One thing that was really good for bitcoin (for a while) was bitcoin-denominated stocks. ASICMiner was around since 2011 and had great returns for a while. If you wanted a seat on its board, you needed 5000 BTC. If you wanted to buy shares of it, you needed BTC. Dividends were paid in BTC and were often reinvested. All that BTC stayed BTC and was taken out of supply for extended periods of time, even as those shares were traded back and forth between people.
An XMR-denominated equity that delivers returns based in XMR would be 1000x better than Bitpay-type activity.
Topic: [XMR] Monero Speculation - page 1920. (Read 3313485 times)
...
There is still a minimum amount of time needed for holding XBT, XMR etc even if it is used as a bridge. It is this minimum hold time that in the end gives value to the currency. By the way the same is true for government / central bank fiat currency (where holding for an extended period of time has significant cost), or even commodity money such as precious metals.
That amount of time is infinitesimal with good software. These transactions in and out of bitcoin can be accomplished in fractions of a second.
Precious metals have great holding appeal. People just dump money into them and let them sit, even while paying large sums of money to guard them.
I think games are one good way to lock up a cryptocurrency and take it out of supply. Much better than merchant activity.
We should think of other mechanisms that require longer-term holding instead of holding for fractions of one second. That's really my point. I'm not praising DASH.
EDIT: the unbanked want to be banked. They just don't want inconvenient or corrupt negative interest banking or banking with fake exchange rates (as in Argentina). They are not cryptoanarchists who want to hold bitcoin.
There is a minimum cost associated with banking that makes it simply uneconomical for both the bank and the customer when the customer is poor. The only way to get rid of cash or crypto-currency is to get rid of poverty.
...
There is still a minimum amount of time needed for holding XBT, XMR etc even if it is used as a bridge. It is this minimum hold time that in the end gives value to the currency. By the way the same is true for government / central bank fiat currency (where holding for an extended period of time has significant cost), or even commodity money such as precious metals.
That amount of time is infinitesimal with good software. These transactions in and out of bitcoin can be accomplished in fractions of a second.
Precious metals have great holding appeal. People just dump money into them and let them sit, even while paying large sums of money to guard them.
I think games are one good way to lock up a cryptocurrency and take it out of supply. Much better than merchant activity.
We should think of other mechanisms that require longer-term holding instead of holding for fractions of one second. That's really my point. I'm not praising DASH.
EDIT: the unbanked want to be banked. They just don't want inconvenient banking or corrupt, negative interest rate banking or banking with fake exchange rates (as in Argentina). They are not cryptoanarchists who want to hold bitcoin.
...
There is still a minimum amount of time needed for holding XBT, XMR etc even if it is used as a bridge. It is this minimum hold time that in the end gives value to the currency. By the way the same is true for government / central bank fiat currency (where holding for an extended period of time has significant cost), or even commodity money such as precious metals.
Edit: The unbanked are very likely to hold pure XBT, XMR etc., for the very same reason that they hold cash, otherwise they will become banked.
^^ interesting post (Jehsts post - didn't feel like quoting textblock).
It seems though you're defining "successful" as market valuation, as in if the price of each coin goes up, then that means that the coin is succesful. Again, its treating the currency like a stock. Which seems to be what this particular thread is about, so that makes sense.
But yes, I think generally the sentiment that a currency that has incentives to hold does go up in value simply because people aren't incentivized to sell.
But a coin can be successful and still not be worth 1 bajillion per coin. If I can go to the grocery store and pay for my groceries using my Monero Card, I think thats pretty successful as a currency. If I can do so and not have my neighbor go "hey, Ginger, what'd you think of that grocery store?" because for whatever reson my neighbor watches the blockchain, I'd say thats pretty successful.
It seems though you're defining "successful" as market valuation, as in if the price of each coin goes up, then that means that the coin is succesful. Again, its treating the currency like a stock. Which seems to be what this particular thread is about, so that makes sense.
But yes, I think generally the sentiment that a currency that has incentives to hold does go up in value simply because people aren't incentivized to sell.
But a coin can be successful and still not be worth 1 bajillion per coin. If I can go to the grocery store and pay for my groceries using my Monero Card, I think thats pretty successful as a currency. If I can do so and not have my neighbor go "hey, Ginger, what'd you think of that grocery store?" because for whatever reson my neighbor watches the blockchain, I'd say thats pretty successful.
Yes, I'm defining success as a high market valuation because that means that the coin is in demand. Everything else is sentimental.
Quote
existing bitcoin merchant adoption is nothing. When a cryptocurrency becomes the equivalent of visa / mastercard in the public mind, thats when merchant adoption has been reached. When the little VeriSign / VeriFone / whatever its called / terminal has a bitcoin / monero logo on it, thats when merchant adoption has occurred.
Even if this happens, it's still not very significant. First, customers don't have a huge reason to use bitcoin to purchase Coca Cola at the grocery store. Second, even if many people used bitcoin to make daily purchases, the velocity of bitcoin is extremely high. All these merchants constantly sell their bitcoin back to people who are going to use bitcoin to buy products. In the aggregate, a very small number of bitcoin can be used to facilitate a huge volume of transactions. I'm a firm believer that merchant adoption as a driver of crypto growth is a lie. Because no one is holding.
Quote
IMO, what you want to look for to see the future of cryptocurrencies is somewhere on the other end of the spectrum. The story posted about argentina is where its at. One of my favorite lines from that article was "Bitcoin was invented where its needed the least".
Due to this fact, I think what will springboard any particular cryptocurrency into a leading position, market cap wise, is the ability to run completely and independently on a smart phone. The countries that need cryptocurrencies are the ones that don't have infrastructure, therefore I think mobile platforms are key.
Due to this fact, I think what will springboard any particular cryptocurrency into a leading position, market cap wise, is the ability to run completely and independently on a smart phone. The countries that need cryptocurrencies are the ones that don't have infrastructure, therefore I think mobile platforms are key.
If Argentines or Kenyans start using cryptocurrencies, it'll be in the Bitpay-style. In other words, they'd be using cryptocurrencies only as a bridge. For example, an Argentine will hold his money in the form of bitfinexUSD on bitfinex on his smartphone. Then, when he needs to spend money, he buys the necessary amount of BTC and sends it to the merchant. Then the merchant immediately sells the BTC for krakenEUR or whatever he wants to hold. Don't listen to Andreas. The unbanked are not going to hold pure bitcoin. They will use it to do what they need to do. They are not bitcoin fanatics. Kenyans driving crypto growth is a lie.
Instead, I am beginning to think that the most successful coin will give its users some kind of benefit for HOLDING it. Darkcoin masternodes and Proof-of- stake provide this motivation in a flawed way, but the idea that there should be motivation to hold is sound, and I've come to believe that this is the final key to unlocking viral growth of bitcoin.
Like central banks, Masternodes and other PoS schemes use centrally/locally determined/conjured magic numbers that should be set by the market, not core devs.
It is a category error for the software to (attempt to) explicate, in a vacuum, the appreciation motivation with specific reward values better found by the invisible hand, within the totality of the economy.
And when a coin releases a more profitable coin with a lower cost of entry, will you maintain a dash masternode or move onto that coin? With the reward system set at 1000 masternodes for most profitability this is not an if but a when. I always feel like I'm at work talking to one of those people who can't see past the next five seconds when I'm talking to an xdarkdashian.
^This is motivation to attack other masternodes to keep a sweet spot for profitability (as Fluffy brilliantly pointed out once or twice). The problem with this model isn't that it does it, it's what happens when people notice it and start flocking to a similarly designed coin with better payouts or a less gamed design--it becomes a race to the bottom.
So my simple question to Brilliant Rocket is this, "If another coin is offering a better incentive for operating a masternode and the price starts rising exponentially, will xdarkdashians hold out of loyalty or move to where the most profit is?
And I swear I'm not trying to convince myself to buy crave or other centralizing node junk. I'm just pointing out a very likely scenario.
I do agree that services that reward people for holding are a good idea, I just don't think we should be using flawed models as inspiration.
^^ interesting post (Jehsts post - didn't feel like quoting textblock).
It seems though you're defining "successful" as market valuation, as in if the price of each coin goes up, then that means that the coin is succesful. Again, its treating the currency like a stock. Which seems to be what this particular thread is about, so that makes sense.
But yes, I think generally the sentiment that a currency that has incentives to hold does go up in value simply because people aren't incentivized to sell.
But a coin can be successful and still not be worth 1 bajillion per coin. If I can go to the grocery store and pay for my groceries using my Monero Card, I think thats pretty successful as a currency. If I can do so and not have my neighbor go "hey, Ginger, what'd you think of that grocery store?" because for whatever reson my neighbor watches the blockchain, I'd say thats pretty successful.
existing bitcoin merchant adoption is nothing. When a cryptocurrency becomes the equivalent of visa / mastercard in the public mind, thats when merchant adoption has been reached. When the little VeriSign / VeriFone / whatever its called / terminal has a bitcoin / monero logo on it, thats when merchant adoption has occurred.
What we're seeing now isn't "adoption" in as much as its some companies realizing they can make a quick buck by being some of the first to accept bitcoin. I come to this conclusion due to the following hypothesis: the bitcoiners that have the amount of bitcoins to "waste" at current valuation levels are the ones with boatloads of bitcoin (I'm assuming). Those buying at current prices are hoping their value will go up - they aren't spending. Therefore, these early merchant adopters are essentially, as one monerian put it, prying them out of your hands in order to extract value. This is, of course, evident by the fact that they immediately convert to fiat.
IMO, what you want to look for to see the future of cryptocurrencies is somewhere on the other end of the spectrum. The story posted about argentina is where its at. One of my favorite lines from that article was "Bitcoin was invented where its needed the least".
Due to this fact, I think what will springboard any particular cryptocurrency into a leading position, market cap wise, is the ability to run completely and independently on a smart phone. The countries that need cryptocurrencies are the ones that don't have infrastructure, therefore I think mobile platforms are key. Now, how we can apply this to monero is unknown. Perhaps the whole tippero side-chain concept can be worked such that the chain remains tiny by resetting every 24 hours, with the assumption being that someone in the network will have the ability to sync to the master chain.
Hrm, yes... perhaps that is doing - local micro chains can just pop in and out of existence , and the master chain can record somewhere whether a particular micro chain has been settled.... interesting....
It seems though you're defining "successful" as market valuation, as in if the price of each coin goes up, then that means that the coin is succesful. Again, its treating the currency like a stock. Which seems to be what this particular thread is about, so that makes sense.
But yes, I think generally the sentiment that a currency that has incentives to hold does go up in value simply because people aren't incentivized to sell.
But a coin can be successful and still not be worth 1 bajillion per coin. If I can go to the grocery store and pay for my groceries using my Monero Card, I think thats pretty successful as a currency. If I can do so and not have my neighbor go "hey, Ginger, what'd you think of that grocery store?" because for whatever reson my neighbor watches the blockchain, I'd say thats pretty successful.
existing bitcoin merchant adoption is nothing. When a cryptocurrency becomes the equivalent of visa / mastercard in the public mind, thats when merchant adoption has been reached. When the little VeriSign / VeriFone / whatever its called / terminal has a bitcoin / monero logo on it, thats when merchant adoption has occurred.
What we're seeing now isn't "adoption" in as much as its some companies realizing they can make a quick buck by being some of the first to accept bitcoin. I come to this conclusion due to the following hypothesis: the bitcoiners that have the amount of bitcoins to "waste" at current valuation levels are the ones with boatloads of bitcoin (I'm assuming). Those buying at current prices are hoping their value will go up - they aren't spending. Therefore, these early merchant adopters are essentially, as one monerian put it, prying them out of your hands in order to extract value. This is, of course, evident by the fact that they immediately convert to fiat.
IMO, what you want to look for to see the future of cryptocurrencies is somewhere on the other end of the spectrum. The story posted about argentina is where its at. One of my favorite lines from that article was "Bitcoin was invented where its needed the least".
Due to this fact, I think what will springboard any particular cryptocurrency into a leading position, market cap wise, is the ability to run completely and independently on a smart phone. The countries that need cryptocurrencies are the ones that don't have infrastructure, therefore I think mobile platforms are key. Now, how we can apply this to monero is unknown. Perhaps the whole tippero side-chain concept can be worked such that the chain remains tiny by resetting every 24 hours, with the assumption being that someone in the network will have the ability to sync to the master chain.
Hrm, yes... perhaps that is doing - local micro chains can just pop in and out of existence , and the master chain can record somewhere whether a particular micro chain has been settled.... interesting....
...
Not sure I understand. You mean something over and above the massive exponential value increase? It will happen, or the project fails.
Not sure I understand. You mean something over and above the massive exponential value increase? It will happen, or the project fails.
I agree the massive exponential value increase will be the dominant factor if one is right about a coin and conversely the massive exponential value decrease will be the dominant factor if one is wrong about a coin. Staking in its various forms, and I consider DASH masternodes a form of staking, will have a minimal impact on the overall returns in both cases.
Take a look a the overall returns of any POS coin, and ask the following question: Are the returns dominated by capital appreciation (or depreciation) or staking?
Edit: Since a fair number of people seem obsessed with DASH I will use it and an example. If one bought DASH at 0.0274 an sold at 0.0022 what percentage of the loss would have been offset by masternode rewards or conversely if one bought at 0.0022 and sold at 0.0254 what percentage of the gain would be due to masternode rewards? Seriously do the math.
Instead, I am beginning to think that the most successful coin will give its users some kind of benefit for HOLDING it. Darkcoin masternodes and Proof-of- stake provide this motivation in a flawed way, but the idea that there should be motivation to hold is sound, and I've come to believe that this is the final key to unlocking viral growth of bitcoin.
Like central banks, Masternodes and other PoS schemes use centrally/locally determined/conjured magic numbers that should be set by the market, not core devs.
It is a category error for the software to (attempt to) explicate, in a vacuum, the appreciation motivation with specific reward values better found by the invisible hand, within the totality of the economy.
I agree that the software should not attempt to do it at the protocol level. But it can be done semi-externally. As I said, Crypto-Kingdom is already achieving it.
Instead, I am beginning to think that the most successful coin will give its users some kind of benefit for HOLDING it. Darkcoin masternodes and Proof-of- stake provide this motivation in a flawed way, but the idea that there should be motivation to hold is sound, and I've come to believe that this is the final key to unlocking viral growth of bitcoin.
Like central banks, Masternodes and other PoS schemes use centrally/locally determined/conjured magic numbers that should be set by the market, not core devs.
It is a category error for the software to (attempt to) explicate, in a vacuum, the appreciation motivation with specific reward values better found by the invisible hand, within the totality of the economy.
Instead, I am beginning to think that the most successful coin will give its users some kind of benefit for HOLDING it. Darkcoin masternodes and Proof-of- stake provide this motivation in a flawed way, but the idea that there should be motivation to hold is sound, and I've come to believe that this is the final key to unlocking viral growth of bitcoin.
Like central banks, Masternodes and other PoS schemes use centrally/locally determined/conjured magic numbers that should be set by the market, not core devs.
It is a category error for the software to (attempt to) explicate, in a vacuum, the appreciation motivation with specific reward values better found by the invisible hand, within the totality of the economy.
Few observations.
Bitcoin has maintained a sustained downtrend despite:
- Good attributes
Bitcoin is probably the most perfect form of money. It's extremely divisible, eminently transferable, and vanishingly scarce. Its cost of storage is zero. It's indestructible.
People are investing in an eyeglasses retailer called Warby Parker (started in 2010) at a 1.2 billion dollar valuation.
http://time.com/3842342/warby-parker-valuation/
Having superior attributes is good but does little to spark growth.
