I see that again and again there are people here who claim that Byteball should be not be listed in Gigabytes in exchanges since this would be harming the price, because investors would perceive the high cost of one Gigabyte very expensive. I have always been against the "tactical" idea of scaling down the official unit of measurement just for the purpose to benefit the price. Tony has always stated that he is not interested in the price but in the distribution of the coin, and I have always agreed on that.
But then, I've also seen Byteball listed in Gigabytes on Coinmarketcap and something has suddenly clicked in my mind.
The fact that Byteball is measured in Gigabytes is not a problem because this is harming its price.
The fact that Byteball is measured in Gigabytes is a problem because it is crucially violating Byteball's mission number one: to achieve mass adoption.
Even though Byteball's monetary base is consisting in billions of bytes, only 650.000 Gigabytes or so are existing now, and max supply will be 1 Million.
Therefore, if you are thinking in terms of Gigabytes, mass adoption is virtually impossible. People will always feel the frustration of not being able to own even one single Gigabyte and they will likely not even take into consideration the currency. Since there are whales who own a lot of Gigabytes, people who will be able to afford one entire Gigabyte will be in the thousands - best case scenario. This is NOT mass adoption.
People will argue that something similar is happening with Bitcoin - most of the people today can afford to own only fractions of a Bitcoin. But this, in fact, is one of the main problems of Bitcoin, people have always to carefully count how many zeroes there are before the quantity of satoshis of their transactions. This is totally absurd and in fact Bitcoin today is used only as a speculative store of value, and NOT as a real currency.
Byteball aimed to be better, but if the total monetary base is consisting in just 1 Million coins the fact is that it has just AMPLIFIED 21 times this problem of Bitcoin, it has not at all solved it. There will be max 21 Million Bitcoins, and Byteball won't ever have more than one Million Gigabytes. If you are thinking in term of Gigabytes, you have just made the problem 21 times worse. And now we are thinking in terms of Gigabytes. When I'm speaking with my friend we are talking about how many Gigabytes we have, not Megabytes or Bytes. This is a mistake.
We have to think at Gigabytes as we are thinking at the Million of dollars.
The few who can afford owning the Gigabytes are the rich elite, just like those who are owning the Million of dollars. Most of the people don't own Million of dollars (or euros), they just own dollars (or euros). Perhaps thousands of Euros/Dollars ("grands"), but not Millions.
And if Byteball will achieve mass adoption most of the people won't own Gigabytes, they will just own Bytes. Or Kilobytes. If you consider bytes to be cents, then you should consider the ideal unity of Byteball being Kilobytes. Not even Megabytes. Megabytes would somehow semantically sound like the "grands" - one thousand dollars or pounds according to the urban dictionary of FIAT money.
Just as you don't buy a packet of cigarettes with 0.00001 Million of Dollars, you shouldn't have to buy it with 0.001 Gigabytes.
This all could seem a trivial problem to many, but it is not. Reality is a state of mind and perception is playing a fundamental role in the shaping of reality.
To use Gigabytes to measure Byteball generates a cognitive dissonance with the mission of achieving mass adoption. It makes feel Byteball to be an elitarian coin/platform, not a popular one. The exchanges, and more than that Coinmarketcap, are the places where the measurment unit of Byteball is officialized. If exchanges and Coinmarketcap will tell Gigabytes, people will think in Gigabytes, and this makes no sense, since in ordinary life you don't think in terms of Million of Dollars/Euros. That would be crazy. And to insist to speak about Byteball in terms of Gigabytes is crazy too. It basically makes bo sense.
As I've said, I'm not interested in the price of Byteball. In a healthy environment the price is just a natural consequence. But I am interested in seeing one little problem corrected, which alone is able to jeopardize Byteball's entire mission, since it's in complete dissonance with the "philosophy" of Byteball.
Just my two cents (or Bytes)
I absolutely agree, thanks for taking the time to write this
? You are the worst marketing team in space and the main factor of byterbal downtrend. 