Topic: ICONOMI - Live for today. Invest for tomorrow. - page 276. (Read 583535 times)

Iconomi last up and now down.

If someone puts so much effort to discuss things, concerns, that means that someone has intentions to influence outcome. So the question is why? Most popular answer - to make money.

So how the person can make money on crypto fast? Day trading! For example, if the person holds 1 mil coins of ICN, day trading is super profitable. Even if price changes by 1 cent.

I don't really care and I think anyone else should not care and even discuss ICN while there is nothing new to discuss, there will not be reason for day traders (example) to comment all the time.

You were always labeled as a troll (the concerned one) in my perspective. Buying 3ICN (or whatever was on that screenshot you posted) doesn't change that. The only reason most of your posts were not deleted is because you managed to hide the trolling behind these concerns.

Snkns posts are all valid and are a great example of how discussion and disagreement about certain aspects should be addressed.
Nothing of that can be said about you. He is not posting the same stuff, and he is not lurking here almost 24/7 after he sold all of his holdings.

In any case, I don't think that the community takes you seriously anymore.
You fail to provide a reason why you are so obsessed about Iconomi if you don't hold any ICN.
Waiting for ICNX public is just a made up reason. As well as "I am entitle to post".

Oh dear. Daparski has let himself down again.

I told you I bought 3.14159 ICN so you couldn't make that silly argument anymore. You have a poor memory.

Fascinating how you flip back and forth on whether or not I'm a troll. I've been here since the ICO, you clown. Same as Snkns, and he isn't a troll either.

Question: If my thoughts mirror those who hold large amounts of ICN (which they do), where does that leave your argument?

Helping others isn't my primary goal. I'd happily watch the ignorant (like you) suffer. I'm not a saint. Schadenfreude would most certainly apply if fools like you got burned.

It certainly will, the price always back to 30k+, then people starts to whale up all the cheap icn, within some time price is back to 50k, this phenomena has been seen in ICN for 3 times, previously i personally find out the ATH price and just trade within the middle price and profit and all i can say is, 30k icn might be the lowest people will ever see.
I tried to put buy order below 30k for 29800 months ago, the order never filled. It will drop like 10-20% but it just never goes lower than 33k and it bounce back

Hope this helps
Source : My memory

A good and very nice coin, I joined the ICO, if not mistaken around August. Now the price has reached $0.42. Hope the price will rise again and will be top 10 marketcap.

AKA the concerned troll. Who said Mendeleev?
The fact that he holds no ICN (according to his own claim) does not mean that he can't keep posting the same things over and over here. After all, he is concerned about the overall direction of the project and he wants to help others.
No self hidden motive whatsoever.

Everything else is spot on.

After all is said and done, more is said than done - is the motto for most of the crypto projects in the last few years.
It's about the change

     Exactly Dude !! All is said ! There is nothing to throw in what you say.  

Dummies' Guide to Signs of a Good Coin:  

1. FUD groups just keep coming back and refuse to abandon the project even after they allegedly claim to have abandoned their position a long time ago following a dump.

2. Newbies popping up all the time and spending a great deal of time explaining why they will never invest anything in said project.

3. People who allegedly have no interest in the well-being of the said project suddenly claim to have your best interest in mind and just want to "protect you."

4. Devs keep professional by focuing on the main tasks and shun all the trash talk altogether.

5. Steady stream of good news despite of all the negative talks.

6. Price always bounce back on strong volume after a dump.

7. Majority of coin supply is in "cold storage" (ICO or personal wallets).

8. Healthy trade volume on a daily basis.

9. Developers focus their effort and resources on core business instead of branching out into unrelated, unprofitable activities.

10. Having a strong focus on software development instead of trying to hype a coin by devoting valuable resources to "showmanship" or useless marketing effort.

-----------------------------

Score for Iconomi: Rated 10/10  

Yep crypto is starting to mature! Hence index funds are suddenly popping up. Before you'd be hard pressed to find more than 2-3 coins worth investing in long term, now there are enough to feasibly form an index. Exciting time to be involved in crypto. Amazing how many people are still completely unaware of it.

they are still with 5,000 btc...out of 6,900...
no news about the 1,900 btc recent investment..
and i think an imminent new airdrop of byteball very soon...
http://btc.blockr.io/address/info/3KbWWjumBGLBUWYCeidydxe1uET9QyWoEg
the world is changing in altcoins around us, BTC dominance down to 68 %..

