Topic: WAVES. Ultimate crypto-tokens blockchain platform. - page 2090. (Read 2389392 times)
Signed up for newsletter. Seems like there is quite a bit of interest in Waves already.
Sasha sorry to bother you, i know you quite busy! I am one the very early person who was interested in waves, so i did follow you on facebook , twitter, sign campaign and i got your first newsletter from waves! Shell i inform anyone about or just wait till the ICo end and you will check for future bounty? also i will buy some at first day ICO to get bonus! thanks for your answer in advances!
SaluS project will also part take in this.
Good luck!
-Kushed
Good luck!
-Kushed
I subscribe waves newsletter
Got it, You've been added to our email list
Got it, You've been added to our email list
watching closely.
I'm in 
Waiting for 12th of April
Waiting for 12th of April
Hey,
1. Why create a new token/blockchain? OpenLedger for example already has fiat integration and the possibility to create assets. There are other coins that also offer colored coins functionality. Why not add your dev team to an existing team and make something already working even better?
2. Why not just continue to use NXT? What is wrong with NXT that prevents you to add fiat tokens and reputation systems to it.
3. The Dev team gets all the money from the ICO, plus 9M tokens? You're essentially being paid twice. There is no coin burning... You have to agree that from a certain point-of-view this looks like a money grab and a get-rich-quick plan. If the devs want to profit further from their work, why don't they buy the tokens they want themselves, with what they're being paid from the ICO? I'm sure we're not talking about modest salaries here. I wouldn't be making this point - a cut being reserved for devs - if there was no ICO.
4. There are plenty of bots around to make money on exchanges, market-making etc. Why don't you put some of those to work with a part of the ICO fund to support the 'post-ICO bounties', instead of reserving 1M?
5. '4 million tokens are reserved for strategical partners and backers' - could this be more transparent? 'partners and backers' would usually buy their way in, no? I'd love to see examples, even if you don't mention any specific 'partners and backers'
The comparisons with Lisk ICO are inevitable, but I'm not sure this will even get close to the values there...
1. Why create a new token/blockchain? OpenLedger for example already has fiat integration and the possibility to create assets. There are other coins that also offer colored coins functionality. Why not add your dev team to an existing team and make something already working even better?
2. Why not just continue to use NXT? What is wrong with NXT that prevents you to add fiat tokens and reputation systems to it.
3. The Dev team gets all the money from the ICO, plus 9M tokens? You're essentially being paid twice. There is no coin burning... You have to agree that from a certain point-of-view this looks like a money grab and a get-rich-quick plan. If the devs want to profit further from their work, why don't they buy the tokens they want themselves, with what they're being paid from the ICO? I'm sure we're not talking about modest salaries here. I wouldn't be making this point - a cut being reserved for devs - if there was no ICO.
4. There are plenty of bots around to make money on exchanges, market-making etc. Why don't you put some of those to work with a part of the ICO fund to support the 'post-ICO bounties', instead of reserving 1M?
5. '4 million tokens are reserved for strategical partners and backers' - could this be more transparent? 'partners and backers' would usually buy their way in, no? I'd love to see examples, even if you don't mention any specific 'partners and backers'
The comparisons with Lisk ICO are inevitable, but I'm not sure this will even get close to the values there...
1. All current colored coins implementations have severe limitations. Obviously Bitcoin blockchain based tokens won't work due to 10 min confirmation times. In Ethereum it's quite difficult to create a decentralized exchange. Openledger is a web-interface to Bitshares blockchain actually, it's not a colored coins protocol.
We are focused specifically on custom blockchain tokens. Our vision is very different from Bitshares vision, for example. Personally I don't think that pegged assets is a viable idea. We want to do for blockchain tokens what Ethereum is doing for Bitcoin scripting - make it perfect.
2. NXT is cool, I've been involved with NXT for a long time. But right from the start its development has been hindered by such problems as a really unfortunate initial distribution, changing developer teams, strange development decision. A moment came when I realized that it's time to make things right, from scratch. It will be much more effective, and even faster. And of course I'd never fork NXT.
3. Why do you think that we won't be buying coins with our own money? We sure will. Also please understand a crucial point here - we need a good distribution for a POS coin. I've seen what poor distribution can lead to, as in NXT case. The more stakers you have the better for the network.
4. Of course ICO funds will be used to maintain buy walls, if there's a need for this.
5. Of course we'll announce them soon. In any case there's a full transparency here, enforced by the nature of crypto itself - you'll be able to see where the tokens go to.
As for Lisk comparisons - to be frank I don't really care about it, we are not trying to beat some record or something like that. All we need is enough money for development.
Thanks
It's all clear to me.
Have only one question:
Where are you going to keep BTC before tokens distribution? Coinbase?
Hey,
1. Why create a new token/blockchain? OpenLedger for example already has fiat integration and the possibility to create assets. There are other coins that also offer colored coins functionality. Why not add your dev team to an existing team and make something already working even better?
2. Why not just continue to use NXT? What is wrong with NXT that prevents you to add fiat tokens and reputation systems to it.
3. The Dev team gets all the money from the ICO, plus 9M tokens? You're essentially being paid twice. There is no coin burning... You have to agree that from a certain point-of-view this looks like a money grab and a get-rich-quick plan. If the devs want to profit further from their work, why don't they buy the tokens they want themselves, with what they're being paid from the ICO? I'm sure we're not talking about modest salaries here. I wouldn't be making this point - a cut being reserved for devs - if there was no ICO.
4. There are plenty of bots around to make money on exchanges, market-making etc. Why don't you put some of those to work with a part of the ICO fund to support the 'post-ICO bounties', instead of reserving 1M?
5. '4 million tokens are reserved for strategical partners and backers' - could this be more transparent? 'partners and backers' would usually buy their way in, no? I'd love to see examples, even if you don't mention any specific 'partners and backers'
The comparisons with Lisk ICO are inevitable, but I'm not sure this will even get close to the values there...
1. Why create a new token/blockchain? OpenLedger for example already has fiat integration and the possibility to create assets. There are other coins that also offer colored coins functionality. Why not add your dev team to an existing team and make something already working even better?
2. Why not just continue to use NXT? What is wrong with NXT that prevents you to add fiat tokens and reputation systems to it.
3. The Dev team gets all the money from the ICO, plus 9M tokens? You're essentially being paid twice. There is no coin burning... You have to agree that from a certain point-of-view this looks like a money grab and a get-rich-quick plan. If the devs want to profit further from their work, why don't they buy the tokens they want themselves, with what they're being paid from the ICO? I'm sure we're not talking about modest salaries here. I wouldn't be making this point - a cut being reserved for devs - if there was no ICO.
4. There are plenty of bots around to make money on exchanges, market-making etc. Why don't you put some of those to work with a part of the ICO fund to support the 'post-ICO bounties', instead of reserving 1M?
5. '4 million tokens are reserved for strategical partners and backers' - could this be more transparent? 'partners and backers' would usually buy their way in, no? I'd love to see examples, even if you don't mention any specific 'partners and backers'
The comparisons with Lisk ICO are inevitable, but I'm not sure this will even get close to the values there...
1. All current colored coins implementations have severe limitations. Obviously Bitcoin blockchain based tokens won't work due to 10 min confirmation times. In Ethereum it's quite difficult to create a decentralized exchange. Openledger is a web-interface to Bitshares blockchain actually, it's not a colored coins protocol.
We are focused specifically on custom blockchain tokens. Our vision is very different from Bitshares vision, for example. Personally I don't think that pegged assets is a viable idea. We want to do for blockchain tokens what Ethereum is doing for Bitcoin scripting - make it perfect.
2. NXT is cool, I've been involved with NXT for a long time. But right from the start its development has been hindered by such problems as a really unfortunate initial distribution, changing developer teams, strange development decision. A moment came when I realized that it's time to make things right, from scratch. It will be much more effective, and even faster. And of course I'd never fork NXT.
3. Why do you think that we won't be buying coins with our own money? We sure will. Also please understand a crucial point here - we need a good distribution for a POS coin. I've seen what poor distribution can lead to, as in NXT case. The more stakers you have the better for the network.
4. Of course ICO funds will be used to maintain buy walls, if there's a need for this.
5. Of course we'll announce them soon. In any case there's a full transparency here, enforced by the nature of crypto itself - you'll be able to see where the tokens go to.
As for Lisk comparisons - to be frank I don't really care about it, we are not trying to beat some record or something like that. All we need is enough money for development.
Thanks
It's all clear to me.
Have only one question:
Where are you going to keep BTC before tokens distribution? Coinbase?
It will be announced next week by the partner doing the escrow, not Coinbase, but also great one
Hey,
1. Why create a new token/blockchain? OpenLedger for example already has fiat integration and the possibility to create assets. There are other coins that also offer colored coins functionality. Why not add your dev team to an existing team and make something already working even better?
2. Why not just continue to use NXT? What is wrong with NXT that prevents you to add fiat tokens and reputation systems to it.
3. The Dev team gets all the money from the ICO, plus 9M tokens? You're essentially being paid twice. There is no coin burning... You have to agree that from a certain point-of-view this looks like a money grab and a get-rich-quick plan. If the devs want to profit further from their work, why don't they buy the tokens they want themselves, with what they're being paid from the ICO? I'm sure we're not talking about modest salaries here. I wouldn't be making this point - a cut being reserved for devs - if there was no ICO.
4. There are plenty of bots around to make money on exchanges, market-making etc. Why don't you put some of those to work with a part of the ICO fund to support the 'post-ICO bounties', instead of reserving 1M?
5. '4 million tokens are reserved for strategical partners and backers' - could this be more transparent? 'partners and backers' would usually buy their way in, no? I'd love to see examples, even if you don't mention any specific 'partners and backers'
The comparisons with Lisk ICO are inevitable, but I'm not sure this will even get close to the values there...
1. Why create a new token/blockchain? OpenLedger for example already has fiat integration and the possibility to create assets. There are other coins that also offer colored coins functionality. Why not add your dev team to an existing team and make something already working even better?
2. Why not just continue to use NXT? What is wrong with NXT that prevents you to add fiat tokens and reputation systems to it.
3. The Dev team gets all the money from the ICO, plus 9M tokens? You're essentially being paid twice. There is no coin burning... You have to agree that from a certain point-of-view this looks like a money grab and a get-rich-quick plan. If the devs want to profit further from their work, why don't they buy the tokens they want themselves, with what they're being paid from the ICO? I'm sure we're not talking about modest salaries here. I wouldn't be making this point - a cut being reserved for devs - if there was no ICO.
4. There are plenty of bots around to make money on exchanges, market-making etc. Why don't you put some of those to work with a part of the ICO fund to support the 'post-ICO bounties', instead of reserving 1M?
5. '4 million tokens are reserved for strategical partners and backers' - could this be more transparent? 'partners and backers' would usually buy their way in, no? I'd love to see examples, even if you don't mention any specific 'partners and backers'
The comparisons with Lisk ICO are inevitable, but I'm not sure this will even get close to the values there...
1. All current colored coins implementations have severe limitations. Obviously Bitcoin blockchain based tokens won't work due to 10 min confirmation times. In Ethereum it's quite difficult to create a decentralized exchange. Openledger is a web-interface to Bitshares blockchain actually, it's not a colored coins protocol.
We are focused specifically on custom blockchain tokens. Our vision is very different from Bitshares vision, for example. Personally I don't think that pegged assets is a viable idea. We want to do for blockchain tokens what Ethereum is doing for Bitcoin scripting - make it perfect.
2. NXT is cool, I've been involved with NXT for a long time. But right from the start its development has been hindered by such problems as a really unfortunate initial distribution, changing developer teams, strange development decision. A moment came when I realized that it's time to make things right, from scratch. It will be much more effective, and even faster. And of course I'd never fork NXT.
3. Why do you think that we won't be buying coins with our own money? We sure will. Also please understand a crucial point here - we need a good distribution for a POS coin. I've seen what poor distribution can lead to, as in NXT case. The more stakers you have the better for the network.
4. Of course ICO funds will be used to maintain buy walls, if there's a need for this.
5. Of course we'll announce them soon. In any case there's a full transparency here, enforced by the nature of crypto itself - you'll be able to see where the tokens go to.
As for Lisk comparisons - to be frank I don't really care about it, we are not trying to beat some record or something like that. All we need is enough money for development.
Thanks
It's all clear to me.
Have only one question:
Where are you going to keep BTC before tokens distribution? Coinbase?
I myself consider WAVES very promising
Hey,
1. Why create a new token/blockchain? OpenLedger for example already has fiat integration and the possibility to create assets. There are other coins that also offer colored coins functionality. Why not add your dev team to an existing team and make something already working even better?
2. Why not just continue to use NXT? What is wrong with NXT that prevents you to add fiat tokens and reputation systems to it.
3. The Dev team gets all the money from the ICO, plus 9M tokens? You're essentially being paid twice. There is no coin burning... You have to agree that from a certain point-of-view this looks like a money grab and a get-rich-quick plan. If the devs want to profit further from their work, why don't they buy the tokens they want themselves, with what they're being paid from the ICO? I'm sure we're not talking about modest salaries here. I wouldn't be making this point - a cut being reserved for devs - if there was no ICO.
4. There are plenty of bots around to make money on exchanges, market-making etc. Why don't you put some of those to work with a part of the ICO fund to support the 'post-ICO bounties', instead of reserving 1M?
5. '4 million tokens are reserved for strategical partners and backers' - could this be more transparent? 'partners and backers' would usually buy their way in, no? I'd love to see examples, even if you don't mention any specific 'partners and backers'
The comparisons with Lisk ICO are inevitable, but I'm not sure this will even get close to the values there...
1. Why create a new token/blockchain? OpenLedger for example already has fiat integration and the possibility to create assets. There are other coins that also offer colored coins functionality. Why not add your dev team to an existing team and make something already working even better?
2. Why not just continue to use NXT? What is wrong with NXT that prevents you to add fiat tokens and reputation systems to it.
3. The Dev team gets all the money from the ICO, plus 9M tokens? You're essentially being paid twice. There is no coin burning... You have to agree that from a certain point-of-view this looks like a money grab and a get-rich-quick plan. If the devs want to profit further from their work, why don't they buy the tokens they want themselves, with what they're being paid from the ICO? I'm sure we're not talking about modest salaries here. I wouldn't be making this point - a cut being reserved for devs - if there was no ICO.
4. There are plenty of bots around to make money on exchanges, market-making etc. Why don't you put some of those to work with a part of the ICO fund to support the 'post-ICO bounties', instead of reserving 1M?
5. '4 million tokens are reserved for strategical partners and backers' - could this be more transparent? 'partners and backers' would usually buy their way in, no? I'd love to see examples, even if you don't mention any specific 'partners and backers'
The comparisons with Lisk ICO are inevitable, but I'm not sure this will even get close to the values there...
1. All current colored coins implementations have severe limitations. Obviously Bitcoin blockchain based tokens won't work due to 10 min confirmation times. In Ethereum it's quite difficult to create a decentralized exchange. Openledger is a web-interface to Bitshares blockchain actually, it's not a colored coins protocol.
We are focused specifically on custom blockchain tokens. Our vision is very different from Bitshares vision, for example. Personally I don't think that pegged assets is a viable idea. We want to do for blockchain tokens what Ethereum is doing for Bitcoin scripting - make it perfect.
2. NXT is cool, I've been involved with NXT for a long time. But right from the start its development has been hindered by such problems as a really unfortunate initial distribution, changing developer teams, strange development decision. A moment came when I realized that it's time to make things right, from scratch. It will be much more effective, and even faster. And of course I'd never fork NXT.
3. Why do you think that we won't be buying coins with our own money? We sure will. Also please understand a crucial point here - we need a good distribution for a POS coin. I've seen what poor distribution can lead to, as in NXT case. The more stakers you have the better for the network.
4. Of course ICO funds will be used to maintain buy walls, if there's a need for this.
5. Of course we'll announce them soon. In any case there's a full transparency here, enforced by the nature of crypto itself - you'll be able to see where the tokens go to.
As for Lisk comparisons - to be frank I don't really care about it, we are not trying to break some record or something like that. All we need is enough money for development.
Hey,
1. Why create a new token/blockchain? OpenLedger for example already has fiat integration and the possibility to create assets. There are other coins that also offer colored coins functionality. Why not add your dev team to an existing team and make something already working even better?
2. Why not just continue to use NXT? What is wrong with NXT that prevents you to add fiat tokens and reputation systems to it.
3. The Dev team gets all the money from the ICO, plus 9M tokens? You're essentially being paid twice. There is no coin burning... You have to agree that from a certain point-of-view this looks like a money grab and a get-rich-quick plan. If the devs want to profit further from their work, why don't they buy the tokens they want themselves, with what they're being paid from the ICO? I'm sure we're not talking about modest salaries here. I wouldn't be making this point - a cut being reserved for devs - if there was no ICO.
4. There are plenty of bots around to make money on exchanges, market-making etc. Why don't you put some of those to work with a part of the ICO fund to support the 'post-ICO bounties', instead of reserving 1M?
5. '4 million tokens are reserved for strategical partners and backers' - could this be more transparent? 'partners and backers' would usually buy their way in, no? I'd love to see examples, even if you don't mention any specific 'partners and backers'
The comparisons with Lisk ICO are inevitable, but I'm not sure this will even get close to the values there...
1. Why create a new token/blockchain? OpenLedger for example already has fiat integration and the possibility to create assets. There are other coins that also offer colored coins functionality. Why not add your dev team to an existing team and make something already working even better?
2. Why not just continue to use NXT? What is wrong with NXT that prevents you to add fiat tokens and reputation systems to it.
3. The Dev team gets all the money from the ICO, plus 9M tokens? You're essentially being paid twice. There is no coin burning... You have to agree that from a certain point-of-view this looks like a money grab and a get-rich-quick plan. If the devs want to profit further from their work, why don't they buy the tokens they want themselves, with what they're being paid from the ICO? I'm sure we're not talking about modest salaries here. I wouldn't be making this point - a cut being reserved for devs - if there was no ICO.
4. There are plenty of bots around to make money on exchanges, market-making etc. Why don't you put some of those to work with a part of the ICO fund to support the 'post-ICO bounties', instead of reserving 1M?
5. '4 million tokens are reserved for strategical partners and backers' - could this be more transparent? 'partners and backers' would usually buy their way in, no? I'd love to see examples, even if you don't mention any specific 'partners and backers'
The comparisons with Lisk ICO are inevitable, but I'm not sure this will even get close to the values there...
1. As far as I know, OpenLedger is based on the BitShares's "market peg" idea. BitShares differs from WAVES in two fundamental ways. First, its consensus algorithm is DPoS, meaning that only a given number of "delegates" have the power to validate blockchain transactions, as opposed to the PoS consensus where each full node is accredited for validation. This means that the WAVES platform supports full decentralization whereas BitShares team is not taking a step out of their "delegated" version. The second difference is the feasibility of the "market peg" approach. This is of course open to discussion, but one may objectively evaluate the success of that approach by looking at the history of their most praised market pegged crypto-asset, namely, BitUSD. I doubt if any big corporation in the future will ever decide to rely on the idea "if everyone thinks something is worth 1 USD, then that thing is forced to be worth 1 USD." Corporations demand guarantee, and that guarantee may only be given with a fully reserved crypto-fiat, which is the case for CoinoUSD of Nxt, for example, whose success is indubitable. Now the WAVES platform goes even further from where Nxt leaves us.
Thus, it is because of what makes the WAVES team unique, that is, because of our vision (I'm not a part of the dev team but I fully share their vision) that no other crypto-platform initiative could comply the possibilities that our platform will provide. I believe that the principal of these possibilities is asset-to-asset trading. I myself posted about this in many forums, asking why there is no such feature. The general reaction was that this is a bad idea because it goes against the nature of the blockchain technology. In their view, allowing "crypto-fiat to crypto-asset" transactions would destroy the use of the underlying coin on which the entire system is based. For instance, if people are able to buy a crypto-share of a crowdfunding project without being obliged to buy BTC, that would reduce the demand for and liquidity of BTC. But that is the cost of unleashing the power of the blockchain technology. Restricting the network would do no good for the ecosystem. Conversely, even though our approach will create a less demand for the underlying Waves-coin, it will make the mass adoption possible, and it will enhance the use of the blockchain technology.
2. The discrepancy in the visions of the crypto-initiative teams, as I said, is the main cause of why the WAVES team cannot work for improving an existing system. This goes same for the Nxt as well. You may read Nxt Forums; there are tons of discussions about which way to take. As the Nxters are insistent on their approach, the WAVES team has been obliged to draw their own way.
I will leave the other questions for someone who knows more than me.
3. Noone has idea as of now how big or small is gonna be the ICO, if a lot of funds is reaised, huge amount will be used still towards getting financial license. I don`t see at all holding some tokens by the team as bad way as it helps a lot in continuing development and other things after longer time. Counting and relying only on others wanting to develop on your platform is rather not direction i would like Waves team taking...There will be doc soon, covering projected development costs etc.
4. What is wrong eactly with post ICO bounties ? i would love to see many people supporting Waves not only before the end of ICO period...and definitely i would like not to see development funds or financial license funds to be used for it or for any bot...
5. Strategical partners and backers are partners that are collaborating in different ways, through common vision, development and other services, i would love to see many teams collaborating with Waves team and that`s what these funds are for. First great partner will be announced next week.
Hey,
1. Why create a new token/blockchain? OpenLedger for example already has fiat integration and the possibility to create assets. There are other coins that also offer colored coins functionality. Why not add your dev team to an existing team and make something already working even better?
2. Why not just continue to use NXT? What is wrong with NXT that prevents you to add fiat tokens and reputation systems to it.
3. The Dev team gets all the money from the ICO, plus 9M tokens? You're essentially being paid twice. There is no coin burning... You have to agree that from a certain point-of-view this looks like a money grab and a get-rich-quick plan. If the devs want to profit further from their work, why don't they buy the tokens they want themselves, with what they're being paid from the ICO? I'm sure we're not talking about modest salaries here. I wouldn't be making this point - a cut being reserved for devs - if there was no ICO.
4. There are plenty of bots around to make money on exchanges, market-making etc. Why don't you put some of those to work with a part of the ICO fund to support the 'post-ICO bounties', instead of reserving 1M?
5. '4 million tokens are reserved for strategical partners and backers' - could this be more transparent? 'partners and backers' would usually buy their way in, no? I'd love to see examples, even if you don't mention any specific 'partners and backers'
The comparisons with Lisk ICO are inevitable, but I'm not sure this will even get close to the values there...
1. Why create a new token/blockchain? OpenLedger for example already has fiat integration and the possibility to create assets. There are other coins that also offer colored coins functionality. Why not add your dev team to an existing team and make something already working even better?
2. Why not just continue to use NXT? What is wrong with NXT that prevents you to add fiat tokens and reputation systems to it.
3. The Dev team gets all the money from the ICO, plus 9M tokens? You're essentially being paid twice. There is no coin burning... You have to agree that from a certain point-of-view this looks like a money grab and a get-rich-quick plan. If the devs want to profit further from their work, why don't they buy the tokens they want themselves, with what they're being paid from the ICO? I'm sure we're not talking about modest salaries here. I wouldn't be making this point - a cut being reserved for devs - if there was no ICO.
4. There are plenty of bots around to make money on exchanges, market-making etc. Why don't you put some of those to work with a part of the ICO fund to support the 'post-ICO bounties', instead of reserving 1M?
5. '4 million tokens are reserved for strategical partners and backers' - could this be more transparent? 'partners and backers' would usually buy their way in, no? I'd love to see examples, even if you don't mention any specific 'partners and backers'
The comparisons with Lisk ICO are inevitable, but I'm not sure this will even get close to the values there...
1. As far as I know, OpenLedger is based on the BitShares's "market peg" idea. BitShares differs from WAVES in two fundamental ways. First, its consensus algorithm is DPoS, meaning that only a given number of "delegates" have the power to validate blockchain transactions, as opposed to the PoS consensus where each full node is accredited for validation. This means that the WAVES platform supports full decentralization whereas BitShares team is not taking a step out of their "delegated" version. The second difference is the feasibility of the "market peg" approach. This is of course open to discussion, but one may objectively evaluate the success of that approach by looking at the history of their most praised market pegged crypto-asset, namely, BitUSD. I doubt if any big corporation in the future will ever decide to rely on the idea "if everyone thinks something is worth 1 USD, then that thing is forced to be worth 1 USD." Corporations demand guarantee, and that guarantee may only be given with a fully reserved crypto-fiat, which is the case for CoinoUSD of Nxt, for example, whose success is indubitable. Now the WAVES platform goes even further from where Nxt leaves us.
Thus, it is because of what makes the WAVES team unique, that is, because of our vision (I'm not a part of the dev team but I fully share their vision) that no other crypto-platform initiative could comply the possibilities that our platform will provide. I believe that the principal of these possibilities is asset-to-asset trading. I myself posted about this in many forums, asking why there is no such feature. The general reaction was that this is a bad idea because it goes against the nature of the blockchain technology. In their view, allowing "crypto-fiat to crypto-asset" transactions would destroy the use of the underlying coin on which the entire system is based. For instance, if people are able to buy a crypto-share of a crowdfunding project without being obliged to buy BTC, that would reduce the demand for and liquidity of BTC. But that is the cost of unleashing the power of the blockchain technology. Restricting the network would do no good for the ecosystem. Conversely, even though our approach will create a less demand for the underlying Waves-coin, it will make the mass adoption possible, and it will enhance the use of the blockchain technology.
2. The discrepancy in the visions of the crypto-initiative teams, as I said, is the main cause of why the WAVES team cannot work for improving an existing system. This goes same for the Nxt as well. You may read Nxt Forums; there are tons of discussions about which way to take. As the Nxters are insistent on their approach, the WAVES team has been obliged to draw their own way.
I will leave the other questions for someone who knows more than me.
i like to read and get more knowledge when people technically discuss something new
lesson in review
good luck waves
Hey,
1. Why create a new token/blockchain? OpenLedger for example already has fiat integration and the possibility to create assets. There are other coins that also offer colored coins functionality. Why not add your dev team to an existing team and make something already working even better?
2. Why not just continue to use NXT? What is wrong with NXT that prevents you to add fiat tokens and reputation systems to it.
3. The Dev team gets all the money from the ICO, plus 9M tokens? You're essentially being paid twice. There is no coin burning... You have to agree that from a certain point-of-view this looks like a money grab and a get-rich-quick plan. If the devs want to profit further from their work, why don't they buy the tokens they want themselves, with what they're being paid from the ICO? I'm sure we're not talking about modest salaries here. I wouldn't be making this point - a cut being reserved for devs - if there was no ICO.
4. There are plenty of bots around to make money on exchanges, market-making etc. Why don't you put some of those to work with a part of the ICO fund to support the 'post-ICO bounties', instead of reserving 1M?
5. '4 million tokens are reserved for strategical partners and backers' - could this be more transparent? 'partners and backers' would usually buy their way in, no? I'd love to see examples, even if you don't mention any specific 'partners and backers'
The comparisons with Lisk ICO are inevitable, but I'm not sure this will even get close to the values there...
1. Why create a new token/blockchain? OpenLedger for example already has fiat integration and the possibility to create assets. There are other coins that also offer colored coins functionality. Why not add your dev team to an existing team and make something already working even better?
2. Why not just continue to use NXT? What is wrong with NXT that prevents you to add fiat tokens and reputation systems to it.
3. The Dev team gets all the money from the ICO, plus 9M tokens? You're essentially being paid twice. There is no coin burning... You have to agree that from a certain point-of-view this looks like a money grab and a get-rich-quick plan. If the devs want to profit further from their work, why don't they buy the tokens they want themselves, with what they're being paid from the ICO? I'm sure we're not talking about modest salaries here. I wouldn't be making this point - a cut being reserved for devs - if there was no ICO.
4. There are plenty of bots around to make money on exchanges, market-making etc. Why don't you put some of those to work with a part of the ICO fund to support the 'post-ICO bounties', instead of reserving 1M?
5. '4 million tokens are reserved for strategical partners and backers' - could this be more transparent? 'partners and backers' would usually buy their way in, no? I'd love to see examples, even if you don't mention any specific 'partners and backers'
The comparisons with Lisk ICO are inevitable, but I'm not sure this will even get close to the values there...
1. As far as I know, OpenLedger is based on the BitShares's "market peg" idea. BitShares differs from WAVES in two fundamental ways. First, its consensus algorithm is DPoS, meaning that only a given number of "delegates" have the power to validate blockchain transactions, as opposed to the PoS consensus where each full node is accredited for validation. This means that the WAVES platform supports full decentralization whereas BitShares team is not taking a step out of their "delegated" version. The second difference is the feasibility of the "market peg" approach. This is of course open to discussion, but one may objectively evaluate the success of that approach by looking at the history of their most praised market pegged crypto-asset, namely, BitUSD. I doubt if any big corporation in the future will ever decide to rely on the idea "if everyone thinks something is worth 1 USD, then that thing is forced to be worth 1 USD." Corporations demand guarantee, and that guarantee may only be given with a fully reserved crypto-fiat, which is the case for CoinoUSD of Nxt, for example, whose success is indubitable. Now the WAVES platform goes even further from where Nxt leaves us.
Thus, it is because of what makes the WAVES team unique, that is, because of our vision (I'm not a part of the dev team but I fully share their vision) that no other crypto-platform initiative could comply the possibilities that our platform will provide. I believe that the principal of these possibilities is asset-to-asset trading. I myself posted about this in many forums, asking why there is no such feature. The general reaction was that this is a bad idea because it goes against the nature of the blockchain technology. In their view, allowing "crypto-fiat to crypto-asset" transactions would destroy the use of the underlying coin on which the entire system is based. For instance, if people are able to buy a crypto-share of a crowdfunding project without being obliged to buy BTC, that would reduce the demand for and liquidity of BTC. But that is the cost of unleashing the power of the blockchain technology. Restricting the network would do no good for the ecosystem. Conversely, even though our approach will create a less demand for the underlying Waves-coin, it will make the mass adoption possible, and it will enhance the use of the blockchain technology.
2. The discrepancy in the visions of the crypto-initiative teams, as I said, is the main cause of why the WAVES team cannot work for improving an existing system. This goes same for the Nxt as well. You may read Nxt Forums; there are tons of discussions about which way to take. As the Nxters are insistent on their approach, the WAVES team has been obliged to draw their own way.
I will leave the other questions for someone who knows more than me.
>>- First ICO day bonus. Users who buy WAVES tokens on April,12 receive a bonus of 20%
Is this coming from the pool of 1m set aside for early supporters or from the 85m itself?
Is this coming from the pool of 1m set aside for early supporters or from the 85m itself?
I would like to know this also
Hey,
1. Why create a new token/blockchain? OpenLedger for example already has fiat integration and the possibility to create assets. There are other coins that also offer colored coins functionality. Why not add your dev team to an existing team and make something already working even better?
2. Why not just continue to use NXT? What is wrong with NXT that prevents you to add fiat tokens and reputation systems to it.
3. The Dev team gets all the money from the ICO, plus 9M tokens? You're essentially being paid twice. There is no coin burning... You have to agree that from a certain point-of-view this looks like a money grab and a get-rich-quick plan. If the devs want to profit further from their work, why don't they buy the tokens they want themselves, with what they're being paid from the ICO? I'm sure we're not talking about modest salaries here. I wouldn't be making this point - a cut being reserved for devs - if there was no ICO.
4. There are plenty of bots around to make money on exchanges, market-making etc. Why don't you put some of those to work with a part of the ICO fund to support the 'post-ICO bounties', instead of reserving 1M?
5. '4 million tokens are reserved for strategical partners and backers' - could this be more transparent? 'partners and backers' would usually buy their way in, no? I'd love to see examples, even if you don't mention any specific 'partners and backers'
The comparisons with Lisk ICO are inevitable, but I'm not sure this will even get close to the values there...
Interesting perspective. Curious to see the dev responses. 1. Why create a new token/blockchain? OpenLedger for example already has fiat integration and the possibility to create assets. There are other coins that also offer colored coins functionality. Why not add your dev team to an existing team and make something already working even better?
2. Why not just continue to use NXT? What is wrong with NXT that prevents you to add fiat tokens and reputation systems to it.
3. The Dev team gets all the money from the ICO, plus 9M tokens? You're essentially being paid twice. There is no coin burning... You have to agree that from a certain point-of-view this looks like a money grab and a get-rich-quick plan. If the devs want to profit further from their work, why don't they buy the tokens they want themselves, with what they're being paid from the ICO? I'm sure we're not talking about modest salaries here. I wouldn't be making this point - a cut being reserved for devs - if there was no ICO.
4. There are plenty of bots around to make money on exchanges, market-making etc. Why don't you put some of those to work with a part of the ICO fund to support the 'post-ICO bounties', instead of reserving 1M?
5. '4 million tokens are reserved for strategical partners and backers' - could this be more transparent? 'partners and backers' would usually buy their way in, no? I'd love to see examples, even if you don't mention any specific 'partners and backers'
The comparisons with Lisk ICO are inevitable, but I'm not sure this will even get close to the values there...
Hey,
1. Why create a new token/blockchain? OpenLedger for example already has fiat integration and the possibility to create assets. There are other coins that also offer colored coins functionality. Why not add your dev team to an existing team and make something already working even better?
2. Why not just continue to use NXT? What is wrong with NXT that prevents you to add fiat tokens and reputation systems to it.
3. The Dev team gets all the money from the ICO, plus 9M tokens? You're essentially being paid twice. There is no coin burning... You have to agree that from a certain point-of-view this looks like a money grab and a get-rich-quick plan. If the devs want to profit further from their work, why don't they buy the tokens they want themselves, with what they're being paid from the ICO? I'm sure we're not talking about modest salaries here. I wouldn't be making this point - a cut being reserved for devs - if there was no ICO.
4. There are plenty of bots around to make money on exchanges, market-making etc. Why don't you put some of those to work with a part of the ICO fund to support the 'post-ICO bounties', instead of reserving 1M?
5. '4 million tokens are reserved for strategical partners and backers' - could this be more transparent? 'partners and backers' would usually buy their way in, no? I'd love to see examples, even if you don't mention any specific 'partners and backers'
The comparisons with Lisk ICO are inevitable, but I'm not sure this will even get close to the values there...
1. Why create a new token/blockchain? OpenLedger for example already has fiat integration and the possibility to create assets. There are other coins that also offer colored coins functionality. Why not add your dev team to an existing team and make something already working even better?
2. Why not just continue to use NXT? What is wrong with NXT that prevents you to add fiat tokens and reputation systems to it.
3. The Dev team gets all the money from the ICO, plus 9M tokens? You're essentially being paid twice. There is no coin burning... You have to agree that from a certain point-of-view this looks like a money grab and a get-rich-quick plan. If the devs want to profit further from their work, why don't they buy the tokens they want themselves, with what they're being paid from the ICO? I'm sure we're not talking about modest salaries here. I wouldn't be making this point - a cut being reserved for devs - if there was no ICO.
4. There are plenty of bots around to make money on exchanges, market-making etc. Why don't you put some of those to work with a part of the ICO fund to support the 'post-ICO bounties', instead of reserving 1M?
5. '4 million tokens are reserved for strategical partners and backers' - could this be more transparent? 'partners and backers' would usually buy their way in, no? I'd love to see examples, even if you don't mention any specific 'partners and backers'
The comparisons with Lisk ICO are inevitable, but I'm not sure this will even get close to the values there...
Very interesting project. Looks like the waves are rolling in. Keeping my eye on this. Good luck!
Lets make it better than LISK 
Let's not compete! As the song says, "together we stand, divided we fall."
On the other hand,
Thumbs up for WAVES!
I think WAVES already began to draw attention of investors towards it before the start of the ICO.All these indicators shows that this project is also going to let it mark in digital world in coming weeks and months.With the passage of time we will see lot of activities by new people in this thread.
Very interesting project. Looks like the waves are rolling in. Keeping my eye on this. Good luck!
Lets make it better than LISK Jump to: