NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information - page 280.

bitcoinpaul

hero member

Activity: 910

Merit: 1000

Quote from: bitcoinpaul on March 18, 2014, 08:18:54 AM

Non-unique Asset names combined with Asset ID (which already exists) as the displayed name. The more I read about it the more I like it. Nxt code change would just be to allow same asset names. The rest is client side dev.

edit: Use the Asset ID and change it to HEX for slightly more convenience, maybe.

It's not the most beautiful solution, but it is straight forward and easy. Where is the problem?

chanc3r

sr. member

Activity: 952

Merit: 253

Quote from: opticalcarrier on February 13, 2014, 04:16:50 PM

I still say trying to tie the fee to some FIAT is the wrong direction. Ill say it again - a transactions's fee should be tied to its byte size on the blockchain. So lets say a NXT transfer is 128bytes, and its fee is .1NXT, so then an AM or alias transaction of size 256bytes should then cost .2NXT, and other transaction types follow the same method of fee determination. We would determine a "base" transaction that is the smallest possible transaction, and set the .1 NXT fee to it. (or .01 or .05 or whatever the community decides) and then scale every other transaction's fee to be based on its size compared to the base one.
But no one likes my idea. Embarrassed

This proposal will require a bit more code; but for the moment I think a straight .1 NXT for all works, as it will encourage more use for now.

+1

First time I have seen this - must have missed it in the hopsepipe first time round - I think this has some merit...
After all NXT is PoS so the growth/demand and resources is all in the chain....

martismartis

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1005

Quote from: jl777 on March 18, 2014, 08:58:53 AM

Quote from: martismartis on March 18, 2014, 08:50:34 AM

Quote from: martismartis on March 18, 2014, 05:30:00 AM

Quote from: jl777 on March 18, 2014, 05:21:57 AM

Quote from: martismartis on March 18, 2014, 05:15:53 AM

Good afternoon people. Could somebody explain to me the following:

Somebody (j777) issues asset "BTC" in AE. Gateways is working, technically it is possible to sell and buy BTC in AE.

But I also have real BTC and want to sell them for NXT in AE. As it is already "BTC" issued in AE not by me and I'm not an owner of this asset, how my real BTC will appear in AE and I can trade them? Will I need to issue "BTC1"? This question is also for some other "universal" assets.

Did I miss something or do I need to go for beauty sleep for a while?

You can deposit your real BTC with any NXT gateway using whatever method they have. For multigateway, once you get a deposit address, you just send your real BTC to that bitcoin address and it will appear in AE with the corresponding amount of multigateway BTC.

Alternatively, you could create a BTC asset and list it and convince people that you really do have the BTC and you really will redeem it when they want and then sell it on the AE.

The 1000 NXT fee will discourage the second approach as issuing and maintaining any real asset is a lot of work and should not be undertaken lightly. If it only cost a few NXT, then some people will try to issue their own assets and it will become quite a mess.

Look at the work Anon136 is putting in for his silver asset. There are entire companies that are being created to become an asset!

James

Ok, Thank you for explanation. But what about other "universal" assets, which is not related with cryptos and gateways? For example, I want to trade "salt" in AE. I issue asset "salt" with quantity of 1000. Sometime all 1000 of "salt" is sold, and I want to add "more" salt to AE. It will be "Salt1"? What if my competitor also has the same "salt" and wants to trade it in AE?

While debate about asset naming started, could somebody answer and/or explain my thoughts?

You should have issued enough assets to cover all the salt you thought you would ever use and put the issued but uncollateralized assets in holding. Maybe I need to create an asset holding service to allow people to do incremental issuing of assets. That would make it much easier to do this without being accused of fractional reserving

It seems that decisions are being made behind closed doors against my advice on the Asset Naming and we are about to get identical names implemented, even though we can never go back from that. We could always do the reverse, but it seems that I am too busy coding now that I am out of the loop on the key decisions.

So, your Salt will appear as Salt 72857 and competitors salt will be Salt 94893 and that will magically instill an urge into every salt purchaser to conduct a due diligence research into which Salt is better and why the price is difference, etc. No chance of it confusing the user at all, we all know how much people like to investigate things thoroughly before they purchase $2 worth of salt

James

Bold part could be a solution. But what about possibility for asset issuer to increase (not decrease) own asset quantity later? Could it somehow harm the whole concept of AE?

mcjavar

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 500

Quote from: jl777 on March 18, 2014, 08:58:53 AM

Quote from: martismartis on March 18, 2014, 08:50:34 AM

Quote from: martismartis on March 18, 2014, 05:30:00 AM

Quote from: jl777 on March 18, 2014, 05:21:57 AM

Quote from: martismartis on March 18, 2014, 05:15:53 AM

Good afternoon people. Could somebody explain to me the following:

Somebody (j777) issues asset "BTC" in AE. Gateways is working, technically it is possible to sell and buy BTC in AE.

But I also have real BTC and want to sell them for NXT in AE. As it is already "BTC" issued in AE not by me and I'm not an owner of this asset, how my real BTC will appear in AE and I can trade them? Will I need to issue "BTC1"? This question is also for some other "universal" assets.

Did I miss something or do I need to go for beauty sleep for a while?

You can deposit your real BTC with any NXT gateway using whatever method they have. For multigateway, once you get a deposit address, you just send your real BTC to that bitcoin address and it will appear in AE with the corresponding amount of multigateway BTC.

Alternatively, you could create a BTC asset and list it and convince people that you really do have the BTC and you really will redeem it when they want and then sell it on the AE.

The 1000 NXT fee will discourage the second approach as issuing and maintaining any real asset is a lot of work and should not be undertaken lightly. If it only cost a few NXT, then some people will try to issue their own assets and it will become quite a mess.

Look at the work Anon136 is putting in for his silver asset. There are entire companies that are being created to become an asset!

James

Ok, Thank you for explanation. But what about other "universal" assets, which is not related with cryptos and gateways? For example, I want to trade "salt" in AE. I issue asset "salt" with quantity of 1000. Sometime all 1000 of "salt" is sold, and I want to add "more" salt to AE. It will be "Salt1"? What if my competitor also has the same "salt" and wants to trade it in AE?

While debate about asset naming started, could somebody answer and/or explain my thoughts?

You should have issued enough assets to cover all the salt you thought you would ever use and put the issued but uncollateralized assets in holding. Maybe I need to create an asset holding service to allow people to do incremental issuing of assets. That would make it much easier to do this without being accused of fractional reserving

It seems that decisions are being made behind closed doors against my advice on the Asset Naming and we are about to get identical names implemented, even though we can never go back from that. We could always do the reverse, but it seems that I am too busy coding now that I am out of the loop on the key decisions.

So, your Salt will appear as Salt 72857 and competitors salt will be Salt 94893 and that will magically instill an urge into every salt purchaser to conduct a due diligence research into which Salt is better and why the price is difference, etc. No chance of it confusing the user at all, we all know how much people like to investigate things thoroughly before they purchase $2 worth of salt

James

Allowing the issuance of assets with the same name will most probably hinder us to sell our assets on the Nxt AE as we don´t want to have anyone creating assets with the same name as ours. We will work hard to get our shit together and to convince the community that our shares are worth buying, but if anyone can come and issue assets with the same name, we will most probably not use Nxt as scamming would harm our reputation, too.

EDIT: I am talking about a real life project we would like to fund using Nxt.

opticalcarrier

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Quote from: bitcoinpaul on March 18, 2014, 02:55:21 AM

Quote from: mczarnek on March 17, 2014, 09:21:51 PM

Anyone know if someone giving out assets would be able to change the number of assets? Anyone know?

I'd like to issue assets and destroy them on the fly so that the block chain can record exactly how many assets have been issued.

mmmhh, send it to the genesis account? Clients should look up which assets the genesis account owns and subtract the amount from the asset amount available on Nxt.

I think itd be a good idea for the system to be able to completely purge an asset from the blockchain if all of its qty is sent to genesis block. then someone should be able to reissue the same name/ID. OF course this will require a good bit of code, so mayby its not that urgent right now, Id prefer to see ability to split NXT down to 8 decimal places first, reduced fees, and also leased effectiveBalance and account control first.

bitcoinpaul

hero member

Activity: 910

Merit: 1000

I like your idea and CfB wrote about it, too.

Let's discuss!

opticalcarrier

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Quote from: CIYAM on March 18, 2014, 12:21:45 AM

Quote from: windjc on March 18, 2014, 12:19:28 AM

If POS isn't profitable and owning Nxt is not profitable and only owning assets are profitable, no one will be around to develop the asset owning system into the future.

The future is not something we can easily predict - but if you have a choice of two platforms:

1. Fee of 1%
2. Fee of 0.01 USD

which are users going to "flock to"?

In the end it is only the "users" that matter - not peoples wishes and desires to "get rich".

*sigh* ill say it again. I've had just a few people back me up, but no one yet to say why its a bad idea, if it truly is...

Quote from: opticalcarrier on February 13, 2014, 04:16:50 PM

Quote from: xyzzyx on February 13, 2014, 04:12:18 PM

I view the fee as a blockchain spam deterrent, any possible ROI is secondary IMHO. We don't have any major activity on the blockchain at the moment. All is relatively quiet, but that will change as services are added and merchants begin to use NXT for payment. After only a few short months of very little activity the full blockchain is already over 50 megs on disk.

I think the fee should only be changed if the price of NXT goes up significantly. My 0.25 NXT minimum fee vote was based on the thought of 1 NXT going to the stable range of $0.15 to ~$0.30 cents US in the next six months.

I still say trying to tie the fee to some FIAT is the wrong direction. Ill say it again - a transactions's fee should be tied to its byte size on the blockchain. So lets say a NXT transfer is 128bytes, and its fee is .1NXT, so then an AM or alias transaction of size 256bytes should then cost .2NXT, and other transaction types follow the same method of fee determination. We would determine a "base" transaction that is the smallest possible transaction, and set the .1 NXT fee to it. (or .01 or .05 or whatever the community decides) and then scale every other transaction's fee to be based on its size compared to the base one.
But no one likes my idea. Embarrassed

This proposal will require a bit more code; but for the moment I think a straight .1 NXT for all works, as it will encourage more use for now.

jl777

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1134

Quote from: martismartis on March 18, 2014, 08:50:34 AM

Quote from: martismartis on March 18, 2014, 05:30:00 AM

Quote from: jl777 on March 18, 2014, 05:21:57 AM

Quote from: martismartis on March 18, 2014, 05:15:53 AM

Good afternoon people. Could somebody explain to me the following:

Somebody (j777) issues asset "BTC" in AE. Gateways is working, technically it is possible to sell and buy BTC in AE.

But I also have real BTC and want to sell them for NXT in AE. As it is already "BTC" issued in AE not by me and I'm not an owner of this asset, how my real BTC will appear in AE and I can trade them? Will I need to issue "BTC1"? This question is also for some other "universal" assets.

Did I miss something or do I need to go for beauty sleep for a while?

You can deposit your real BTC with any NXT gateway using whatever method they have. For multigateway, once you get a deposit address, you just send your real BTC to that bitcoin address and it will appear in AE with the corresponding amount of multigateway BTC.

Alternatively, you could create a BTC asset and list it and convince people that you really do have the BTC and you really will redeem it when they want and then sell it on the AE.

The 1000 NXT fee will discourage the second approach as issuing and maintaining any real asset is a lot of work and should not be undertaken lightly. If it only cost a few NXT, then some people will try to issue their own assets and it will become quite a mess.

Look at the work Anon136 is putting in for his silver asset. There are entire companies that are being created to become an asset!

James

Ok, Thank you for explanation. But what about other "universal" assets, which is not related with cryptos and gateways? For example, I want to trade "salt" in AE. I issue asset "salt" with quantity of 1000. Sometime all 1000 of "salt" is sold, and I want to add "more" salt to AE. It will be "Salt1"? What if my competitor also has the same "salt" and wants to trade it in AE?

While debate about asset naming started, could somebody answer and/or explain my thoughts?

You should have issued enough assets to cover all the salt you thought you would ever use and put the issued but uncollateralized assets in holding. Maybe I need to create an asset holding service to allow people to do incremental issuing of assets. That would make it much easier to do this without being accused of fractional reserving

It seems that decisions are being made behind closed doors against my advice on the Asset Naming and we are about to get identical names implemented, even though we can never go back from that. We could always do the reverse, but it seems that I am too busy coding now that I am out of the loop on the key decisions.

So, your Salt will appear as Salt 72857 and competitors salt will be Salt 94893 and that will magically instill an urge into every salt purchaser to conduct a due diligence research into which Salt is better and why the price is difference, etc. No chance of it confusing the user at all, we all know how much people like to investigate things thoroughly before they purchase $2 worth of salt

James

bitcoinpaul

hero member

Activity: 910

Merit: 1000

Quote from: jl777 on March 18, 2014, 08:48:45 AM

Quote from: bitcoinpaul on March 18, 2014, 08:33:35 AM

Simple:

Free market will not allow big arbitrage possibilities, thus making Nxt market cap >= cumulated assets values.

tl;td moon.

edit: Believe me. I studied. Kiss

You studied at wrong place

This equation is true only if we restrict to trading using NXT,but that has a counterproductive limiting aspect as I have explained. I am not an economist, but I do have common sense

Better to have 1% the value of uncapped asset values, than 100% of asset values limited to NXT market cap.

James

No way, I studied truthology at Christian Tech.

jl777

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1134

Quote from: El3k0n on March 18, 2014, 08:49:30 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: jl777 on March 18, 2014, 08:32:11 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

someone mentioned before "what happens if the assets sold on the AE become worth more then the market cap of NXT?"

would i be right in saying that the marketcap of nxt will always be higher then the marketcap of the assets sold on AE? seeing as you need nxt to buy shares on the AE? thus meaning if there is ever a company that sells shares on the AE that grows to the size of google.. the nxt marketcap will also rise to above the market cap of that company+the rest? so say NMAC rises in value and all the shares are worth 40billion.... the nxt marketcap would be atleast 40billion? am i right in saying that?

Incorrect.
The value of NXT will be a function of the value of all the assets. The more the assets are worth the more NXT will be worth, however we do not know what the mapping function will be. It will most likely be some sort of monotonically increasing function.

James

the bold line is essentially what i meant!

edit: the more i learn about NXT the more i believe in it regardless of the current value or negative opinions of others!

The more I learn about NXT the more I believe we won't go to the moon, we'll directly buy the moon!

Around 1000 NXT per acre!

http://www.lunarregistry.com/land/index.shtml

James

martismartis

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1005

Quote from: martismartis on March 18, 2014, 05:30:00 AM

Quote from: jl777 on March 18, 2014, 05:21:57 AM

Quote from: martismartis on March 18, 2014, 05:15:53 AM

Good afternoon people. Could somebody explain to me the following:

Somebody (j777) issues asset "BTC" in AE. Gateways is working, technically it is possible to sell and buy BTC in AE.

But I also have real BTC and want to sell them for NXT in AE. As it is already "BTC" issued in AE not by me and I'm not an owner of this asset, how my real BTC will appear in AE and I can trade them? Will I need to issue "BTC1"? This question is also for some other "universal" assets.

Did I miss something or do I need to go for beauty sleep for a while?

You can deposit your real BTC with any NXT gateway using whatever method they have. For multigateway, once you get a deposit address, you just send your real BTC to that bitcoin address and it will appear in AE with the corresponding amount of multigateway BTC.

Alternatively, you could create a BTC asset and list it and convince people that you really do have the BTC and you really will redeem it when they want and then sell it on the AE.

The 1000 NXT fee will discourage the second approach as issuing and maintaining any real asset is a lot of work and should not be undertaken lightly. If it only cost a few NXT, then some people will try to issue their own assets and it will become quite a mess.

Look at the work Anon136 is putting in for his silver asset. There are entire companies that are being created to become an asset!

James

Ok, Thank you for explanation. But what about other "universal" assets, which is not related with cryptos and gateways? For example, I want to trade "salt" in AE. I issue asset "salt" with quantity of 1000. Sometime all 1000 of "salt" is sold, and I want to add "more" salt to AE. It will be "Salt1"? What if my competitor also has the same "salt" and wants to trade it in AE?

While debate about asset naming started, could somebody answer and/or explain my thoughts?

igmaca

full member

Activity: 168

Merit: 100

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: chanc3r on March 18, 2014, 08:28:23 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

someone mentioned before "what happens if the assets sold on the AE become worth more then the market cap of NXT?"

would i be right in saying that the marketcap of nxt will always be higher then the marketcap of the assets sold on AE? seeing as you need nxt to buy shares on the AE? thus meaning if there is ever a company that sells shares on the AE that grows to the size of google.. the nxt marketcap will also rise to above the market cap of that company+the rest? so say NMAC rises in value and all the shares are worth 40billion.... the nxt marketcap would be atleast 40billion? am i right in saying that?

To me it feels like you are saying the market cap of DHL should be equal to the value of the parcels it shifts...

In this case Nxt is the medium in which the assets are traded, but NXT may not be used to buy/sell those assets, if it is - great but I assume what we are saying is you can buy one asset e.g. Silver with another asset e.g. BTC

Will they be completely decoupled, I am guessing not but I don't have a good enough knowledge of economics to guess what the relationship will be.

well maybe im wrong but from what i know you wont be able to buy shares in one company with shares in another.. or silver or what ever other asset! the reason i think that it will be the case that the value of nxt will rise with the value of companies is akin to the petrodollar!

you need dollars to purchase oil hence propping up the value of the dollar!(allot)... if a company is growing fast and people want to buy into that company they must first nxt and therefore propping up the value of nxt the same as the petrodollar only for companies instead of oil... correct me if im wrong but thats just the way i see it going!

i also think it would be a bad idea to make it possible to buy shares/assets with any other assets! i think nxt should stay as the base currency... look what would happen to the dollar if it became the petroeuro!

I think the key is that the fees to ensure NXT network only Nxt coins must be used.

El3k0n

member

Activity: 109

Merit: 10

USA TRUMP USA TRUMP USA TRUMP

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: jl777 on March 18, 2014, 08:32:11 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

someone mentioned before "what happens if the assets sold on the AE become worth more then the market cap of NXT?"

would i be right in saying that the marketcap of nxt will always be higher then the marketcap of the assets sold on AE? seeing as you need nxt to buy shares on the AE? thus meaning if there is ever a company that sells shares on the AE that grows to the size of google.. the nxt marketcap will also rise to above the market cap of that company+the rest? so say NMAC rises in value and all the shares are worth 40billion.... the nxt marketcap would be atleast 40billion? am i right in saying that?

Incorrect.
The value of NXT will be a function of the value of all the assets. The more the assets are worth the more NXT will be worth, however we do not know what the mapping function will be. It will most likely be some sort of monotonically increasing function.

James

the bold line is essentially what i meant!

edit: the more i learn about NXT the more i believe in it regardless of the current value or negative opinions of others!

The more I learn about NXT the more I believe we won't go to the moon, we'll directly buy the moon!

jl777

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1134

Quote from: bitcoinpaul on March 18, 2014, 08:33:35 AM

Simple:

Free market will not allow big arbitrage possibilities, thus making Nxt market cap >= cumulated assets values.

tl;td moon.

edit: Believe me. I studied. Kiss

You studied at wrong place

This equation is true only if we restrict to trading using NXT,but that has a counterproductive limiting aspect as I have explained. I am not an economist, but I do have common sense

Better to have 1% the value of uncapped asset values, than 100% of asset values limited to NXT market cap.

James

jl777

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1134

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: chanc3r on March 18, 2014, 08:28:23 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

someone mentioned before "what happens if the assets sold on the AE become worth more then the market cap of NXT?"

would i be right in saying that the marketcap of nxt will always be higher then the marketcap of the assets sold on AE? seeing as you need nxt to buy shares on the AE? thus meaning if there is ever a company that sells shares on the AE that grows to the size of google.. the nxt marketcap will also rise to above the market cap of that company+the rest? so say NMAC rises in value and all the shares are worth 40billion.... the nxt marketcap would be atleast 40billion? am i right in saying that?

To me it feels like you are saying the market cap of DHL should be equal to the value of the parcels it shifts...

In this case Nxt is the medium in which the assets are traded, but NXT may not be used to buy/sell those assets, if it is - great but I assume what we are saying is you can buy one asset e.g. Silver with another asset e.g. BTC

Will they be completely decoupled, I am guessing not but I don't have a good enough knowledge of economics to guess what the relationship will be.

well maybe im wrong but from what i know you wont be able to buy shares in one company with shares in another.. or silver or what ever other asset! the reason i think that it will be the case that the value of nxt will rise with the value of companies is akin to the petrodollar!

you need dollars to purchase oil hence propping up the value of the dollar!(allot)... if a company is growing fast and people want to buy into that company they must first nxt and therefore propping up the value of nxt the same as the petrodollar only for companies instead of oil... correct me if im wrong but thats just the way i see it going!

i also think it would be a bad idea to make it possible to buy shares/assets with any other assets! i think nxt should stay as the base currency... look what would happen to the dollar if it became the petroeuro!

Certainly there is an effect, but not directly linear.
However since all assets are priced in NXT, if somebody wanted to use AE to sell things that are worth more than all of NXT, they couldnt. Therefore they wont.

This is why we need to be able to trade things denominated in other assets.

Do the math please. Do you want to ensure that there will never be any more assets in AE than the market cap of NXT?

Currently, what would happen if somebody deposited 100 million worth of BTC and had that much in BTC assets? People wouldnt pay a premium for it, but there isnt enough NXT to be able to represent all of that BTC. Certainly the price of NXT will "stretch" as best as it could, but not linearly. Some proportion.

Now imagine somebody issued 100 billion USD worth of Petro assets in NXT. of course they wouldnt, unless there was 100 billion USD worth of other assets. This wont make NXT worth 100 billion, but if it gets even 1% due to the "stretching"...

Do the math, properly and you will see that we need to allow trading assets against other assets, otherwise NXT AE will be limiting the amount of assets being issued in the first place.

James

jl777

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1134

Quote from: chanc3r on March 18, 2014, 08:28:23 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

someone mentioned before "what happens if the assets sold on the AE become worth more then the market cap of NXT?"

would i be right in saying that the marketcap of nxt will always be higher then the marketcap of the assets sold on AE? seeing as you need nxt to buy shares on the AE? thus meaning if there is ever a company that sells shares on the AE that grows to the size of google.. the nxt marketcap will also rise to above the market cap of that company+the rest? so say NMAC rises in value and all the shares are worth 40billion.... the nxt marketcap would be atleast 40billion? am i right in saying that?

To me it feels like you are saying the market cap of DHL should be equal to the value of the parcels it shifts...

In this case Nxt is the medium in which the assets are traded, but NXT may not be used to buy/sell those assets, if it is - great but I assume what we are saying is you can buy one asset e.g. Silver with another asset e.g. BTC

Will they be completely decoupled, I am guessing not but I don't have a good enough knowledge of economics to guess what the relationship will be.

value of NXT = (1st gen value) + MI(value of all assets) + (value of all other NXT addons)

MI is a monotonically increasing function, maybe sqrt, cbrt, log with a constant multiplier would curve fit it. Over time the valuation relationship will change in details

James

bitcoinpaul

hero member

Activity: 910

Merit: 1000

Simple:

Free market will not allow big arbitrage possibilities, thus making Nxt market cap >= cumulated assets values.

tl;td moon.

edit: Believe me. I studied. Kiss

jl777

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1134

Quote from: ?? on ??

someone mentioned before "what happens if the assets sold on the AE become worth more then the market cap of NXT?"

would i be right in saying that the marketcap of nxt will always be higher then the marketcap of the assets sold on AE? seeing as you need nxt to buy shares on the AE? thus meaning if there is ever a company that sells shares on the AE that grows to the size of google.. the nxt marketcap will also rise to above the market cap of that company+the rest? so say NMAC rises in value and all the shares are worth 40billion.... the nxt marketcap would be atleast 40billion? am i right in saying that?

Incorrect.
The value of NXT will be a function of the value of all the assets. The more the assets are worth the more NXT will be worth, however we do not know what the mapping function will be. It will most likely be some sort of monotonically increasing function.

James

farl4web

legendary

Activity: 1205

Merit: 1000

Quote from: jl777 on March 18, 2014, 07:21:37 AM

[Solution for Asset Naming Issue]

I agree with this.
Could there be some kind of filter with which the user can choose what kind of rating they want to see? For example only the Preferred Issuers, of assets with 4-stars, 3-stars, etc.. something like that?

chanc3r

sr. member

Activity: 952

Merit: 253

Quote from: ?? on ??

someone mentioned before "what happens if the assets sold on the AE become worth more then the market cap of NXT?"

would i be right in saying that the marketcap of nxt will always be higher then the marketcap of the assets sold on AE? seeing as you need nxt to buy shares on the AE? thus meaning if there is ever a company that sells shares on the AE that grows to the size of google.. the nxt marketcap will also rise to above the market cap of that company+the rest? so say NMAC rises in value and all the shares are worth 40billion.... the nxt marketcap would be atleast 40billion? am i right in saying that?

To me it feels like you are saying the market cap of DHL should be equal to the value of the parcels it shifts...

In this case Nxt is the medium in which the assets are traded, but NXT may not be used to buy/sell those assets, if it is - great but I assume what we are saying is you can buy one asset e.g. Silver with another asset e.g. BTC

Will they be completely decoupled, I am guessing not but I don't have a good enough knowledge of economics to guess what the relationship will be.

Topic: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information - page 280. (Read 2761645 times)