2. Consumer Apps - projects like
Open Money are going to facilitate the integration of crypto into mainstream apps like games, dating apps and all sorts of mainstream software.
They have at least two hen-egg problems which afaics (after skimming their white paper) they have no solution for:
- Users of apps do not have the tokens and won't spend fiat to buy tokens when they can spend fiat directly in apps. Users have no incentive to go to Open Money's playstore.
- Existing blockchain technologies can't scale (or are whale controlled future political clusterfucks that will have a low ceiling of growth due to fighting over the power vacuum) and/or are fraught future securities regulation which could make the tokens illegal to spend.
Open Money may end up needing to collaborate with my project in order to reach their goals. They claim expertise in creating apps.
Why would you collaborate with ICO?I thought all ICO's will face future regulatory issues?...welcome back
Their tokens will be entirely useless in the long-run. It's entirely a speculation token for exchanges, if it doesn't get banned before speculators can cash out. Their token will never be the token that is used by apps. I presume they will pay out their revenue as dividends to token holders?
They can collaborate on my project and spend their raised funds without encumbering the token on my project. That is if they are serious about achieving their objectives. They might however just be the same as every ICO in taking the money and doing some useless shit and then doing another ICO project later. Wash and repeat.
I'm
proposing a decentralized alternative.
I'm not against fundraising as long as it doesn't encumber the token of the decentralized ledger with securities regulation (which I believe will ultimately be a kiss of death for the token). Any way, Open Money is not making a decentralized ledger token for apps. They will accept ETH, BTC, etc.. Their token is just like a share in their company, with some useless hype about the token being useful in the apps.
I'm trying to figure out now how to organize a fundraising
for a corporation that will produce apps for my project, so it would be similar to Open Money's token in that dividends from apps would be paid out as dividends, but I wouldn't be lying to speculators about those shares becoming utility tokens in the app. Also Open Money intends to leech as a parasite on all apps, but the free market will route around their proposed fees. Instead I propose that the corporation would build apps and charge users fees directly, thus the fees can't be eliminated without replacing those apps (which if they have first mover status, are unlikely to be replaced). However, I might be open to the tokens trading on exchanges, if it doesn't get into legal trouble. But unfortunately I think there is no way to issue tokens which can become tradeable on exchanges without the issuers being culpable to future criminal proceedings. Refer to the blog
I cited before in the Filecoin thread:
These are non-trivial continuing compliance obligations which are of fundamental relevance for cryptocurrencies – keeping in mind that a blockchain is traditionally the back-end of a fully automatic system designed to facilitate the instantaneous peer-to-peer transfer of digital property (meaning it’s likely to be classed as “interstate commerce”).
...
If however most of these tokens are investment contracts in the end, we know that due to the impact of the securities laws that registration is more or less the only thing we can do in order to operate a company coin within the bounds of US law. Distributing tokens with the knowledge that a crypto exchange might download the client and allow existing token-holders (to whom the tokens were privately sold) to list and start trading the tokens could see pre-sale purchasers deemed “mere conduits for a wider distribution” and see private offering status lost.
...there is also a non-zero risk that coin offerings will be classed as MLMs of some kind that are
“organized and operated in such a manner that the realization of profit by any participant is predicated upon the exploitation of others who have virtually no chance of receiving a return on their investment and who had been induced to participate by misrepresentations as to potential earnings.”
When the current bubble collapses (and it will), this last point might become more relevant, particularly if n00b bagholders grab their pitchforks and start asking Uncle Sam to get involved so help them get their money back. Which, if these are investment contracts, is a request aforementioned bagholders will be perfectly entitled to make.
If this happens, although the SEC will stay in the loop, the really exciting action will be in the domain of the tort lawyers and federal and state prosecutors working in tandem with the FTC. See, e.g., the recent case of Josh Garza and GAW Miners (which involved fraudulent misrepresentations relating in part to a cryptocurrency called Paycoin). Although in the civil enforcement action the SEC got a $12 million default judgment, the U.S. Attorney got a guilty plea for one good, old-fashioned count of wire fraud. No Securities Act required.
Note that if this interpretation is adopted, some state laws cast a much wider net to penalize participants than Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 does.
It's not only the USA. For example, see
this for the UK.
Potentially a tremendous amount of hurt is coming to these issuers and their promoters (affiliates). And to speculators that get caught when the bubble pops as the authorities crack down. Warnings have been issued but speculators are determined to get their finger tips burned up to their armpits, because they are salivating over the 10X gains from selling bags to greater fools. Wise investors will avoid this and transition their crypto investments to legally structured investments. And to projects which aren't just useless hype. Because when the bubble collapses, those projects which are genuinely building market share are the ones which do not go to zero.
We're at a fork in the road. Choose wisely whether you want to heed recent warnings by the authorities or not.
Purchases made with the OPEN Token will receive
a premium value compared to other digital currencies
Users will never use their token, regardless of the discounts offered for using it. They know this, and this leads me to believe they are scammers, because they damn well know they are lying. They are creating some useless hype, which can not possibly come to fruition.
Only users who already hold tokens will spend them, and all the token holders of any cryptocurrency are speculators who have no interest whatsoever in playing games and apps.
The problem of mainstreaming cryptocurrency is about distribution. We need to get the tokens into the hands of the masses without asking them to buy the tokens. That is the major challenge. That is what I am working on. Once we have a million users with tokens, then the apps will come. Building app infrastructure without onboarding users, is not going to produce any result other than to have an app infrastructure ready for which every project accomplishes the onboarding.
Also the type of apps created is very important. The apps need to have some unique feature which can only be accomplished on a decentralized ledger, so that the apps aren't duplicated by non-decentralized ledger apps on more popular mainstream playstores.
I have put a lot of effort into designing all of this. I have very detailed private documents.
Btw, has anyone even vetted the claims of Open Money's devs about their past accomplishments? Are they hyping some useless shit they produced in the past? I haven't vetted it, so I am skeptical.
