Hope bittrex so i could sell all and buy DAO ico(130 millions).
I think 90% of lisk holder will dump to buy DAO.
Maybe i will buy later lisk, but priority is DAO now.
I think 90% of lisk holder will dump to buy DAO.
Maybe i will buy later lisk, but priority is DAO now.
It won't make too much sense to dump Lisk to buy DAO. DAO is very expensive now and will become more expensive every day. The marketcap is very high ($162 Mio) and even if it's a very interesting and innovative idea, it's safe to say: There will be problems. Why? There is a conflict of interest in the concept.
Imagine you have a lot of DAO and most DAO-holders also have a lot of ETH. There is a proposal you believe would be a good decision, but you know: If you a majority would vote for it, DAO will invest and that means: sell. DAO will sell ETH or will give ETH to a project to invest in it. That means it will lose Marketcap until there is a return. ETH will most likely also go down because ppl will anticipate sell pressure if a proposal goes through. How many will vote for a longterm-decision that still involves a lot of risk and take the loss in short-term because DAO needs to sell?
And why should DAO be worth more on the exchange than the money it has? Because they will make a lot of money?
Let's say they start with $180 Mio and DAO invests in a project, like slock.it or whatever. And let's say DAO invests $10 Mio. How much time will it take to make profit? And will there be profit? And even if, will it be that much profit to justify prices above a current marketcap?
The question in DAO is: Who will definitely benefit? Those who will get money from DAO. That's safe. Nothing else is safe.
Plus: Why should I give my money to an "institution" in which a majority will decide - or those with the biggest voting power? I like it more to make my own research, my own analysis and my own decisions. I don't trust a majority and I don't trust groups with a lot of power. And like I said above: The majority will always have to face a conflict of interest between short-term-loss and possible long-term-profit - which will always involve the risk that there won't be any profit but a loss.
Conclusion: In my opinion DAO is very interesting and will be interesting to watch. There will be much to learn out of it. But out of investor-perspective... I don't understand why so many believe it's a good buy.
I agree it makes no sense to get into the DAO right now (at least via selling LISK). But I'm not sure your conflict of interest holds water.
And let me state I am interested in both the DAO and LISK (and a few other ICO's) and I look forward to LISK having its own DAO as well.
If there is a proposal for a DAO investment that is accepted, why would: 1 - they invest in a project with a far out return that can hurt them? (They would have to manage this.) 2 - they invest in a project that is just going to cash out the ETH? (Look at ETH and BTC both, many of those with lots of "tokens" used those tokens by investing in other companies and those "tokens" were often passed on as such, not necessarily cashed in. This is money after all.
I think you are looking at this from one perspective. You did not take into consideration that the voters of the DAO will HAVE TO consider the points you brought up and if they do and still vote on it, it will have to be for a good reason.
I really think it is a weak argument to primarily look at the first of its kind type of thing in the DAO, purely from a one sided perspective as you did. I'm not saying your arguments have no truth to them as they do, but you only presented that one side and it is clear to anyone who understands this tech, that you just focused on that one side and that distorts the argument of course, as you present it as the data set and not a part of a larger one.
The DAO's value can be worth more than the money it has in it for a variety of reasons. The most obvious would be something along the lines of a PE ratio, which is forward looking. The DAO (or a DAO on LISK too) allows people to crowdfund in an incredible flexible way, removing the normal borders. Another reason would be one of a lack of regulation due to the before mentioned reason (And I would imagine this can of course be a negative as well.)
Nothing here is safe, huge chance but we are talking another Black Swan type thing here. We know not what it can do and all that it can disrupt.
Re. Plus - Invest in what you like, but don't make your personal opinions one of reason for the rest. Crowds generally decide much better than individuals do. You can see this trend across many spaces and I'm not exactly sure why but it is there. But that is your reason right there. Another one would be - If you are not an institutional investor (i.e. rich) you can't invest in many things. Economic discrimination, I mean protection. lol
I agree with your conclusion though.
