Topic: [QQQ] emunie questions thread. (Read 2478 times)

In case anyone's not aware, the OB1 beta has now been released: http://beta.emunie.com/

To cover off for the academics in the audience.

One may suppose theoretically banks should give some value add for best allocation of capital. However the reality is Banks (via their decision makers) avoid market discipline at the the expense of the taxpayer as the recent GFC bail out demonstrated.

Banks suffer from a second problem they cannot gather information as rapidly or process it as well as the many individuals who know their needs and wants with much better details than a central plan, policy or lending scheme can determine.

The Banks/central banks position is further worsened as they both are bound by the political dogma of the day as to what types of lending they should make, and also capture the political discourse of a credit rating basis, which also obscures actual needs and wants of the market, but rather is synthesised by banking information providers, credit related rating agencies along various economic-political-rationales that are impossible to verify, test or rigorously support.

In short banks are have become a warehouse for money with first access to the bankers themselves at the detriment of most other sectors. Further Banks and currency issuers have faced little or no competition in relation to their model of issuance but have relied on state sanction license/fractional reserve model providing a virtual monopoly.

Given the numerous defects of the current banking system policy makers should perhaps welcome, crypto currencies, which offer the following benefits

[1] solves the technical side of zero counter party risk,
[2] remove an enormous amount of now redundant banking IT infrastructure and development, thus freeing that capital for better use.
[3] Provides competition for cheaper payment methods for goods and service
[4] With zero cost to the government/taxpayer provides a fully funded alternative model.
[5] Introduces a competing economic model
[6] Can significant reduces banking overheads, account keeping fees, building, tellers etc
[7] Reduce the need and cost for producing & transporting physical money
[8] Offers a very cheap solution to millions of unbanked.
[9] Provides an easily linked in system to participate in the global market and avoiding large transaction cost, including currency exchange costs.
[10] Provides competition to existing payment providers/processors
[11] increases business activity and generates new services.

Further recent evidence to support the emunie system (which is founded upon the Quantity Theory of Money) and how it will effectively solve the "imperfect information" dilemma that leads to a distortion of wealth being centralized among those at the top.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-02-01/how-central-banks-cause-income-inequality

How Central Banks Cause Income Inequality

Notable section:

This brings us to the second undesirable and unjustified source of income inequalities, i.e., the creation of money out of thin air, or legal counterfeiting, by central banks. It should be no surprise the growing gap in income inequalities has coincided with the adoption of fiat currencies worldwide. Every dollar the central bank creates benefits the early recipients of the money—the government and the banking sector — at the expense of the late recipients of the money, the wage earners, and the poor. Since the creation of a fiat currency system in 1971, the dollar has lost 82 percent of its value while the banking sector has gone from 4 percent of GDP to well over 10 percent today.

The central bank does not create anything real; neither resources nor goods and services. When it creates money it causes the price of transactions to increase. The original quantity theory of money clearly related money to the price of anything money can buy, including assets. When the central bank creates money, traders, hedge funds and banks — being first in line — benefit from the increased variability and upward trend in asset prices. Also, future contracts and other derivative products on exchange rates or interest rates were unnecessary prior to 1971, since hedging activity was mostly unnecessary. The central bank is responsible for this added risk, variability, and surge in asset prices unjustified by fundamentals.

Here is a link to a schedule graphic that has been put together,  the OB1 date slipped 2 days to Feb. 3rd, so just add 2 days to each of the beginning dates.

https://i.imgur.com/vE7F1vC.png

Hope this helps with the overall schedule up to the launch date.

suky321, first you should test OB1, make sure you really like the coin and software and that it's a good investment for you to do.
IPO was supposed to be announced in the forum, but because Fuserleer also announced OB1 here, I'm pretty sure you'll see a new post when IPO will start.

No need to hurry... I think the IPO will be open for 2 weeks, you'll have all the time you want to decide and invest

Hi Fandekasp, thanks for the response.  What will the process be for the IPO, do we need to register interest in some way, do we contact an email address, do we sign up somehow? I can't see any clear instructions anywhere.  Or do we await on further instructions after OB1?

cheers,

IPO will start with OB2, a couple of days after OB1 finishes

I don't know if this has been covered elsewhere, but I haven't seen any information on how we can take part in the IPO.  I haven't seen anything on the eMunie forums either in relation to this. 

This is great and all, but when are there going to be details rather than platitudes?

Spending a little of time researching could have answered this question. While we don't call it "mining" many different options exist to earn eMunie by putting your computer to work (sorry those GPU's need not apply). You will have the option to run different services to earn eMunie like hatching, seeding, post office, emunie relay chat so this would be the "mining" equivalent as you call it.  Dan had asked the members who have been there chipping in daily for the past half a year and it was a general consensus among everyone that releasing the source before release or right when released will cause eMunie to be competing with itself and all of the clones people create.  The alt coin community has not advanced beyond this with new coins releasing daily which have no intention of becoming "the next Bitcoin" aside from the very few coins that do seem to offer something different and potentially going after the mainstream market. It would be an awful waste of a years worth of work to allow people to just take it for nothing without putting any effort in. If the source was released it would just create a 2nd generation alt coin market with 100+ clones each with their own minor tweak. This will not help the crypto currency community.

For people that are trying to predict ROI on a system that is so different than anything else out there is probably not a good choice, it is very hard to predict the speed of growth and adoption considering one of the target markets will be the general public aside from the crypto nerd. Having an environment of dynamic supply/demand system with built in interest system going to be a highly desired feature. People and businesses are surely in need of a nonvolatile crypto currency where you do not see 30% swings in one day.

Followup comment:
With Bitcoin (or any commodity-like instrument) the price volatility is what makes using it for day to day purchases more difficult since it is akin to showing up a restaurant to order a steak and by the time your meal is over the check you receive to pay is now higher than what it was listed on the menu at the time you first sat down.  Ouch!

eMunie attempts to avoid this situation by altering and allowing volatility of the "Quantity"variable vs. the other dynamically volatile variable of "Price" that is used as the main lever in all commodity-like coins systems.

"3)  Since I can't mine eMunie, and there is supposedly no profit margin for me being an early adopter and buying and hoarding it, what incentive do I have to use it?  Since it's closed source, and you seem to have copyright of the project, aren't I just helping you to make money by increasing your user base?  Isn't this the same model that companies like Twitter, Facebook, and Google use?  Offer a free service, but have copyright over everything, so you then just wait for the user base to reach high levels, then can sell it off, or make money from ads or some other unknown manner. "

Here's how I plan to eventually use it based upon my current financial profile.

At present, I have a modest amount of "cash" (actually, it's nothing more than just a bank balance electronically stored on Chase's system and not actually physical paper notes) that I then use to pay off my credit cards with in full each month as well as a marginally held amount of "safety stock" quantity for any unexpected needs should they arise.  Beyond my "cash" holdings, I have the remainder of my investments parked in lower-liquidity instruments such as stocks and real estate.  Effectively, I use the credit card whenever possible for my day-to-day and monthly revolving purchases since this provides me with a 1% return in Chase 'points' that can then be redeemed for use in other purchases.  As such, since I pay off the credit card in full each month (and have done so for over 20 years) there is no interest penalty for my purchases.  Thus I am effectively earning 1% on my "cash" holdings.

With emunie, Dan plans to initiate a debit card shortly after Go Live (around 2 quarters after Go Live).  With this debit card I will no longer need to play the above game of moving around cash-to-credit for a 1% return, but will instead be able to use it in an equal manner for my day-to-day activities while 'probably' getting a 5% return (or much higher initially during the growth/adoption curve) based on expected inflation projections of the system.

Let me see if I can answer the questions with shorter responses (no guarantee sadly).

"1)  Bitcoin was designed in a way to prevent central bankers from profiting off the issuance of currency.  Satoshi's profit margin for adopting use of the currency was exactly the same as anyone else that used it.  What is your low ball and high ball figure for what you will personally make if eMunie becomes successful?"

This is a succinct and rational attempt at stating Satoshi's goals.  However, his solution could also be summarized as an attempt to remove the implicit bias from those with better access to "new" information vs. those farther down the information "supply chain".  By that, I mean the existing structuralized central banking and Wall Street environment operates (regardless of ethics) within a framework of rewarding those with quicker access to new information such that they may then profit immediately through trading activities much more swiftly than those who were not privy to that information at the same time (e.g. insider trading).  

With regard to the central banks "creating currency" unfairly, this is (my opinion) actually nothing more than a sad and unavoidable result of the limited set of tools available over the past 6000 years with regard to "how" one manages the supply of a currency.  It is primarily due to this lack of having a robust and automated information-analysis system to determine the necessary supply/demand needs of a currency that has driven us (out of fear) to instead use something commodity-based (e.g. gold, bitcoin...etc).  

The hope with all of these commodity-based (fear management) solutions is to try and mitigate as much opportunity towards gaming the system 'by individuals' since there is instead a structured process for how they are created across a predictable time period.  However, this fear of needing to "save us from ourselves" solution is not the only solution possible.

Prior to the internet, there was really no easy, systematic, or automated method to determine supply vs. demand. As such, humans were needed to be in control centrally. This was done by Kings, central planners and, most recently, by central banks through the study and analysis of a whole host of trailing and leading economic indicators. Unfortunately (by design), this system of information-response is flawed from the start as it requires the central body to operate in a “reactionary” environment in that they must constantly be tweaking the supply to match demand based on the latest data available. When they miscalculate in their analysis we get a predictable set of circumstances that lead to either an inflationary or deflationary environment. Moreover, at these extreme miscalculations of supply/demand we find hysteria and depression since these are the natural outcomes from mismanaging the supply/demand based on the untimely/imperfect information reporting/response process.

With emunie the above scenario is removed from the hands of a centrally managed group that uses imperfect information to control suppy/demand and is instead autonomously managed by the system itself. As demand increases, so does supply. As supply increases, it is distributed equally among all users so that the impact of inflation/deflation is eliminated (i.e. a rising tide lifts all boats equally). A rising/declining supply at “just the right level” ensures trade and commerce. The ability to adjust supply/demand in near real-time across a decentralized network is what sets this system miles above any competing “coin” based solutions since it removes the need to peg the currency "to something" based on the prior historic "fears" of manipulation when "people" are in control.

Fundamentally, the ideology behind emunie is that of an "elastic supply" model.  Stated simply: the “supply” of a currency should equal “demand” for its use and nothing more. Moreover, this theory is the ONLY theory that ALL competing economic theorists can generally agree upon (read Keynesians vs. Monetarists vs. Austrians) as being true. Accordingly, if you can find ANY theory that all of these guys can agree on as being an accurate representation for how trade and commerce should operate efficiently then you know you’ve stumbled upon something worth investigating further.

"2. Since this project is close source, and I assume you hold some kind of trademarks/patents, what exactly stops you from selling the entire project to Goldman Sachs as soon as it gets big, and they charge everyone $20 a month, or hour, or day to use it, like some kind of AOL service.  This is just one example of the 5 million things I can see going wrong with personal ownership or direction of the project."

Dan has stated repeatedly (but it's worth repeating here as well since it's easy to miss such messages in a sea of posts) that he intends this system to be closed source for ONLY a limited amount of time so as to prevent the plethora of copy-coins cropping up that detrimentally dilute and confuse any new user from learning about our ideology.  Granted, this strategy invites doubt towards his intentions as you illustrate with your question.  However, there are pros/cons to both sides of the argument and thus there really isn't a 'right answer' per se, but merely one that hopes to better balance the conditions towards achieving his goals for this system.

To your point about selling out to some big player (Goldman Sachs), Dan has already been contacted by several individuals who wish to purchase his application.  Indeed, they have offered sizable sums for it.  However, as they would probably (Dan's assumption and the Founders as well) take control of the program and run with it in EXACTLY the type of scenarios you describe through trying to centrally own/game everyone that might now, or later, be a part of the system, is the precise reason he has declined their offers.  His oft stated and repeated refusals towards their sizable offers only further improves my admiration of his moral character and ethics in that his noble intentions for why he has tirelessly worked full-time on this project for over a year while living day-to-day on his own savings proves he is a man worthy of high esteem.

Is the public IPO happening before the whitepaper is released?

hmm maybe your right, but I think the free congress of idea and open discussion is okay too, people can just use the ignore button if they want to and self moderate as well.

this was my understanding that you get interest on your holding when it goes up, as that keeps the price of the coin stable but give you more of them.

the magic recipes of how this is done is quite involved and the "magic" part.

What happens when usage goes, down, IDK, (I think it would have to be like friecoin, but I'm not sure it is.)


there also seems to be a buffer system which sure could be exhausted, but is far better than not having one.

if u want to keep this clean u should've started a self moderated thread

Answer to 3)
* The ipo will be sold with 1 EMU = 0.1$, but eventually this will go up. It's just that the coin has been thought to be stable. There won't be any crazy volatility like for other coins, but a stable growth instead.
* The incentive as early adopters is to get interest every time new coins are produced. When eMunie create new coins, they are distributed 50% to hatchers and 50% to coins holders.

I honestly think the idea is unique, and the non-volatility might make it the first real virtual currency (as many consider bitcoin and alt to be commodities).

3)  Since I can't mine eMunie, and there is supposedly no profit margin for me being an early adopter and buying and hoarding it, what incentive do I have to use it?  Since it's closed source, and you seem to have copyright of the project, aren't I just helping you to make money by increasing your user base?  Isn't this the same model that companies like Twitter, Facebook, and Google use?  Offer a free service, but have copyright over everything, so you then just wait for the user base to reach high levels, then can sell it off, or make money from ads or some other unknown manner.

first question from r0ach