BCAP also had the luxury of going after Iconomi therefore maybe being able to learn from Iconomi's experience. I don't think we know whether or not they had originally considered dividends before Iconomi found out they wouldn't work and decided to do away with them. Or do we? Idk much about BCAP.

Also is BCAP even an ETH token? I honestly don't know, I'm not much interested in the project because I'm in the US and not an accredited investor or multi-millionaire so I can't invest.

Misunderstanding the intention and meaning of my statement (as in the first 2 you list) is not a logical fallacy on my part (I never said that it follows that transparency and communication shouldn't be expected, and I am not arguing for or against transparency I am arguing that people have distorted views of what "transparency" means and what "communication" they should expect). Those two sentences go together and the logic that is supposed to follow is that one reason people are so used to what they perceive as "transparency" and "communication" is because they are used to scammy shitcoin projects where there is no actual substance and so devs maintain interest and hype by being "transparent" and constantly communicating with their community.

#3 is a strawman and the one I was saying I saw.

First part of #4 is not a logical fallacy just because I didn't give examples, in fact to assume it isn't true just because I didn't take the time to list examples for you is a logical fallacy in itself lol. Second part of #4 would be a fallacy as you say if the people I was directing it towards were invested in ICN (that post wasn't direct at you, it was directed at and in response to MysteryE and TheTruthIsOutThere who obviously are not invested in ICN).

For #5 what part of "They are in slack from time to time answering questions, they are on reddit answering questions, they consistently post updates on medium when something worth conveying to investors comes up." is not true? Sure "something worth conveying" is subjective, but your subjective opinion of it is no more valid than mine or theirs. Have they not updated the medium blog with a new post after each major change? Perhaps the update is not in depth enough for your liking, but that's subjective. Calling my opinion a logical fallacy would be admitting all of your opinions are fallacious too, so be careful where you tread or you may discredit everything you say.
And asking questions "Really, what the fuck do you guys expect? For them to personally reply to each and every single one of your individual questions and concerns?" is not a logical fallacy- I actually want those people to tell me what the team needs to do to satisfy them because it seems like no matter what the team does they will always have complaints, like how today when they finally updated their list of employees (something they specifically asked for) that was somehow spun into a new complaint.

For #6 I use a strawman as before (although let's be real here, nobody thinks I actually believe them to be children or babies and that I'm trying to convince people that they are indeed true children or babies and that therefore they should ignore them solely on those grounds- I'm just trying to insult them), but my statement that "And if they did do that you would probably still find a way to twist it into something negative, such as 'why aren't you working rather than spending all your time here answering question'" is conjecture (notice the "probably") based on past happenings (see above about how they found a way to twist the thing they were previously asking for into something negative when they finally got it).

For #7 why do you think every argument to support a conclusion is a fallacy? I'm not sure you understand the rigorous definition of a logical fallacy. Or the point of an argument, which is always to support a conclusion... And I guess saying it is more professional to address everybody at once through official releases vs addressing individuals is subjective, but do you really disagree? Wouldn't it be better and more professional if they answered all your and others' concerns in an official format not directed at individuals and that won't get buried by subsequent posts/messages and therefore not need constant recapitulation? Is this not how communication with investors is handled in conventional markets? Do companies call up individual investors to answer their questions and provide them with new information one at a time or do they release financial reports, development updates, public statements, etc?
And notice how when I say "To do the latter could even be considered providing insider information to them depending on the nature of the information." I include the words "could ... be considered", and "depending on the nature of the information"? Well you just committed another fallacy by attempting to reduce that down to meaning that answering every single question asked would be considered insider information which is simply not what I said.

I know, right? Crazy that they would mention that at the point of sale, and not spring it on investors 6 months later.

Those bastards!

Thanks bro.  Now let's get back to talking about the important issue here.  Muh Dividends!

I'm mad that BCAP is doing buyback & burn too.  y u no dividends!?  y u no usage token doh!

All of these concerns existed during the ICO when they raised money under the premise of using dividends.

I don't want YOUR explanation.  I want ICONOMI's.  I understand the inherit benefits to ICOMOMI by doing buy-back instead of dividends.  How this is best for the initial investors is unclear.

Regardless, a change this big deserves more than a few lines about dividends being practically impossible.  a real explanation is owed to investors who were misled.

Fair enough. They could have elaborated further or included various other reasons why a buyback makes more sense than dividends. Such as:

1) Not having to treat dividends as taxable income
2) Not having to send some of our shared profit to exchanges that aren't the actual shareholders (this could be a huge amount of our shared profit going to exchanges considering how much people generally store their coins on exchanges, although you could argue this would also provide a nice incentive for people not to hold their coins on exchanges)
3) Not having to send some of our shared profit down the toilet to ICN at addresses that have been lost
4) Not having to spend ETH gas on each and every transaction when sending the ETH dividends to each and every address with ICN in it (people argue this would be less than the exchange fees during a buyback and that may be true at first but since fees are a % and gas is a set amount per transaction the exchange fees scale proportionally to the amount of profit as a percentage while the gas expenses will scale to the number of addresses holding ICN- and this could be manipulated, for example some ethereum loving asshole could decide to split his ICN up into as many addresses as possible so they have to spend as much as possible on ETH)
5) Legal and regulatory issues. Paying dividends may classify ICN as an unregistered security (in the US, at least) which was one of things people originally harped on.

[–]Move_Crypto 22 points 15 days ago*
I'll give an example for people who are struggling to understand the economics here:
Let's say there's a total supply of 100M ICN worth $100M spread out across all the addresses
Iconomi generates 1000 ETH in revenue and wants to distribute it:
A) They pay for a bunch of gas to distribute it to every address. Now all the addresses are collectively worth $100M + 1000 ETH
B) They use the 1000 ETH to buy ICN on exchange, then burn the ICN to deflate the supply. Now all the addresses are collectively worth $100M + 1000 ETH
In either case the value is distributed the same, but case B) is much better because it provides liquidity to ICN market and there's no need to pay for gas to send out 3000+ transactions

[–]snkns 5 points 15 days ago*
I'm sorry but a massive change in profit distribution can't be glossed over in one sentence of a blog post.
That you even have to come in here to do gymnastics to defend this, or make up a motivation for it that Tim himself didn't state, is crazy.
If buy/burn is the obviously better solution, why wasn't it the plan from the get-go?
The team's intentions in making this change are anything but clear.

[–]Move_Crypto 12 points 15 days ago*
The fundamentals are still the same. ICN holders receive all the fees from iconomi platform.
They changed the method of fee distribution to a more efficient one, that is all
The fact that you're making a huge deal out of this and using bold font makes me think you're fud campaigning to try to buy back ICN you sold for cheaper

[–]snkns 6 points 15 days ago*
ICN holders receive all the revenue from iconomi platform.
Wrong. Dividends would go to ICN holders. A buyback only benefits ICN sellers.
With today's announcement, ICN has become a fundamentally different investment than what was pitched and promised repeatedly over the last 6 months.
If there were a solid rational explanation for this MASSIVE change, it wouldn't be explained with one sentence in a blog post. "Requiring 100% cooperation from exchanges" was not an issue for 6 months straight. We deserve an explanation for why now, suddenly, it's such a huge issue that they can't do dividends.
Instead, Tim's post doesn't even acknowledge that dividends had been the plan from day one. It just jumps straight to "dividends are unworkable." That's bullshit, and you know it. Something this massive deserves full discussion and justification from the team.



this sums up everything.

Here comes MoveCrypto with another amazing rebuttal.

Well done, MoveCrypto. Have a gold star 

1. Does not follow that transparency and communication shouldn't be expected. You're actually arguing a case FOR transparency, and trying to dismiss it as "hype words".


2. Nobody expects this from Iconomi, so argument is absurd.


3. Nobody is asking for "every day" or "babysitting". Absurd argument, dismissal based on your own strawman.


4. No examples given. And why would we complain about them anyway, if we're not invested in them?


5. Examples have already been given of questions not being answered properly. Subjective opinion of what is "worth conveying". Absurd argument about expecting them to reply to each and every comment.


6. Absurd conclusion made, and argument structured to support your conclusion.


7. Another argument made to support the conclusion, ending in an absurd assertion that e.g. answering "does ICN represent a share of Iconomi?" would somehow be considered "insider information"


That's my 7. It's late though, and I'm tired, so I may have missed some finer points.