buyers, there is no development. In other words what do you have to lose?
But then one could retort, why bother burning them?
We do not believe it is conscionable that some benefit at the expense of others when such significant information asymmetries exist.
There is also such a thing as due diligence.
It almost looks like a false dichotomy.
The one who would buy Sigt 1 when they can no longer be swapped is not the big whales, but small investors who dont have the same amount of time put in. And for thoose even small purchases going to trash would could be a big impact on their funds. So i apreciate that they burn it, even though i would like to swap and then sell for myself off course. Good thing we dont get the option to dump on others who have not paid as much attention. Now you could say that potential buyers can only blame themself, but the devs are better than that.
Option one is the obvious choice for me too.
There is a trust issue with option 1. If holders send coins to a burn address, how can they be sure the swap and burn actually takes place? How can they be sure this is not a scheme to have holder send their coins to be sold by the recipient?
This is your only salient point.
You have 2 options:
1) you can trust the old team (doc and signatumd, missing in action)
2) you can trust the new team (all early community members, frequent updates, active development).
There is no option 3.
I do not believe the old team are coming back, not after what they did and after their identities were revealed.
Thus, I'll be swapping all my coins hoping for the best.
1st Option!
First option is my choice.
I vote for option 1!
I vote for 1st option.
I can not vote, but I choose the first option
The max. supply is already decided to be about 150 million. Choosing 1:20 seems the obvious choice for existing holders.
However, there still needs to be a balanced reward to incentivize mining the new coin. Considering the reward scheme and block time have yet to be determined and are probably dependent on the path taken, the choice between 1:4 or 1:20 may turn out to be moot.
There is a trust issue with option 1. If holders send coins to a burn address, how can they be sure the swap and burn actually takes place? How can they be sure this is not a scheme to have holder send their coins to be sold by the recipient?
The arguments are that Signatum coins are almost worthless, there are barely buyers, there is no development. In other words what do you have to lose?
But then one could retort, why bother burning them?
We do not believe it is conscionable that some benefit at the expense of others when such significant information asymmetries exist.
There is also such a thing as due diligence.
It almost looks like a false dichotomy.
However, there still needs to be a balanced reward to incentivize mining the new coin. Considering the reward scheme and block time have yet to be determined and are probably dependent on the path taken, the choice between 1:4 or 1:20 may turn out to be moot.
There is a trust issue with option 1. If holders send coins to a burn address, how can they be sure the swap and burn actually takes place? How can they be sure this is not a scheme to have holder send their coins to be sold by the recipient?
The arguments are that Signatum coins are almost worthless, there are barely buyers, there is no development. In other words what do you have to lose?
But then one could retort, why bother burning them?
We do not believe it is conscionable that some benefit at the expense of others when such significant information asymmetries exist.
There is also such a thing as due diligence.
It almost looks like a false dichotomy.
First option please
1st option!
both choices are bad. and after these choices looks likes we cann`t trust devs. add coins 1 v1 to 10 v2 or change 1v1 to 1 v2 may be right.
no one knows how good or bad will be v2.
no one knows how good or bad will be v2.
what exchanges are planned for SIGT 2.0 ?
POW Algo for new coin is good.. 
Back to mining .. And Option 1 for swap is great.. Burn that old SIGT coins.. !!!
Back to mining .. And Option 1 for swap is great.. Burn that old SIGT coins.. !!!
The first option for the upcoming swap sounds better. I like the 1st one. Please vote for the swap.
Please make sure, that everyone here can vote. If it is not possible here, switch to another online vote tool. It's unfair for people who not posting a lot here and just read. Maybe they are more active on other channels.
i can't vote, but 1st option for me , swap and burn!
Obviously the first option
Sigt V1 = no team working on it
Sigt V2 = team working hard with transparency
Pretty easy choice, not sure why people would want to retain a coin at 20:1 that is essentially dead when 4:1 is an option.
As more details about the re-brand and swap come out, V1 price will rebound a bit for people wanting in on the swap.
If things stay on track for Sigt V2 I believe it can be a very successful project.
P.S. On a side note, NovaExchange is closing until it's re-opened by a new owner. Shouldn't really make a difference as most of the Sigt volume comes from YoBit. Move your coins somewhere other than Nova just to be safe.
Sigt V1 = no team working on it
Sigt V2 = team working hard with transparency
Pretty easy choice, not sure why people would want to retain a coin at 20:1 that is essentially dead when 4:1 is an option.
As more details about the re-brand and swap come out, V1 price will rebound a bit for people wanting in on the swap.
If things stay on track for Sigt V2 I believe it can be a very successful project.
P.S. On a side note, NovaExchange is closing until it's re-opened by a new owner. Shouldn't really make a difference as most of the Sigt volume comes from YoBit. Move your coins somewhere other than Nova just to be safe.
1st option!
1st option too
Jump to: