A lot of people in this thread are talking about the price difference between electricity cost in an expensive country like Denmark, and the price of MWAT. In Denmark a company called Ørsted has monopoly on the electric grid. They allow other companies to sell electricity, but they have to rent Ørsteds grid. This also means more than half the electricity price goes to transportation of the electricity. If RED comes to Denmark they may be competitive, but the price of electricity will be at least double than the value of the MWAT token.
Just some food for thought.
(I own MWAT myself)
Thanks for sharing
Just out of curiosity, Denmark with the above condition is counted a regulated or deregulated country?
It is an extremely regulated country. It has a high degree of welfare paid by high taxes, which means that everything capable of turning a profit, eventually will be subject to taxation. The taxation council is currently undergoing an investigation whether cryptocurrencies should be treated as such. The previous decision made in 2014 was a no, as the council didn't find cryptocurrencies objects of speculation. That has changed since 2014, which means profits related to cryptocurrencies most likely will be undergoing taxation soon, which again shows how regulated the country is.
Another example is related to my previous post. Both the electricity and phone grid are owned by big public companies, but for many years with the state as the main share holder. In the recent years the state has sold out their shares - Ørsted to Goldman Sachs for instance - but the long tradition with the state as main share holder, and therefore the owner of the grids, has created a monopolized society that is highly regulated.
This also means that RED will have quite a hard time gaining ground in Denmark, as Ørsted, the owner of the grid, a multi-billion dollar public company, pretty much can refuse to let RED use the grid if the price is too low. But why would cheap energy in Denmark not be a good thing? Because the state has decided that competition has to be regulated. If something is too cheap, you make it subject to taxation. This means that RED will most likely undergo expenses regarding distribution to Ørsted, and taxation paid to the state, which means that RED will end up costing the consumer the exact same as the locally supplied electricity.
Several providers of electricity have tried it before. The only difference for the consumer is that they will now receive two invoices to pay instead of one. One for the electricity and one for the distribution. This is an annoying detail for the consumer, which means pretty much everyone end up staying with Ørsted, as the workload increases two-fold, while the money saved equals zero.
Can you see where I am going...?