- Merchant "adoption"
Bitcoin has many big-name merchants participating in so-called merchant adoption. Merchants accept USD and Bitpay sells bitcoin. It also has a significant number of black market merchants using it. All of them endeavor to hold bitcoin for the least amount of time possible. We shouldn't be surprised that this isn't propping up the price.
-Vastly improved accessibility
People around the world can buy bitcoin quite easily these days. There are ways to buy bitcoin at any 7/11 in some countries.
Counterparty has not recovered from its sustained downtrend despite:
- ZERO inflation.
Therefore, the following arguments regarding XMR:
1) adoption is lacking!
2) inflation is killing the coin!
3) the superiority of the coin's attributes will speak for themselves eventually!
4) XMR isn't accessible enough!
are beginning to appeal to me less and less.
Instead, I am beginning to think that the most successful coin will give its users some kind of benefit for HOLDING it. Both Darkcoin masternodes, BitShares "yield" for bitassets, and Proof-of- stake (in general) provide this motivation in arguably flawed ways, but the idea that there should be motivation to hold is sound, and I've come to believe that this is the final key to unlocking viral growth of bitcoin.
With regards to XMR, Crypto-Kingdom is currently the only thing that's proving that motivation.
Bitcoin has maintained a sustained downtrend despite:
- Good attributes
Bitcoin is probably the most perfect form of money. It's extremely divisible, eminently transferable, and vanishingly scarce. Its cost of storage is zero. It's indestructible.
People are investing in an eyeglasses retailer called Warby Parker (started in 2010) at a 1.2 billion dollar valuation.
http://time.com/3842342/warby-parker-valuation/
Having superior attributes is good but does little to spark growth.
- Merchant "adoption"
Bitcoin has many big-name merchants participating in so-called merchant adoption. Merchants accept USD and Bitpay sells bitcoin. It also has a significant number of black market merchants using it. All of them endeavor to hold bitcoin for the least amount of time possible. We shouldn't be surprised that this isn't propping up the price.
-Vastly improved accessibility
People around the world can buy bitcoin quite easily these days. There are ways to buy bitcoin at any 7/11 in some countries.
Counterparty has not recovered from its sustained downtrend despite:
- ZERO inflation.
Therefore, the following arguments regarding XMR:
1) adoption is lacking!
2) inflation is killing the coin!
3) the superiority of the coin's attributes will speak for themselves eventually!
4) XMR isn't accessible enough!
are beginning to appeal to me less and less.
Instead, I am beginning to think that the most successful coin will give its users some kind of benefit for HOLDING it. Both Darkcoin masternodes, BitShares "yield" for bitassets, and Proof-of- stake (in general) provide this motivation in arguably flawed ways, but the idea that there should be motivation to hold is sound, and I've come to believe that this is the final key to unlocking viral growth of bitcoin.
With regards to XMR, Crypto-Kingdom is currently the only thing that's proving that motivation.
Not sure I understand. You mean something over and above the massive exponential value increase? It will happen, or the project fails.
Few observations.
Bitcoin has maintained a sustained downtrend despite:
- Good attributes
Bitcoin is probably the most perfect form of money. It's extremely divisible, eminently transferable, and vanishingly scarce. Its cost of storage is zero. It's indestructible.
People are investing in an eyeglasses retailer called Warby Parker (started in 2010) at a 1.2 billion dollar valuation.
http://time.com/3842342/warby-parker-valuation/
Having superior attributes is good but does little to spark growth.
- Merchant "adoption"
Bitcoin has many big-name merchants participating in so-called merchant adoption. Merchants accept USD and Bitpay sells bitcoin. It also has a significant number of black market merchants using it. All of them endeavor to hold bitcoin for the least amount of time possible. We shouldn't be surprised that this isn't propping up the price.
-Vastly improved accessibility
People around the world can buy bitcoin quite easily these days. There are ways to buy bitcoin at any 7/11 in some countries.
Counterparty has not recovered from its sustained downtrend despite:
- ZERO inflation.
Therefore, the following arguments regarding XMR:
1) adoption is lacking!
2) inflation is killing the coin!
3) the superiority of the coin's attributes will speak for themselves eventually!
4) XMR isn't accessible enough!
are beginning to appeal to me less and less.
Instead, I am beginning to think that the most successful coin will give its users some kind of benefit for HOLDING it. Both Darkcoin masternodes, BitShares "yield" for bitassets, and Proof-of- stake (in general) provide this motivation in arguably flawed ways, but the idea that there should be motivation to hold is sound, and I've come to believe that this is the final key to unlocking viral growth of bitcoin.
With regards to XMR, Crypto-Kingdom is currently the only thing that's proving that motivation.
Bitcoin has maintained a sustained downtrend despite:
- Good attributes
Bitcoin is probably the most perfect form of money. It's extremely divisible, eminently transferable, and vanishingly scarce. Its cost of storage is zero. It's indestructible.
People are investing in an eyeglasses retailer called Warby Parker (started in 2010) at a 1.2 billion dollar valuation.
http://time.com/3842342/warby-parker-valuation/
Having superior attributes is good but does little to spark growth.
- Merchant "adoption"
Bitcoin has many big-name merchants participating in so-called merchant adoption. Merchants accept USD and Bitpay sells bitcoin. It also has a significant number of black market merchants using it. All of them endeavor to hold bitcoin for the least amount of time possible. We shouldn't be surprised that this isn't propping up the price.
-Vastly improved accessibility
People around the world can buy bitcoin quite easily these days. There are ways to buy bitcoin at any 7/11 in some countries.
Counterparty has not recovered from its sustained downtrend despite:
- ZERO inflation.
Therefore, the following arguments regarding XMR:
1) adoption is lacking!
2) inflation is killing the coin!
3) the superiority of the coin's attributes will speak for themselves eventually!
4) XMR isn't accessible enough!
are beginning to appeal to me less and less.
Instead, I am beginning to think that the most successful coin will give its users some kind of benefit for HOLDING it. Both Darkcoin masternodes, BitShares "yield" for bitassets, and Proof-of- stake (in general) provide this motivation in arguably flawed ways, but the idea that there should be motivation to hold is sound, and I've come to believe that this is the final key to unlocking viral growth of bitcoin.
With regards to XMR, Crypto-Kingdom is currently the only thing that's proving that motivation.
Take it for what you will, I have an order for 42 BTC at .00165BTC/XMR.
who the hell are you people with this kind of money to play with in cryptoworkd? Blows my mind the $$ that gets thrown around here.
There are those of us who bought XBT when it was between 2 USD and 10 USD and have realized and unrealized profits that can be used to purchase XMR.
Edit: With this also comes the experience of not selling to early, not trying to sell low in order to buy lower, and learning to have some patience.
forget my comment about making a couple of good calls. at $2 bitcoin you only have to make one good call.
True, but this is with the benefit of hindsight. Let us keep in mind that at the time XBT was 2 - 10 USD. XBT had all ready seen very significant gains. For example. I had an interesting debate on the price of XBT in terms of USD in January 2010, with rpietila. I claimed the price of 1 XBT at the time was around 0.00006 USD while he claimed that 0.005 USD was more realistic. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6269213.
The real question here is: Will XMR at 0.5 USD be considered a "good call"?
Take it for what you will, I have an order for 42 BTC at .00165BTC/XMR.
who the hell are you people with this kind of money to play with in cryptoworkd? Blows my mind the $$ that gets thrown around here.
There are those of us who bought XBT when it was between 2 USD and 10 USD and have realized and unrealized profits that can be used to purchase XMR.
Edit: With this also comes the experience of not selling to early, not trying to sell low in order to buy lower, and learning to have some patience.
forget my comment about making a couple of good calls. at $2 bitcoin you only have to make one good call.
I'm under the assumption we ain't seen nothing yet. 42 btc might look like a lot of money now, though on a global scale it's the tiniest drop. Note that xmr doesn't have to live up to its full promise to be incredibly profitable when bought at 0.00165. It has only just begun.
If only the tiniest percentage of people believe in the tiniest chance for monero to be able to fly we're gonna be well over 10$ a coin. That actually makes al the selling and shorting remarks at these levels quite amusing actually.
If only the tiniest percentage of people believe in the tiniest chance for monero to be able to fly we're gonna be well over 10$ a coin. That actually makes al the selling and shorting remarks at these levels quite amusing actually.
For sure. A successful and widely used cryptocurrency will likely have a capitalization in the trillions. That's a million USD or so per coin for coins with millions-of-coin supplies like BTC or XMR (technically XMR has unlimited supply but it will be in the millions for 100+ years so still trillions.
You only have to believe something has a 1/100000 chance to reach a million USD for it to be worth 10 USD.
This also indicates the silliness of any cryptocurrency that claims to be in the lead on the basis of current market caps (ignoring the liquidity and manipulation factors). That's like being one inch ahead of the starting line in a marathon.
This also raises the question of XMR as part of a portfolio. For example a a portfolio that consists of just XMR and USD could very easily outperform many "conventional" investments in term of risk to reward. The ratio between the two currencies would be determined by the risk tolerance of the investor.
I'm under the assumption we ain't seen nothing yet. 42 btc might look like a lot of money now, though on a global scale it's the tiniest drop. Note that xmr doesn't have to live up to its full promise to be incredibly profitable when bought at 0.00165. It has only just begun.
If only the tiniest percentage of people believe in the tiniest chance for monero to be able to fly we're gonna be well over 10$ a coin. That actually makes al the selling and shorting remarks at these levels quite amusing actually.
If only the tiniest percentage of people believe in the tiniest chance for monero to be able to fly we're gonna be well over 10$ a coin. That actually makes al the selling and shorting remarks at these levels quite amusing actually.
For sure. A successful and widely used cryptocurrency will likely have a capitalization in the trillions. That's a million USD or so per coin for coins with millions-of-coin supplies like BTC or XMR (technically XMR has unlimited supply but it will be in the millions for 100+ years so still trillions is about a million per coin in practice).
You only have to believe something has a 1/100000 chance to reach a million USD for it to be worth 10 USD.
This also indicates the silliness of any cryptocurrency that claims to be in the lead on the basis of current market caps (ignoring the liquidity and manipulation factors). That's like being one inch ahead of the starting line in a marathon.
Take it for what you will, I have an order for 42 BTC at .00165BTC/XMR.
who the hell are you people with this kind of money to play with in cryptoworkd? Blows my mind the $$ that gets thrown around here.
There are those of us who bought XBT when it was between 2 USD and 10 USD and have realized and unrealized profits that can be used to purchase XMR.
Edit: With this also comes the experience of not selling to early, not trying to sell low in order to buy lower, and learning to have some patience.
I'm under the assumption we ain't seen nothing yet. 42 btc might look like a lot of money now, though on a global scale it's the tiniest drop. Note that xmr doesn't have to live up to its full promise to be incredibly profitable when bought at 0.00165. It has only just begun.
If only the tiniest percentage of people believe in the tiniest chance for monero to be able to fly we're gonna be well over 10$ a coin. That actually makes al the selling and shorting remarks at these levels quite amusing actually.
If only the tiniest percentage of people believe in the tiniest chance for monero to be able to fly we're gonna be well over 10$ a coin. That actually makes al the selling and shorting remarks at these levels quite amusing actually.
What is an ocean, but a multitude of drops?
Welcome to the Age of Aquarius, my friend
I'm under the assumption we ain't seen nothing yet. 42 btc might look like a lot of money now, though on a global scale it's the tiniest drop. Note that xmr doesn't have to live up to its full promise to be incredibly profitable when bought at 0.00165. It has only just begun.
If only the tiniest percentage of people believe in the tiniest chance for monero to be able to fly we're gonna be well over 10$ a coin. That actually makes al the selling and shorting remarks at these levels quite amusing actually.
If only the tiniest percentage of people believe in the tiniest chance for monero to be able to fly we're gonna be well over 10$ a coin. That actually makes al the selling and shorting remarks at these levels quite amusing actually.
Jump to: