As you took just the doggie example and you based your respond on it, instead of the context in which it was said.
The context was not altered. Your position was that Iconomi is one of the only projects with any real use case. I responded to that position and stated that nobody is saying the project itself has no value. Where is your issue?
I clearly wasn't referring to you since I replied to someone else, but you already know that
You said it to me, without making it clear who you were referring to. I accept that you were talking in a more general sense, and not about me specifically.
Care to explain how SIA has a clear value and Iconomi doesn't? SIA is still deep in the beta stage with some users using the network. (don't know how much)
Iconomi is at the end of the beta phase with few hundred users at least that are using the platform.
If we take out the future speculation out of the equation, in both cases we can see the "net" value which is user-base.
For SIA - the more hosts/users are actively using its network - the more SIA tokens are needed/locked
For Iconomi - the more users are using the platform, the more fees are collected and the more ICN tokens are burned
What's not clear about it?
Please make the efforts and try
I will try...
SIA has a usage as payment on the network. That is its value. The same as GNT on Golem, or ETH on Ethereum.
Iconomi's original proposed value was that of a share in the platform. It is currently unclear if this is still the case, due to lack of response on the matter, and the vague description on the terminology page.
I have went over this in the past - but a dividend paying asset has clear utility, as you purchase the token in order to be granted the right to receive a dividend. Put aside the dividend/buyback debate - it is a fact that this use case would have dictated the value of the token. We would't need to worry about legalities in that sense, because the proof of value would be in the returns themselves (even if they were poor.)
Now we move forward to buybacks. Buying back the tokens does not give them value alone. They must have a base value to begin with. Now, if this were a share in the "real" world, it would be backed by the assets Iconomi holds - because there would be a legal, regulated binding to the platform. That would be the "proof" in that case, which would guarantee the base value: ownership. This is not the case right now. Your token grants you no rights to anything. It could possibly be used as an IOU in order to claim shares in future, but it is not - in and of itself - a share of anything. It is just a token on the network, that isn't doing anything, and isn't actually connected to the Iconomi assets. It is connected in people's minds - but not in any official capacity.
Because there is no clear concrete connection to the platform, no official response from the team, no whitepaper, and only a vague description of the token on the help pages, the token can be said to have
no clear value at this moment in time.
That is not to say it has no value to you, or won't have a clear value in future. Your value comes in the form of expecting it to be objectively valuable one day. This is its only speculative value at this current moment in time.
Now this future value could come in the form of a more concrete explanation of how the token is backed by the assets Iconomi holds, or it could come in the form of a transition into a usage token on the platform itself. And, as I said, it could be used as an IOU to claim actual real world shares.
In the most loosely tied case, the value just comes from everybody collectively agreeing that this token represents Iconomi. That is the case that most people are running with at the moment. But that would be no better than creating my own token myself, and saying "If Iconomi does well, this token should increase in value" and expecting people to buy my token at a higher price later on. It's like making a bet, without a bookie, and just expecting some random person to pay you if you win.
Now, despite this in depth explanation, I'm confident that you still won't actually understand any of this - because you haven't understood it so far. However, I can see that plenty of other people DO understand it.
I'm trying to explain to you WHY people ask about the value. The above reasons are why. Disagree with them all you like, but that is the thought process that is driving people to question the value - and it is perfectly valid reasoning.
I don't agree with your educated answer. Here is why:
SIA token value comes from the
usage of their network. That's where the value is. The payment structure itself is meaningless if no one is using their service. SIA current value/price of the token is backed up by less than 700K usd - the rest of its current price is pure speculation.
Iconomi token is backed up by ICNP and platform assets. ICNP is currently worth 28M usd, I'd say they have at least 20M usd for expenses. And ICNP has not kicked in yet.
The rest comes from speculation that the product will be released, good and used...
From the last AMA:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ICONOMI/comments/697cbr/iconomi_ama_may_2017/dh548ay/I'm sure you've read it
I have to add something about ICNP. I think people don't realize how powerful this is. Those who wait enough until the initial seed money is invested in ICOs, and have ICNP realize even 50% of the investments with a humble 2x profit - it's 48M usd going back to ICNP for future investments and 12M usd profits for ICN - it means
1M usd buybacks every month. Even at price of $10 it means 100K ICN burned every month just from ICNP profits. Still can't see a value here?
The never ending dividends vs. buybacks debate will clearly not come to consensus. I hope we could at least agree that both dividends and buybacks are subject to profits generated by Iconomi platform.
Personally I prefer the buybacks option, at least until there will be some legal framework to operate within. It is also better to have a steady, constant buy support on the market in the first year than send some crumbs as dividends.
Buying back the tokens does not give them value alone. They must have a base value to begin with
Yes, it does! It is a proof that the platform is generating profits. Base value to begin with - ICN is more than 2x in BTC since ICO before the platform is even launched.
Can you tell us how much dividends Apple paid to the shareholders? And how it is reflected in the stock price?
In the most loosely tied case, the value just comes from everybody collectively agreeing that this token represents Iconomi. That is the case that most people are running with at the moment. But that would be no better than creating my own token myself, and saying "If Iconomi does well, this token should increase in value"
That wasn't the smartest thing you wrote here in the last couple of months. If you create Mendeleev token and link it to Iconomi success the market won't buy it simply because your token doesn't represent a thing. How it is the same with ICN token, where you have ~50M usd under management, a team of 20 people working on the project and a platform to be released soon
Yes, Iconomi's original proposed value was that of a share in the platform. Yes, we don't know the details yet. You choose to think it is because of whatever, I choose to believe this is because it is still being developed. And you don't release an official statement before you have everything on place. It's not like the team is hiding, unknown, or working from an unknown location.
And I am in no way a top 10 ICN wallet holder. Heck I am probably not even in the top 100...
but I do not think ICN will ever go back to 30k now