Topic: [ANN][Blocknet] truly decentralized exchange | token ecosystem infrastructure - page 218. (Read 1103311 times)

synechist : you talk maybe with prom or dan , can you ask prom to talk to us??

prom talked a week back in util thread and he is a big invester from blocknet and util .
but can he let us know he is still in ??

synechist : you talk maybe with prom or dan , can you ask prom to talk to us??

prom talked a week back in util thread and he is a big invester from blocknet and util .
but can he let us know he is still in ??

This, to me, is overly simple. We are concerned about keeping the public in the loop about progress and about the project as a whole. We are also interested in the market-related health of the project, and are aware of its relation to the overall health of the project.

However what we are not concerned about is the sort of day-by-day "concerns" that some people here seem to be prone to (like "hmm... the Github repo hasn't been updated, therefore something must be wrong!"). If this sort of thing has an effect on the market then, well, we just can't do anything about it, because no matter how healthy a project and no matter how hard we work, there will always be room for small and speculative doubts. Selling over trifles or idle speculation is just short-sighted, and we simply don't have the time and energy to address every "concern". I encourage investors to become suitably hardened against this.

Work is ongoing; we're forming a foundation; we're well-funded to achieve what we've set out to achieve; we'll report our developments very soon; read my post history if you want more details.

when two dogs fight for a bone, and a third runs away with it.. (yea me) 

onealfa, you'll have to fight me for them! 

This will never happen. This is impossible.
Because I will get 'em ALL at 0.00000002.

Concern about the price is a concern about this apparent lack of confidence. Therefore if the team is not concerned about a drop in price then they are not concerned about a lack of confidence in their abilities to deliver.

It seems to me that it's irrational to want the price of BLOCK to be higher.

BLOCK isn't a normal coin - no one is pushing for it to be accepted by merchants, no one is promoting BLOCK for charity, etc. - it's simply a receipt for supporting the ITO, and its only value is in how many NHZ assets you can exchange it for when Blocknet is a reality.

The price of BLOCK doesn't have any bearing on the project either, unless I'm mistaken; the devs are getting paid from the BTC or other supported altcoins when people paid for BLOCK in the ITO. They aren't getting paid in BLOCK, right? After the ITO, the price of BLOCK could go down to 1 satoshi with no detriment to their development efforts.

Thus, it really seems like we should be hoping for the price of BLOCK to be as low as possible, in order to scoop it up cheaply. The only reason to want the price of BLOCK to be higher is if you want to sell it for profit before Blocknet (which is valid, but I would think most holders are interested in getting paid by Blocknet's NHZ assets; otherwise why not just invest in a normal coin?).

I'm writing this because I don't understand the desire to have the devs put up a buy wall for BLOCK. If the price of BLOCK goes back to ITO price or higher, it doesn't affect the project's funding at all, but it makes it more expensive to acquire BLOCK for users, correct? Let me know if I'm missing anything.

I.... After the ITO, the price of BLOCK could go down to 1 satoshi ....

When you were planning development budget of 850 BTC, bitcoin price was lower. On top of that, you have collected more than what you need to develop the BlockNet. Therefore, you should have excess funds that you could use for the buyback and support the price. Why don't you spend 100 BTC or so on the buyback?

A buy wall is actually something we've considered cursorily.

It's not a bad idea -  and neither is it a bad idea for the Foundation to be invested in BLOCK.

We'll let you all know if we decide to do this. It makes a degree of sense.



(Hint: might wanna avoid selling at a loss until we respond to this...)

Evening everyone

I'm off to bed, but for those who've been complaining about the apparent lack of development (and perhaps dumping), I'll offer the following:

Bear in mind that funds absolutely must be transparently spent.

Before funds can be spent, we need a budget, a timeline with milestones at which funds can be released, and a board to vote on spending.

It doesn't take a lot of imagination to guess that this takes a fair bit of work and negotiation to set up - not to mention finding/creating technologies for administrating the process.

For the most part, this is what we've been busy with, and we're excited to show you the results.

Stay tuned for details in the coming week.

(And try not to get duped by trolls.)


Cheers


Arlyn

Evening everyone

I'm off to bed, but for those who've been complaining about the apparent lack of development (and perhaps dumping), I'll offer the following:

Bear in mind that funds absolutely must be transparently spent.

Before funds can be spent, we need a budget, a timeline with milestones at which funds can be released, and a board to vote on spending.

It doesn't take a lot of imagination to guess that this takes a fair bit of work and negotiation to set up - not to mention finding/creating technologies for administrating the process.

For the most part, this is what we've been busy with, and we're excited to show you the results.

Stay tuned for details in the coming week.

(And try not to get duped by trolls.)


Cheers


Arlyn

(And try not to get duped by trolls.)

It is not surprising that people who spend good money on something expect to see the value hold. The long term expectation is for a gain, and even though most people understand that there is a big risk and they could lose their investment, seeing a huge drop in value right at the moment of the IPO completion is disturbing. The current trend in so much crypto for projects to be revealed as scams is always in the back of our minds.

Think of it this way; if it were the stock market the shareholders would be demanding the resignation of the chairman of the company if the stock price declines by a lot; or at least demand an explanation.

I am not trying to undermine trust in the project, I believe in it and hold a good number of the coins as well. But I do feel that it is not unreasonable for people to express concern and request action be taken to demonstrate good faith to respect their contributions to the project.

It seems to me that it's irrational to want the price of BLOCK to be higher.

BLOCK isn't a normal coin - no one is pushing for it to be accepted by merchants, no one is promoting BLOCK for charity, etc. - it's simply a receipt for supporting the ITO, and its only value is in how many NHZ assets you can exchange it for when Blocknet is a reality.

The price of BLOCK doesn't have any bearing on the project either, unless I'm mistaken; the devs are getting paid from the BTC or other supported altcoins when people paid for BLOCK in the ITO. They aren't getting paid in BLOCK, right? After the ITO, the price of BLOCK could go down to 1 satoshi with no detriment to their development efforts.

Thus, it really seems like we should be hoping for the price of BLOCK to be as low as possible, in order to scoop it up cheaply. The only reason to want the price of BLOCK to be higher is if you want to sell it for profit before Blocknet (which is valid, but I would think most holders are interested in getting paid by Blocknet's NHZ assets; otherwise why not just invest in a normal coin?).

I'm writing this because I don't understand the desire to have the devs put up a buy wall for BLOCK. If the price of BLOCK goes back to ITO price or higher, it doesn't affect the project's funding at all, but it makes it more expensive to acquire BLOCK for users, correct? Let me know if I'm missing anything.