I see there is an Alpha going on.
For those of us who are not participating (they reached their limit) are there any screenshots???
I want to see how the VC system is coming along and all we get outside of telegram are these flashy videos (with to be honest poor public speakers who might want to lay off the stims).
Topic: DCORP Venture Capitalism - page 23. (Read 127620 times)
So, is this carried out a perfect way?
Only for DRPU/S. The holders not wanting to go through KYC have no other choice than to sell off at some point.
You might end up with a situation where those already changed for the new tokens, don’t want to buy the original Drp token. Dcorp will be divided between those going through KYC and those who don’t.
I then think Dcorp should guarantee DRP holders an exit in some way.
Proposal idea:
———————
The only right way to go about this as I see it, is to have DRP tokens on external exchanges and DRPU/S on VC platform only. That way the demand for the DRP token is held up, since you need that token to get either of the new ones. Investors not wanting to go through KYC can have their exit at market price and supply of DRP token will slowly decrease as more investors go through KYC and change to new tokens.
By doing it this way, you will also have an initially fast changerate, just because DRP tokens are at the cheap end now with full supply and will end up at the expensive end with low supply. Investors wishing to stack up tokens will do it now, because they know the token soon will become more expensive.
If this process were to be democratic in the right spirit of Dcorp, there should before any of us enter the new tokens be a voting. We are all interested in higher demand and less supply of the original DRP token, and we all want to change that token to the new ones in order to take part of later votings and dividend payouts.
Second idea:
——————-
In order to speed up the process of having investors change from DRP to DRPS/U there could be some sort of discount introduction with time intervals.
Example:
1st half of Dec: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 30% discount (= 0.3 DRPS) => Total: 1.3 DRPS
2nd half of Dec: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 15% discount (= 0.15 DRPS) => Total: 1.15 DRPS
1st half of Jan: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 10% discount (= 0.10 DRPS) => Total: 1.10 DRPS
2nd half of Jan: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 5% discount (= 0.05 DRPS) => Total: 1.05 DRPS
(If not December and January, some other time intervals!)
Note
The tokenholders of Dcorp are now the owners. Large changes like the KYC introduction without any decent exit offer to all tokenholders, should indeed be voted on in a democratic way.
You might end up with a situation where those already changed for the new tokens, don’t want to buy the original Drp token. Dcorp will be divided between those going through KYC and those who don’t.
I then think Dcorp should guarantee DRP holders an exit in some way.
Proposal idea:
———————
The only right way to go about this as I see it, is to have DRP tokens on external exchanges and DRPU/S on VC platform only. That way the demand for the DRP token is held up, since you need that token to get either of the new ones. Investors not wanting to go through KYC can have their exit at market price and supply of DRP token will slowly decrease as more investors go through KYC and change to new tokens.
By doing it this way, you will also have an initially fast changerate, just because DRP tokens are at the cheap end now with full supply and will end up at the expensive end with low supply. Investors wishing to stack up tokens will do it now, because they know the token soon will become more expensive.
If this process were to be democratic in the right spirit of Dcorp, there should before any of us enter the new tokens be a voting. We are all interested in higher demand and less supply of the original DRP token, and we all want to change that token to the new ones in order to take part of later votings and dividend payouts.
Second idea:
——————-
In order to speed up the process of having investors change from DRP to DRPS/U there could be some sort of discount introduction with time intervals.
Example:
1st half of Dec: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 30% discount (= 0.3 DRPS) => Total: 1.3 DRPS
2nd half of Dec: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 15% discount (= 0.15 DRPS) => Total: 1.15 DRPS
1st half of Jan: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 10% discount (= 0.10 DRPS) => Total: 1.10 DRPS
2nd half of Jan: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 5% discount (= 0.05 DRPS) => Total: 1.05 DRPS
(If not December and January, some other time intervals!)
Note
The tokenholders of Dcorp are now the owners. Large changes like the KYC introduction without any decent exit offer to all tokenholders, should indeed be voted on in a democratic way.
Dude clearly this is just a bad idea, DRP have a fix supply 8 million so if you go for DRPs you get 1=1 , and if you go for DRPU you get 1=2 , else there is noting like bonus or etc . its not ICO where you are expecting bonus , its a real deal and should be carry out in perfect way
Only for DRPU/S. The holders not wanting to go through KYC have no other choice than to sell off at some point.
You might end up with a situation where those already changed for the new tokens, don’t want to buy the original Drp token. Dcorp will be divided between those going through KYC and those who don’t.
I then think Dcorp should guarantee DRP holders an exit in some way.
Proposal idea:
———————
The only right way to go about this as I see it, is to have DRP tokens on external exchanges and DRPU/S on VC platform only. That way the demand for the DRP token is held up, since you need that token to get either of the new ones. Investors not wanting to go through KYC can have their exit at market price and supply of DRP token will slowly decrease as more investors go through KYC and change to new tokens.
By doing it this way, you will also have an initially fast changerate, just because DRP tokens are at the cheap end now with full supply and will end up at the expensive end with low supply. Investors wishing to stack up tokens will do it now, because they know the token soon will become more expensive.
If this process were to be democratic in the right spirit of Dcorp, there should before any of us enter the new tokens be a voting. We are all interested in higher demand and less supply of the original DRP token, and we all want to change that token to the new ones in order to take part of later votings and dividend payouts.
Second idea:
——————-
In order to speed up the process of having investors change from DRP to DRPS/U there could be some sort of discount introduction with time intervals.
Example:
1st half of Dec: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 30% discount (= 0.3 DRPS) => Total: 1.3 DRPS
2nd half of Dec: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 15% discount (= 0.15 DRPS) => Total: 1.15 DRPS
1st half of Jan: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 10% discount (= 0.10 DRPS) => Total: 1.10 DRPS
2nd half of Jan: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 5% discount (= 0.05 DRPS) => Total: 1.05 DRPS
(If not December and January, some other time intervals!)
Note
The tokenholders of Dcorp are now the owners. Large changes like the KYC introduction without any decent exit offer to all tokenholders, should indeed be voted on in a democratic way.
You might end up with a situation where those already changed for the new tokens, don’t want to buy the original Drp token. Dcorp will be divided between those going through KYC and those who don’t.
I then think Dcorp should guarantee DRP holders an exit in some way.
Proposal idea:
———————
The only right way to go about this as I see it, is to have DRP tokens on external exchanges and DRPU/S on VC platform only. That way the demand for the DRP token is held up, since you need that token to get either of the new ones. Investors not wanting to go through KYC can have their exit at market price and supply of DRP token will slowly decrease as more investors go through KYC and change to new tokens.
By doing it this way, you will also have an initially fast changerate, just because DRP tokens are at the cheap end now with full supply and will end up at the expensive end with low supply. Investors wishing to stack up tokens will do it now, because they know the token soon will become more expensive.
If this process were to be democratic in the right spirit of Dcorp, there should before any of us enter the new tokens be a voting. We are all interested in higher demand and less supply of the original DRP token, and we all want to change that token to the new ones in order to take part of later votings and dividend payouts.
Second idea:
——————-
In order to speed up the process of having investors change from DRP to DRPS/U there could be some sort of discount introduction with time intervals.
Example:
1st half of Dec: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 30% discount (= 0.3 DRPS) => Total: 1.3 DRPS
2nd half of Dec: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 15% discount (= 0.15 DRPS) => Total: 1.15 DRPS
1st half of Jan: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 10% discount (= 0.10 DRPS) => Total: 1.10 DRPS
2nd half of Jan: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 5% discount (= 0.05 DRPS) => Total: 1.05 DRPS
(If not December and January, some other time intervals!)
Note
The tokenholders of Dcorp are now the owners. Large changes like the KYC introduction without any decent exit offer to all tokenholders, should indeed be voted on in a democratic way.
On your first idea: We would force a fee upon our investors. Right now the initial token change is free.
For your second idea: That wouldnt work. We can't create new tokens, its hardcapped. Thats only possible if the majority called for a vote and voted in favor.
Read the first idea once more. It has got nothing to do with Dcorps’ fees. If new tokens are kept internal, not listed on any external exchanges, the only way to get hold of new tokens is to buy DRP on external exchanges, go to internal exchange and do the swap. DRP will get burned after the swap. External exchanges will see less and less supply of DRP tokens, since they are get burnt after swap.
With less supply of DRP tokens on external exchanges, the price of DRP will increase to the benefit of all investors in Dcorp. If the price of DRP increases, the prices of DRPS/U increase.
There will be a high demand on DRP, because the only way to stack up more DRPS/U is first to buy DRP on external exchanges and then swap to new tokens on internal exchange.
But this way the DRP will sooner or later disappear or drop so low in supply that it wouldn't attract newcomers since it's increased in value ridiculously. Doesn't sound like a long-term solution to be honest.
It’s not supposed to be a long time solution. It will stimulate the process of getting rid of the DRP quicker and that is the whole point. DRP will have no other future function than to get exchanged to new tokens.
With the KYC introduction, why should newcomers buy the DRP when they can get straight into DRPS/U?
DRP holders not wanting to go through KYC can end up with a DRP that few wants to buy. How fair is that to the investors in Dcorp? Dcorp asked for their money in the ICO and now nearly leave them left alone with a useless token, if they can not sell and not exchange without going through KYC.
Solution:
There need to be a community voting on this, as this looks like a bad deal for a lot of Ico investors!!
You can’t invite investors into an Ico based on a Whitepaper, then later completely change the rules of the game without compensating the investors in some way or another.
Welcome to crypto.
They can actually do whatever they want with their money now that investors gave it to them.
We are really luck that this team is anticipating the troubles that crypto will face in the years to come. If you have DRP then you will want to exchange them for DRPS/U. This is going to ensure the legitimacy of this project across ALL governments for years to come.
If you don't want to do that then you should sell now and move to a coin that isn't interested in updating and adapting with the way crypto regulations are shifting.
Only for DRPU/S. The holders not wanting to go through KYC have no other choice than to sell off at some point.
You might end up with a situation where those already changed for the new tokens, don’t want to buy the original Drp token. Dcorp will be divided between those going through KYC and those who don’t.
I then think Dcorp should guarantee DRP holders an exit in some way.
Proposal idea:
———————
The only right way to go about this as I see it, is to have DRP tokens on external exchanges and DRPU/S on VC platform only. That way the demand for the DRP token is held up, since you need that token to get either of the new ones. Investors not wanting to go through KYC can have their exit at market price and supply of DRP token will slowly decrease as more investors go through KYC and change to new tokens.
By doing it this way, you will also have an initially fast changerate, just because DRP tokens are at the cheap end now with full supply and will end up at the expensive end with low supply. Investors wishing to stack up tokens will do it now, because they know the token soon will become more expensive.
If this process were to be democratic in the right spirit of Dcorp, there should before any of us enter the new tokens be a voting. We are all interested in higher demand and less supply of the original DRP token, and we all want to change that token to the new ones in order to take part of later votings and dividend payouts.
Second idea:
——————-
In order to speed up the process of having investors change from DRP to DRPS/U there could be some sort of discount introduction with time intervals.
Example:
1st half of Dec: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 30% discount (= 0.3 DRPS) => Total: 1.3 DRPS
2nd half of Dec: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 15% discount (= 0.15 DRPS) => Total: 1.15 DRPS
1st half of Jan: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 10% discount (= 0.10 DRPS) => Total: 1.10 DRPS
2nd half of Jan: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 5% discount (= 0.05 DRPS) => Total: 1.05 DRPS
(If not December and January, some other time intervals!)
Note
The tokenholders of Dcorp are now the owners. Large changes like the KYC introduction without any decent exit offer to all tokenholders, should indeed be voted on in a democratic way.
You might end up with a situation where those already changed for the new tokens, don’t want to buy the original Drp token. Dcorp will be divided between those going through KYC and those who don’t.
I then think Dcorp should guarantee DRP holders an exit in some way.
Proposal idea:
———————
The only right way to go about this as I see it, is to have DRP tokens on external exchanges and DRPU/S on VC platform only. That way the demand for the DRP token is held up, since you need that token to get either of the new ones. Investors not wanting to go through KYC can have their exit at market price and supply of DRP token will slowly decrease as more investors go through KYC and change to new tokens.
By doing it this way, you will also have an initially fast changerate, just because DRP tokens are at the cheap end now with full supply and will end up at the expensive end with low supply. Investors wishing to stack up tokens will do it now, because they know the token soon will become more expensive.
If this process were to be democratic in the right spirit of Dcorp, there should before any of us enter the new tokens be a voting. We are all interested in higher demand and less supply of the original DRP token, and we all want to change that token to the new ones in order to take part of later votings and dividend payouts.
Second idea:
——————-
In order to speed up the process of having investors change from DRP to DRPS/U there could be some sort of discount introduction with time intervals.
Example:
1st half of Dec: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 30% discount (= 0.3 DRPS) => Total: 1.3 DRPS
2nd half of Dec: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 15% discount (= 0.15 DRPS) => Total: 1.15 DRPS
1st half of Jan: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 10% discount (= 0.10 DRPS) => Total: 1.10 DRPS
2nd half of Jan: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 5% discount (= 0.05 DRPS) => Total: 1.05 DRPS
(If not December and January, some other time intervals!)
Note
The tokenholders of Dcorp are now the owners. Large changes like the KYC introduction without any decent exit offer to all tokenholders, should indeed be voted on in a democratic way.
On your first idea: We would force a fee upon our investors. Right now the initial token change is free.
For your second idea: That wouldnt work. We can't create new tokens, its hardcapped. Thats only possible if the majority called for a vote and voted in favor.
Read the first idea once more. It has got nothing to do with Dcorps’ fees. If new tokens are kept internal, not listed on any external exchanges, the only way to get hold of new tokens is to buy DRP on external exchanges, go to internal exchange and do the swap. DRP will get burned after the swap. External exchanges will see less and less supply of DRP tokens, since they are get burnt after swap.
With less supply of DRP tokens on external exchanges, the price of DRP will increase to the benefit of all investors in Dcorp. If the price of DRP increases, the prices of DRPS/U increase.
There will be a high demand on DRP, because the only way to stack up more DRPS/U is first to buy DRP on external exchanges and then swap to new tokens on internal exchange.
But this way the DRP will sooner or later disappear or drop so low in supply that it wouldn't attract newcomers since it's increased in value ridiculously. Doesn't sound like a long-term solution to be honest.
It’s not supposed to be a long time solution. It will stimulate the process of getting rid of the DRP quicker and that is the whole point. DRP will have no other future function than to get exchanged to new tokens.
With the KYC introduction, why should newcomers buy the DRP when they can get straight into DRPS/U?
DRP holders not wanting to go through KYC can end up with a DRP that few wants to buy. How fair is that to the investors in Dcorp? Dcorp asked for their money in the ICO and now nearly leave them left alone with a useless token, if they can not sell and not exchange without going through KYC.
Solution:
There need to be a community voting on this, as this looks like a bad deal for a lot of Ico investors!!
You can’t invite investors into an Ico based on a Whitepaper, then later completely change the rules of the game without compensating the investors in some way or another.
Only for DRPU/S. The holders not wanting to go through KYC have no other choice than to sell off at some point.
You might end up with a situation where those already changed for the new tokens, don’t want to buy the original Drp token. Dcorp will be divided between those going through KYC and those who don’t.
I then think Dcorp should guarantee DRP holders an exit in some way.
Proposal idea:
———————
The only right way to go about this as I see it, is to have DRP tokens on external exchanges and DRPU/S on VC platform only. That way the demand for the DRP token is held up, since you need that token to get either of the new ones. Investors not wanting to go through KYC can have their exit at market price and supply of DRP token will slowly decrease as more investors go through KYC and change to new tokens.
By doing it this way, you will also have an initially fast changerate, just because DRP tokens are at the cheap end now with full supply and will end up at the expensive end with low supply. Investors wishing to stack up tokens will do it now, because they know the token soon will become more expensive.
If this process were to be democratic in the right spirit of Dcorp, there should before any of us enter the new tokens be a voting. We are all interested in higher demand and less supply of the original DRP token, and we all want to change that token to the new ones in order to take part of later votings and dividend payouts.
Second idea:
——————-
In order to speed up the process of having investors change from DRP to DRPS/U there could be some sort of discount introduction with time intervals.
Example:
1st half of Dec: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 30% discount (= 0.3 DRPS) => Total: 1.3 DRPS
2nd half of Dec: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 15% discount (= 0.15 DRPS) => Total: 1.15 DRPS
1st half of Jan: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 10% discount (= 0.10 DRPS) => Total: 1.10 DRPS
2nd half of Jan: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 5% discount (= 0.05 DRPS) => Total: 1.05 DRPS
(If not December and January, some other time intervals!)
Note
The tokenholders of Dcorp are now the owners. Large changes like the KYC introduction without any decent exit offer to all tokenholders, should indeed be voted on in a democratic way.
You might end up with a situation where those already changed for the new tokens, don’t want to buy the original Drp token. Dcorp will be divided between those going through KYC and those who don’t.
I then think Dcorp should guarantee DRP holders an exit in some way.
Proposal idea:
———————
The only right way to go about this as I see it, is to have DRP tokens on external exchanges and DRPU/S on VC platform only. That way the demand for the DRP token is held up, since you need that token to get either of the new ones. Investors not wanting to go through KYC can have their exit at market price and supply of DRP token will slowly decrease as more investors go through KYC and change to new tokens.
By doing it this way, you will also have an initially fast changerate, just because DRP tokens are at the cheap end now with full supply and will end up at the expensive end with low supply. Investors wishing to stack up tokens will do it now, because they know the token soon will become more expensive.
If this process were to be democratic in the right spirit of Dcorp, there should before any of us enter the new tokens be a voting. We are all interested in higher demand and less supply of the original DRP token, and we all want to change that token to the new ones in order to take part of later votings and dividend payouts.
Second idea:
——————-
In order to speed up the process of having investors change from DRP to DRPS/U there could be some sort of discount introduction with time intervals.
Example:
1st half of Dec: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 30% discount (= 0.3 DRPS) => Total: 1.3 DRPS
2nd half of Dec: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 15% discount (= 0.15 DRPS) => Total: 1.15 DRPS
1st half of Jan: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 10% discount (= 0.10 DRPS) => Total: 1.10 DRPS
2nd half of Jan: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 5% discount (= 0.05 DRPS) => Total: 1.05 DRPS
(If not December and January, some other time intervals!)
Note
The tokenholders of Dcorp are now the owners. Large changes like the KYC introduction without any decent exit offer to all tokenholders, should indeed be voted on in a democratic way.
On your first idea: We would force a fee upon our investors. Right now the initial token change is free.
For your second idea: That wouldnt work. We can't create new tokens, its hardcapped. Thats only possible if the majority called for a vote and voted in favor.
Read the first idea once more. It has got nothing to do with Dcorps’ fees. If new tokens are kept internal, not listed on any external exchanges, the only way to get hold of new tokens is to buy DRP on external exchanges, go to internal exchange and do the swap. DRP will get burned after the swap. External exchanges will see less and less supply of DRP tokens, since they are get burnt after swap.
With less supply of DRP tokens on external exchanges, the price of DRP will increase to the benefit of all investors in Dcorp. If the price of DRP increases, the prices of DRPS/U increase.
There will be a high demand on DRP, because the only way to stack up more DRPS/U is first to buy DRP on external exchanges and then swap to new tokens on internal exchange.
But this way the DRP will sooner or later disappear or drop so low in supply that it wouldn't attract newcomers since it's increased in value ridiculously. Doesn't sound like a long-term solution to be honest.
Only for DRPU/S. The holders not wanting to go through KYC have no other choice than to sell off at some point.
You might end up with a situation where those already changed for the new tokens, don’t want to buy the original Drp token. Dcorp will be divided between those going through KYC and those who don’t.
I then think Dcorp should guarantee DRP holders an exit in some way.
Proposal idea:
———————
The only right way to go about this as I see it, is to have DRP tokens on external exchanges and DRPU/S on VC platform only. That way the demand for the DRP token is held up, since you need that token to get either of the new ones. Investors not wanting to go through KYC can have their exit at market price and supply of DRP token will slowly decrease as more investors go through KYC and change to new tokens.
By doing it this way, you will also have an initially fast changerate, just because DRP tokens are at the cheap end now with full supply and will end up at the expensive end with low supply. Investors wishing to stack up tokens will do it now, because they know the token soon will become more expensive.
If this process were to be democratic in the right spirit of Dcorp, there should before any of us enter the new tokens be a voting. We are all interested in higher demand and less supply of the original DRP token, and we all want to change that token to the new ones in order to take part of later votings and dividend payouts.
Second idea:
——————-
In order to speed up the process of having investors change from DRP to DRPS/U there could be some sort of discount introduction with time intervals.
Example:
1st half of Dec: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 30% discount (= 0.3 DRPS) => Total: 1.3 DRPS
2nd half of Dec: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 15% discount (= 0.15 DRPS) => Total: 1.15 DRPS
1st half of Jan: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 10% discount (= 0.10 DRPS) => Total: 1.10 DRPS
2nd half of Jan: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 5% discount (= 0.05 DRPS) => Total: 1.05 DRPS
(If not December and January, some other time intervals!)
Note
The tokenholders of Dcorp are now the owners. Large changes like the KYC introduction without any decent exit offer to all tokenholders, should indeed be voted on in a democratic way.
You might end up with a situation where those already changed for the new tokens, don’t want to buy the original Drp token. Dcorp will be divided between those going through KYC and those who don’t.
I then think Dcorp should guarantee DRP holders an exit in some way.
Proposal idea:
———————
The only right way to go about this as I see it, is to have DRP tokens on external exchanges and DRPU/S on VC platform only. That way the demand for the DRP token is held up, since you need that token to get either of the new ones. Investors not wanting to go through KYC can have their exit at market price and supply of DRP token will slowly decrease as more investors go through KYC and change to new tokens.
By doing it this way, you will also have an initially fast changerate, just because DRP tokens are at the cheap end now with full supply and will end up at the expensive end with low supply. Investors wishing to stack up tokens will do it now, because they know the token soon will become more expensive.
If this process were to be democratic in the right spirit of Dcorp, there should before any of us enter the new tokens be a voting. We are all interested in higher demand and less supply of the original DRP token, and we all want to change that token to the new ones in order to take part of later votings and dividend payouts.
Second idea:
——————-
In order to speed up the process of having investors change from DRP to DRPS/U there could be some sort of discount introduction with time intervals.
Example:
1st half of Dec: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 30% discount (= 0.3 DRPS) => Total: 1.3 DRPS
2nd half of Dec: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 15% discount (= 0.15 DRPS) => Total: 1.15 DRPS
1st half of Jan: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 10% discount (= 0.10 DRPS) => Total: 1.10 DRPS
2nd half of Jan: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 5% discount (= 0.05 DRPS) => Total: 1.05 DRPS
(If not December and January, some other time intervals!)
Note
The tokenholders of Dcorp are now the owners. Large changes like the KYC introduction without any decent exit offer to all tokenholders, should indeed be voted on in a democratic way.
On your first idea: We would force a fee upon our investors. Right now the initial token change is free.
For your second idea: That wouldnt work. We can't create new tokens, its hardcapped. Thats only possible if the majority called for a vote and voted in favor.
Read the first idea once more. It has got nothing to do with Dcorps’ fees. If new tokens are kept internal, not listed on any external exchanges, the only way to get hold of new tokens is to buy DRP on external exchanges, go to internal exchange and do the swap. DRP will get burned after the swap. External exchanges will see less and less supply of DRP tokens, since they are get burnt after swap.
There will not be a fee on the swap from DRP. Each DRP will be swapped only once and then get burnt.
With less supply of DRP tokens on external exchanges, the price of DRP will increase to the benefit of all investors in Dcorp. If the price of DRP increases, the prices of DRPS/U increase.
There will be a high demand on DRP, because the only way to stack up more DRPS/U is first to buy DRP on external exchanges and then swap to new tokens on internal exchange.
Only for DRPU/S. The holders not wanting to go through KYC have no other choice than to sell off at some point.
You might end up with a situation where those already changed for the new tokens, don’t want to buy the original Drp token. Dcorp will be divided between those going through KYC and those who don’t.
I then think Dcorp should guarantee DRP holders an exit in some way.
Proposal idea:
———————
The only right way to go about this as I see it, is to have DRP tokens on external exchanges and DRPU/S on VC platform only. That way the demand for the DRP token is held up, since you need that token to get either of the new ones. Investors not wanting to go through KYC can have their exit at market price and supply of DRP token will slowly decrease as more investors go through KYC and change to new tokens.
By doing it this way, you will also have an initially fast changerate, just because DRP tokens are at the cheap end now with full supply and will end up at the expensive end with low supply. Investors wishing to stack up tokens will do it now, because they know the token soon will become more expensive.
If this process were to be democratic in the right spirit of Dcorp, there should before any of us enter the new tokens be a voting. We are all interested in higher demand and less supply of the original DRP token, and we all want to change that token to the new ones in order to take part of later votings and dividend payouts.
Second idea:
——————-
In order to speed up the process of having investors change from DRP to DRPS/U there could be some sort of discount introduction with time intervals.
Example:
1st half of Dec: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 30% discount (= 0.3 DRPS) => Total: 1.3 DRPS
2nd half of Dec: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 15% discount (= 0.15 DRPS) => Total: 1.15 DRPS
1st half of Jan: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 10% discount (= 0.10 DRPS) => Total: 1.10 DRPS
2nd half of Jan: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 5% discount (= 0.05 DRPS) => Total: 1.05 DRPS
(If not December and January, some other time intervals!)
Note
The tokenholders of Dcorp are now the owners. Large changes like the KYC introduction without any decent exit offer to all tokenholders, should indeed be voted on in a democratic way.
You might end up with a situation where those already changed for the new tokens, don’t want to buy the original Drp token. Dcorp will be divided between those going through KYC and those who don’t.
I then think Dcorp should guarantee DRP holders an exit in some way.
Proposal idea:
———————
The only right way to go about this as I see it, is to have DRP tokens on external exchanges and DRPU/S on VC platform only. That way the demand for the DRP token is held up, since you need that token to get either of the new ones. Investors not wanting to go through KYC can have their exit at market price and supply of DRP token will slowly decrease as more investors go through KYC and change to new tokens.
By doing it this way, you will also have an initially fast changerate, just because DRP tokens are at the cheap end now with full supply and will end up at the expensive end with low supply. Investors wishing to stack up tokens will do it now, because they know the token soon will become more expensive.
If this process were to be democratic in the right spirit of Dcorp, there should before any of us enter the new tokens be a voting. We are all interested in higher demand and less supply of the original DRP token, and we all want to change that token to the new ones in order to take part of later votings and dividend payouts.
Second idea:
——————-
In order to speed up the process of having investors change from DRP to DRPS/U there could be some sort of discount introduction with time intervals.
Example:
1st half of Dec: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 30% discount (= 0.3 DRPS) => Total: 1.3 DRPS
2nd half of Dec: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 15% discount (= 0.15 DRPS) => Total: 1.15 DRPS
1st half of Jan: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 10% discount (= 0.10 DRPS) => Total: 1.10 DRPS
2nd half of Jan: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 5% discount (= 0.05 DRPS) => Total: 1.05 DRPS
(If not December and January, some other time intervals!)
Note
The tokenholders of Dcorp are now the owners. Large changes like the KYC introduction without any decent exit offer to all tokenholders, should indeed be voted on in a democratic way.
On your first idea: We would force a fee upon our investors. Right now the initial token change is free.
For your second idea: That wouldnt work. We can't create new tokens, its hardcapped. Thats only possible if the majority called for a vote and voted in favor.
We appreciate your way of thinking in solutions though. The answers above are coming from me. But i will try and discuss your proposition with the team, if i can catch them with some time to spare.
Is the KYC a new requirement? I think a lot of people will be upset but it will be the only way to het past regulations.
Yes it is essential for us to move forward. Around 30 to 40% of our investors are from America, so it would be a huge loss now if we wouldn't comply. I'm not even talking about other countries and the possibility of them following America's trail.
I did not say anything about new listings for the Drp token. Also, I say I guess that DRPS/U not will be listed on external exchange and that is why you say I am incorrect, I think.
Then, explain to us why we need ID verification to purchase DRPS/U on VC platform, when those tokens can be purchased for everyone on external exchanges without ID verification. Or, do say those tokens only will be listed on exchanges where verification is necessary?
Then, explain to us why we need ID verification to purchase DRPS/U on VC platform, when those tokens can be purchased for everyone on external exchanges without ID verification. Or, do say those tokens only will be listed on exchanges where verification is necessary?
You can buy DRPS/U on other exchanges, however you can't use them. To be able to use them you need to sign up on our VC platform after it launches.
Only for DRPU/S. The holders not wanting to go through KYC have no other choice than to sell off at some point.
You might end up with a situation where those already changed for the new tokens, don’t want to buy the original Drp token. Dcorp will be divided between those going through KYC and those who don’t.
I then think Dcorp should guarantee DRP holders an exit in some way.
Proposal idea:
———————
The only right way to go about this as I see it, is to have DRP tokens on external exchanges and DRPU/S on VC platform only. That way the demand for the DRP token is held up, since you need that token to get either of the new ones. Investors not wanting to go through KYC can have their exit at market price and supply of DRP token will slowly decrease as more investors go through KYC and change to new tokens.
By doing it this way, you will also have an initially fast changerate, just because DRP tokens are at the cheap end now with full supply and will end up at the expensive end with low supply. Investors wishing to stack up tokens will do it now, because they know the token soon will become more expensive.
If this process were to be democratic in the right spirit of Dcorp, there should before any of us enter the new tokens be a voting. We are all interested in higher demand and less supply of the original DRP token, and we all want to change that token to the new ones in order to take part of later votings and dividend payouts.
Second idea:
——————-
In order to speed up the process of having investors change from DRP to DRPS/U there could be some sort of discount introduction with time intervals.
Example:
1st half of Dec: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 30% discount (= 0.3 DRPS) => Total: 1.3 DRPS
2nd half of Dec: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 15% discount (= 0.15 DRPS) => Total: 1.15 DRPS
1st half of Jan: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 10% discount (= 0.10 DRPS) => Total: 1.10 DRPS
2nd half of Jan: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 5% discount (= 0.05 DRPS) => Total: 1.05 DRPS
(If not December and January, some other time intervals!)
Note
The tokenholders of Dcorp are now the owners. Large changes like the KYC introduction without any decent exit offer to all tokenholders, should indeed be voted on in a democratic way.
You might end up with a situation where those already changed for the new tokens, don’t want to buy the original Drp token. Dcorp will be divided between those going through KYC and those who don’t.
I then think Dcorp should guarantee DRP holders an exit in some way.
Proposal idea:
———————
The only right way to go about this as I see it, is to have DRP tokens on external exchanges and DRPU/S on VC platform only. That way the demand for the DRP token is held up, since you need that token to get either of the new ones. Investors not wanting to go through KYC can have their exit at market price and supply of DRP token will slowly decrease as more investors go through KYC and change to new tokens.
By doing it this way, you will also have an initially fast changerate, just because DRP tokens are at the cheap end now with full supply and will end up at the expensive end with low supply. Investors wishing to stack up tokens will do it now, because they know the token soon will become more expensive.
If this process were to be democratic in the right spirit of Dcorp, there should before any of us enter the new tokens be a voting. We are all interested in higher demand and less supply of the original DRP token, and we all want to change that token to the new ones in order to take part of later votings and dividend payouts.
Second idea:
——————-
In order to speed up the process of having investors change from DRP to DRPS/U there could be some sort of discount introduction with time intervals.
Example:
1st half of Dec: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 30% discount (= 0.3 DRPS) => Total: 1.3 DRPS
2nd half of Dec: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 15% discount (= 0.15 DRPS) => Total: 1.15 DRPS
1st half of Jan: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 10% discount (= 0.10 DRPS) => Total: 1.10 DRPS
2nd half of Jan: 1 DRP changed to 1 DRPS with 5% discount (= 0.05 DRPS) => Total: 1.05 DRPS
(If not December and January, some other time intervals!)
Note
The tokenholders of Dcorp are now the owners. Large changes like the KYC introduction without any decent exit offer to all tokenholders, should indeed be voted on in a democratic way.
Is the KYC a new requirement? I think a lot of people will be upset but it will be the only way to het past regulations.
I did not say anything about new listings for the Drp token. Also, I say I guess that DRPS/U not will be listed on external exchange and that is why you say I am incorrect, I think.
Then, explain to us why we need ID verification to purchase DRPS/U on VC platform, when those tokens can be purchased for everyone on external exchanges without ID verification. Or, do say those tokens only will be listed on exchanges where verification is necessary?
Then, explain to us why we need ID verification to purchase DRPS/U on VC platform, when those tokens can be purchased for everyone on external exchanges without ID verification. Or, do say those tokens only will be listed on exchanges where verification is necessary?
Another surprise from Dcorp..
I guess now, only Drp will be listed on external exchanges, am I right?
Otherwise, investors who has not yet been through ID verification, may purchase
DRPS/U on external exchanges.
If this is what happens, we will definitely see the decrease in supply of DRP tokens on
external exchanges as ID verification and internal exchanges takes place.
Also, if this happens, we will see a clear distinguish between internal and external tokens.
External cut off from voting and dividend payouts, internal cut off from external exchanging.
I guess now, only Drp will be listed on external exchanges, am I right?
Otherwise, investors who has not yet been through ID verification, may purchase
DRPS/U on external exchanges.
If this is what happens, we will definitely see the decrease in supply of DRP tokens on
external exchanges as ID verification and internal exchanges takes place.
Also, if this happens, we will see a clear distinguish between internal and external tokens.
External cut off from voting and dividend payouts, internal cut off from external exchanging.
No, that's incorrect.
DRP probably won't get listed on any new exchanges. It will stay on the current ones it's listed on and it's core purpose is to be converted to either DRPS or DRPU and be burnt.
Our 2 new tokens, however will get listed on external exchanges.
Another surprise from Dcorp..
I guess now, only Drp will be listed on external exchanges, am I right?
Otherwise, investors who has not yet been through ID verification, may purchase
DRPS/U on external exchanges.
If this is what happens, we will definitely see the decrease in supply of DRP tokens on
external exchanges as ID verification and internal exchanges takes place.
Also, if this happens, we will see a clear distinguish between internal and external tokens.
External cut off from voting and dividend payouts, internal cut off from external exchanging.
I guess now, only Drp will be listed on external exchanges, am I right?
Otherwise, investors who has not yet been through ID verification, may purchase
DRPS/U on external exchanges.
If this is what happens, we will definitely see the decrease in supply of DRP tokens on
external exchanges as ID verification and internal exchanges takes place.
Also, if this happens, we will see a clear distinguish between internal and external tokens.
External cut off from voting and dividend payouts, internal cut off from external exchanging.
We have a new update for you guys:
DCORP KYC - Protection Moving Forward
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXYo-R3MRl8
DCORP KYC - Protection Moving Forward
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXYo-R3MRl8
So in order for us to exchange our DRP to DRPU or DRPS, we need to submit all of our information (Full name, address, and government Identification) to the platform. This is in order for Dcorp to be in full compliance with U.S. regulations. The video did mention you can still sign up for the platform without submitting those requirements, but you can't vote or be active in the platform.
We have a new update for you guys:
DCORP KYC - Protection Moving Forward
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXYo-R3MRl8
DCORP KYC - Protection Moving Forward
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXYo-R3MRl8
It’s wrong to say:
(Token amount keeps decreasing)
when a new instance of a Drps or 2 new instances of Drpu is/are put into circulation for each burnt Drp token.
It is important to put things right to avoid any kind of possible misinterpretations.
If you start out with 10 red houses and paint 3 of them yellow, you then have 7 red houses which is less than 10 red houses, but you still have 10 houses.
(Token amount keeps decreasing)
when a new instance of a Drps or 2 new instances of Drpu is/are put into circulation for each burnt Drp token.
It is important to put things right to avoid any kind of possible misinterpretations.
If you start out with 10 red houses and paint 3 of them yellow, you then have 7 red houses which is less than 10 red houses, but you still have 10 houses.
It's correct. When you pay a small fee to switch between DRPS<>DRPU, the fee will automatically get burnt, thus decreasing the total token supply each time the token changer is being used.
Decreasing coin supply is good. I dont know however how often people will change and why they would change. They might want to change just before dividend distribution but then the target coin will be trading at price plus dividend. Will the coin changer take into account that it is just before dividend time and adjust the ratio or will the ratio remain the same always?
Yes, we don't want our investors to switch between them too often. Arbitrage is possible, it will also increase stability. So the fee will be a sweetspot between "cheap" and "is it really worth destroying my x amount of token?"
It’s wrong to say:
(Token amount keeps decreasing)
when a new instance of a Drps or 2 new instances of Drpu is/are put into circulation for each burnt Drp token.
It is important to put things right to avoid any kind of possible misinterpretations.
If you start out with 10 red houses and paint 3 of them yellow, you then have 7 red houses which is less than 10 red houses, but you still have 10 houses.
(Token amount keeps decreasing)
when a new instance of a Drps or 2 new instances of Drpu is/are put into circulation for each burnt Drp token.
It is important to put things right to avoid any kind of possible misinterpretations.
If you start out with 10 red houses and paint 3 of them yellow, you then have 7 red houses which is less than 10 red houses, but you still have 10 houses.
It's correct. When you pay a small fee to switch between DRPS<>DRPU, the fee will automatically get burnt, thus decreasing the total token supply each time the token changer is being used.
Decreasing coin supply is good. I dont know however how often people will change and why they would change. They might want to change just before dividend distribution but then the target coin will be trading at price plus dividend. Will the coin changer take into account that it is just before dividend time and adjust the ratio or will the ratio remain the same always?
It’s wrong to say:
(Token amount keeps decreasing)
when a new instance of a Drps or 2 new instances of Drpu is/are put into circulation for each burnt Drp token.
It is important to put things right to avoid any kind of possible misinterpretations.
If you start out with 10 red houses and paint 3 of them yellow, you then have 7 red houses which is less than 10 red houses, but you still have 10 houses.
(Token amount keeps decreasing)
when a new instance of a Drps or 2 new instances of Drpu is/are put into circulation for each burnt Drp token.
It is important to put things right to avoid any kind of possible misinterpretations.
If you start out with 10 red houses and paint 3 of them yellow, you then have 7 red houses which is less than 10 red houses, but you still have 10 houses.
It's correct. When you pay a small fee to switch between DRPS<>DRPU, the fee will automatically get burnt, thus decreasing the total token supply each time the token changer is being used.
Jump to: