GAW is Arabic for SCAM
We demand proof of data center all we get is photoshop fakes
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/GAW-data-center-hi.jpg
http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=5c75ecd96a47b86c10ce399016eb10f96bbe3860.61284&fmt=ela&size=600&i=5156107
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/GAW-hashing-center.jpg
http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=1c9605403b67c25491ad899c5532417a97caf089.32546&fmt=ela&size=600&i=5186316
I demand proof of delivery of Hashlet
Topic: Questions to be raised about XPY and the viability of Gaw's 'ICO' (Read 878 times)
December 18, 2014, 01:18:05 PM
XPY is a SCAM!
Well reasoned. care to expand on that a little or is that all?
December 18, 2014, 11:37:19 AM
XPY is a SCAM!
Well reasoned. care to expand on that a little or is that all?
December 18, 2014, 07:34:24 AM
XPY is a SCAM!
December 16, 2014, 01:18:48 PM
Let's break down the fiat backing and why it's (I think) misplaced logic, or perhaps irrelevant.
1. So XPY is a currency backed by a currency which is backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. (or other) government and their ability to levy and collect taxes. If this is the case then XPY is simply a token for dollars. The same way old silver notes were tokens for silver. If XPY is not redeemable for dollars at a FIXED exchange rate ($20?) then it is irrelevant.
2. If XPY is redeemable at $20 from the central bank (read: Gaw), then the each unit would only be worth $20. Why would anybody pay more (or less) for something that it is inherently equivalent to the sum of $20.00. What happens if the dollar collapses or there is inflation in the U.S., well then each dollar is worth less in buying power. This means each unit is worth effectively less.
3. Having a central authority to attempt to stabilise the exchange rate has failed. Why would it succeed for Gaw where it failed for nation-states? China even has eased the peg to the dollar. And unless there is actual economic activity (i.e. production, not simply transactions and 'rents') the value of the currency is moot. Nobody is getting paid wages in XPY and nobody is accepting XPY except to convert them back into fiat or BTC. Nobody is earning XPY in order to pay employees in XPY, or pay debts and taxes in XPY.
4. Price volatility will not be eliminated due to intermediation by Gaw as central bank. Why? Because they will end up becoming the buyer of last resort (in exchange for dollars in their 'reserve fund') ultimately they will come to own all of them unless they decide to issue loans. But who is going to ask for a loan in XPY? (open question..). Even if the volatility is reduced to +/- 2% a day , that is still huge compared to the Forex market.
5. Merchant acceptability is not easy. Unless there is a consumer demand to use XPY merchants will not invest the time, effort and capital in undertaking it. So the real key is getting users to sign on to it. But once POS phase starts there will be verrrry few consumers who actually have enough XPY to use.
Just make sure to read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_Popular_Delusions_and_the_Madness_of_Crowds
1. So XPY is a currency backed by a currency which is backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. (or other) government and their ability to levy and collect taxes. If this is the case then XPY is simply a token for dollars. The same way old silver notes were tokens for silver. If XPY is not redeemable for dollars at a FIXED exchange rate ($20?) then it is irrelevant.
2. If XPY is redeemable at $20 from the central bank (read: Gaw), then the each unit would only be worth $20. Why would anybody pay more (or less) for something that it is inherently equivalent to the sum of $20.00. What happens if the dollar collapses or there is inflation in the U.S., well then each dollar is worth less in buying power. This means each unit is worth effectively less.
3. Having a central authority to attempt to stabilise the exchange rate has failed. Why would it succeed for Gaw where it failed for nation-states? China even has eased the peg to the dollar. And unless there is actual economic activity (i.e. production, not simply transactions and 'rents') the value of the currency is moot. Nobody is getting paid wages in XPY and nobody is accepting XPY except to convert them back into fiat or BTC. Nobody is earning XPY in order to pay employees in XPY, or pay debts and taxes in XPY.
4. Price volatility will not be eliminated due to intermediation by Gaw as central bank. Why? Because they will end up becoming the buyer of last resort (in exchange for dollars in their 'reserve fund') ultimately they will come to own all of them unless they decide to issue loans. But who is going to ask for a loan in XPY? (open question..). Even if the volatility is reduced to +/- 2% a day , that is still huge compared to the Forex market.
5. Merchant acceptability is not easy. Unless there is a consumer demand to use XPY merchants will not invest the time, effort and capital in undertaking it. So the real key is getting users to sign on to it. But once POS phase starts there will be verrrry few consumers who actually have enough XPY to use.
Just make sure to read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_Popular_Delusions_and_the_Madness_of_Crowds
December 16, 2014, 01:05:57 PM
As I see XPY want to evolve to something like ripple on a btc style blockchain. The idea is viable, but we will see how it works in practice.
Merchant acceptability is easy IMO. Stable prices, low volatility and fiat or asset backing. Thats all. ...and thats what GAW promising.
The most interesting question is the fiat reserve. How many they really have, the investors are real investors or just Josh, his buddies (with 12 million XPY in hand and ready to dump) and a bunch of "cultists" from HT. If they really have investors and a few million USD in hand, then they have a good chance to be one of the next big things.
Mining will not be an issue as soon as it will reach the POS phase.
Merchant acceptability is easy IMO. Stable prices, low volatility and fiat or asset backing. Thats all. ...and thats what GAW promising.
The most interesting question is the fiat reserve. How many they really have, the investors are real investors or just Josh, his buddies (with 12 million XPY in hand and ready to dump) and a bunch of "cultists" from HT. If they really have investors and a few million USD in hand, then they have a good chance to be one of the next big things.
Mining will not be an issue as soon as it will reach the POS phase.
December 16, 2014, 12:51:59 PM
There does seem to be something fishy going on IMHO. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe there is nothing sinister at work, but certainly something is amiss amongst all the hype. My fear is that it will cost those who wish to cash in on a get rich quick scheme who are too trustworthy without giving a good critical look at the situation.
First off, the whole point of the Bitcoin revolution was for decentralized NON-intermediated exchange. Offering a new altcoin in an ICO - as if it were a stock offering for a new company is misleading and dubious. An IPO of stock occurs after the company has existed for a while with private investment before they seek to go public. They usually go public to raise capital in order to grow the company. So is XPY an ICO for XPY or is it a way for Gaw to raise capital? Who is to say they don't control (directly or indirectly) or influence 51%+ of mining capacity? Of course they make claims but there is no way to really know it's all anonymous.
Second, the set aside reserve fund for marketing and adoption by merchants is simply an advertising budget. They can advertise and market all they want, but the fact is Bitcoin has free advertising every day. Bitcoin is the Goliath and while XPY may be the David in terms of technical stats and features, it will need more than a slingshot to get it accepted by merchants and consumers alike.
Third, the fiat reserve fund is all smoke and mirrors. This implies that to the extent they still have a dollar reserve in that account they can artificially prop up the market price as XPY/BTC and XPY/USD or EUR trading comes online. This makes Gaw the de facto "Central Bank" of XPY controlling the 'price of money' (can be interpreted here as the interest rate due to the Proof-of-Stake return feature). Proof-of-work miners who can transact in BTC already have no reason not to simply mine for XPY and trade them for BTC online to effectively earn more BTC via XPY than mining for BTC directly. This is artifice and will collapse once that fiat reserve ultimately runs dry. They can also control the price of XPY to some extent by throttling the difficulty adjustments and have it deviate from the protocol. One way to encourage mining would be to artificially hold the difficulty low even while more and more hashpower is pointed at mining XPY. The problem is what if all these newly mined coins are subsequently traded for BTC? That will drive down the price in the market (denominated in BTC).
Finally, there is technological risk. Sure with today's ASICs this model is profitable, but remember that innovation in hardware in this space is moving incredibly fast. The price of hashing power has plummeted in the past year and will continue to plummet as more competition (especially from Chinese start ups etc) get going. And what about the competition that will likely be induced by the perceived profitability of the Gaw XPY ICO? There are no barriers to entry for another established firm or well-funded start up to copy and improve upon this model.
Look, I do NOT believe this is an outright scam. I do believe it smells fishy in its motives to profit Gaw and not necessarily its 'shareholders' (aka miners/hashlet owners). Is it also a slap in the face to the entire Bitcoin credo of non-intermediated exchange?
(And then there is this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=857670.6860)
First off, the whole point of the Bitcoin revolution was for decentralized NON-intermediated exchange. Offering a new altcoin in an ICO - as if it were a stock offering for a new company is misleading and dubious. An IPO of stock occurs after the company has existed for a while with private investment before they seek to go public. They usually go public to raise capital in order to grow the company. So is XPY an ICO for XPY or is it a way for Gaw to raise capital? Who is to say they don't control (directly or indirectly) or influence 51%+ of mining capacity? Of course they make claims but there is no way to really know it's all anonymous.
Second, the set aside reserve fund for marketing and adoption by merchants is simply an advertising budget. They can advertise and market all they want, but the fact is Bitcoin has free advertising every day. Bitcoin is the Goliath and while XPY may be the David in terms of technical stats and features, it will need more than a slingshot to get it accepted by merchants and consumers alike.
Third, the fiat reserve fund is all smoke and mirrors. This implies that to the extent they still have a dollar reserve in that account they can artificially prop up the market price as XPY/BTC and XPY/USD or EUR trading comes online. This makes Gaw the de facto "Central Bank" of XPY controlling the 'price of money' (can be interpreted here as the interest rate due to the Proof-of-Stake return feature). Proof-of-work miners who can transact in BTC already have no reason not to simply mine for XPY and trade them for BTC online to effectively earn more BTC via XPY than mining for BTC directly. This is artifice and will collapse once that fiat reserve ultimately runs dry. They can also control the price of XPY to some extent by throttling the difficulty adjustments and have it deviate from the protocol. One way to encourage mining would be to artificially hold the difficulty low even while more and more hashpower is pointed at mining XPY. The problem is what if all these newly mined coins are subsequently traded for BTC? That will drive down the price in the market (denominated in BTC).
Finally, there is technological risk. Sure with today's ASICs this model is profitable, but remember that innovation in hardware in this space is moving incredibly fast. The price of hashing power has plummeted in the past year and will continue to plummet as more competition (especially from Chinese start ups etc) get going. And what about the competition that will likely be induced by the perceived profitability of the Gaw XPY ICO? There are no barriers to entry for another established firm or well-funded start up to copy and improve upon this model.
Look, I do NOT believe this is an outright scam. I do believe it smells fishy in its motives to profit Gaw and not necessarily its 'shareholders' (aka miners/hashlet owners). Is it also a slap in the face to the entire Bitcoin credo of non-intermediated exchange?
(And then there is this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=857670.6860)
Jump to: