Alt Coin Thread (Vertcoin, OMG, CVC, PAY etc).

Dohnjoe

hmmm wrote: »

Total bollox.

You are being taken for a ride.

If Microsoft issued a digital token to raise funds tomorrow (which had voting rights, dividend payments) .. according to your logic it would be worthless, a magic bean.. correct?

Do you think the market would think it was worthless?

Do you think institutional investors would think it was worthless?

Dades

kaymin wrote: »

Also, I doubt advertisers would be willing to pay much to an individual for seeing an ad. How much does a google ad cost per search result? Pennies at best i'd expect.

The average cost per click for a Google AdWords search is between $1 and $2. The price to appear on the front page can go to 1,000s, depending on your product/service/location. Google owns the market and bleeds it's customers accordingly.

BAT is one of the only tokens I bought into as they at least have a dream, rather than a mouthy voice on Twitter.

As for most every other coin? They'll only have a "value" as long as enough people swap them around thinking they can sell 'em for more than they bought them. I subscribe to the idea that a day of reckoning will come and nearly everyone will lose their shirt.

EagererBeaver

grindle wrote: »

]

Try not to be so obnoxious.
Fine. You own nothing more than a crypto hash. Now somebody who's using the product wants to buy that off of you. What happens? Liquidity. Price. Supply. Demand.
.

But this is back to the point from earlier surely - you're entirely dependent on someone wanting to buy it from you for a profit.

kaymin

grindle wrote: »

You both haven't kept a track of what's been happening at all. So much nonsense.
ICOs are quickly replacing VC funding and IPOs for new tech or fintech ventures - actual businesses are running in the backgrounds of these coins providing value, utility which a customer may want and thus the price rises as the utility is proven as a necessity for it's users.
The value for the dev team is through a percentage of the tokens usually kept locked up for periods of time and/or fees per token use.


Most companies (projects, rather) aren't fully set up yet as this was the year of the ICO boom, everything is a beta product mostly being crowdfunded, some haven't even had their ICO yet but have Ivy League devs and Peter Thiel backing them so quality is presumed if not outright guaranteed:

BAT
SUB
DICE
BNTY
OMG
SALT
XRL
RLC
REQ
ARDR
IOTA
FUN
BNB
GEMS
NMR (please nobody buy this, the token has a great use for the hedge fund's aims, zero reason for speculative investment right now - it's designed to let data scientists dump their coins when the competition ends)

There are many more that have utility and will rise though use, these are just a few. Again, most coins crap, some good.
You need to get past the idea of shareholding, not every coin has dividend sharing, you have to take into account the liquidity of the token and the use of it.
How you decide to value any of those lies in your perception of what kind of disruptive effect they could have in their respective industries, but you're more than a bit biased towards the traditional corporate status quo and don't seem to understand that utility provided is a value in itself.

Grindle - you listed BAT (as above) in response to my post:

There's no fundamental difference between the two but which crypto currencies are backed up by actual cash flow / profit generating businesses?

kaymin

Dades wrote: »

The average cost per click for a Google AdWords search is between $1 and $2. The price to appear on the front page can go to 1,000s, depending on your product/service/location. Google owns the market and bleeds it's customers accordingly.

BAT is one of the only tokens I bought into as they at least have a dream, rather than a mouthy voice on Twitter.

As for most every other coin? They'll only have a "value" as long as enough people swap them around thinking they can sell 'em for more than they bought them. I subscribe to the idea that a day of reckoning will come and nearly everyone will lose their shirt.

I'm somewhat mystified how BAT will get Google or any of the other big tech companies to play ball? What would force Google to allow middlemen such as BAT or even the masses take a share of its revenue?

Dades

kaymin wrote: »

What would force Google to allow middlemen such as BAT or even the masses take a share of its revenue?

Maybe people voting with their feet. Maybe nothing.

I dislike Google's virtual monopoly on search and how businesses are forced to spend a fortune, because Google's "organic" search is as organic as a Big Mac meal in a styrofoam box.

BATs may come to nothing. They'll be in good company if they do, alongside 99% of their token buddies. :pac:

grindle

EagererBeaver wrote: »

But this is back to the point from earlier surely - you're entirely dependent on someone wanting to buy it from you for a profit.

Yeah - you're speculating that someone will have utility for a token at whatever price you hope to exit at.
This seems to be regarded as the Ponzi element, as if selling and asset to another person isn't just a norm of trading.
If somebody doesn't have a utility for the token at that price, you have to sell lower. This is how all cryptos should work.

When you sell BTC for profit you take & make money but the other person gains their place on the most secure network of money yet built. Once use increases the volatility will calm and you'll see the network used as a vast trustless, borderless, permissionless bank.

When you sell ETH for profit you're selling the fuel to perform and execute code on the world's Virtual Machine. Whether or not you make profit from that - if it gains widespread adoption it's likely you're selling it to somebody who had a need to use ETH for it's utility.

If you buy some scamcoin yeah, you'll get burnt.

Dohnjoe

kaymin wrote: »

But this is incorrect - the one example provided to my request for a crypto that is backed by a cash / profit generating business was the BAT. But it turns out the BAT isn't a share in the business at all. It doesn't seem like many people around here know what they're investing in.

I didn't give that example and I pointed out that it acts similar to equities

There are many different types of financial instruments; warrants, bonds, options, futures, etc, etc. A fixed supply crypto token (the example I provided was VeChain) representing an investment in a profit-maximising business that provides a dividend and voting rights is new type of digital financial asset

Of course, most of these things are brand spanking new and once regulations, classifications, technicalities etc are figured out about them (which will take a long time) then it's highly likely we'll see them invested in and traded alongside more traditional fin. instruments

There are already trackers for Bitcoin and Ethereum, you can go to your broker and officially buy them, they have ISIN codes, are listed and held with CSDs

Again, I am talking about a specific class of crypto asset. Not Putincoin or whatever.

grindle

kaymin wrote: »

I'm somewhat mystified how BAT will get Google or any of the other big tech companies to play ball? What would force Google to allow middlemen such as BAT or even the masses take a share of its revenue?

How does Google stop them?
Ad blockers exist. This either has the ads or replaces the ads whilst still handing money to sites.

kaymin

grindle wrote: »

How does Google stop them?
Ad blockers exist. This either has the ads or replaces the ads whilst still handing money to sites.

If I use Google to do a search the sponsored links show up first in the results. Are you saying BAT or someone else will block these sponsored links?

Dohnjoe

hmmm wrote: »

Shareholders own Coca Cola. This is business 101. You buy a share, you own part of the company - the value of the company is the total shareholders equity, divided by the number of shares issued and whatever speculative element the market decides to attach based on potential future profitability.

You're missing the point being made here or maybe I am not explaining it clearly enough. We know the textbook definition of what a share is. Technically, on paper you "own" a part of the company. However in reality (unless you are a major holder) it's obviously not literal

You effectively own a set number of limited rights or entitlements in relation to that company

You're not entitled to come in and take company assets. You don't own a portion of a desk because you have a handful of shares. It's a limited representation

To bring up the example again, Microsoft could create digital tokens with exactly the same rights and entitlements as a traditional share (minus the 51% majority ownership of course)

I don't see any reasons why it couldn't be considered a viable financial asset

Drumorig

Aaand were back in the green, loaded up on more plr yesterday. 2018 should be good for this one. When they release the wallet and hit more exchanges it should rocket :-)

Ignore the doomers, they will piss off back to AH with everything back in the green.

smacl

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You're missing the point being made here or maybe I am not explaining it clearly enough. We know the textbook definition of what a share is. Technically, on paper you "own" a part of the company. However in reality (unless you are a major holder) it's obviously not literal

You effectively own a set number of limited rights or entitlements in relation to that company

You're not entitled to come in and take company assets. You don't own a portion of a desk because you have a handful of shares. It's a limited representation

To bring up the example again, Microsoft could create digital tokens with exactly the same rights and entitlements as a traditional share (minus the 51% majority ownership of course)

I don't see any reasons why it couldn't be considered a viable financial asset

I think the company shares thing is something of a red herring here as the implication is that this is the only valid mechanism for storing value. There others including many intangible assets that are necessary to trade and will get assigned a value when a company is sold, such as goodwill, branding, etc... which, if you pardon the pun, are every bit as ethereal as ethereum. If you take the example of the Coca-Cola corporation, how much share value would be lost if you stripped it of the Coke logo and Coca-Cola brand names?

fionny

Well my super tiny investment is back on track relatively today, of all the ALTs I could see it dropped the least anyway probably due to the fact it is only on one exchange and new but nice to see it tick back up to pre drop rate again. Still think ETN has alot to offer being the coin of the masses.

s15r330

fionny wrote: »

Well my super tiny investment is back on track relatively today, of all the ALTs I could see it dropped the least anyway probably due to the fact it is only on one exchange and new but nice to see it tick back up to pre drop rate again. Still think ETN has alot to offer being the coin of the masses.

Yeh I have some also, here's hoping!

Tinder Surprise

Hopefully not speaking too soon but it looks like the bleeding has stemmed and vital signs back to some normal levels.


all we need now is a big transfusion from our Asian friends

kaymin

Drumorig wrote: »

Aaand were back in the green, loaded up on more plr yesterday. 2018 should be good for this one. When they release the wallet and hit more exchanges it should rocket :-)

Ignore the doomers, they will piss off back to AH with everything back in the green.

Well, some people just don't want to listen. Maybe there's food for thought for others though and an opportunity to get out while prices are high.

GreeBo

kaymin wrote: »

Ultimately the value of anything is the present value of the future cash flows it will generate.

The value of something is what you can sell it for. Nothing more, nothing less.

lordlame wrote: »

Hi Kaymin
Sure some fella just had “65k” wiped off his “profits” .. no big deal though :rolleyes:

Its only a big deal if the value doesnt come back, which I believe it will (and indeed it has done since your post)

Maybe you just arent ready to play in the big sandpit?

fionny

kaymin wrote: »

Drumorig wrote: »

Aaand were back in the green, loaded up on more plr yesterday. 2018 should be good for this one. When they release the wallet and hit more exchanges it should rocket :-)

Ignore the doomers, they will piss off back to AH with everything back in the green.

Well, some people just don't want to listen. Maybe there's food for thought for others though and an opportunity to get out while prices are high.

Or maybe you are wrong about the market? Who knows....

Maybe this whole segway conversation should move to another thread discussing the pro & cons of crypto...

GreeBo

kaymin wrote: »

Well, some people just don't want to listen. Maybe there's food for thought for others though and an opportunity to get out while prices are high.

You say "dont want to listen" as if you are some all seeing oracle and we should immediately take everything you say as gospel and sell up.

Maybe you are the problem?
Maybe you just dont understand crypto?
Maybe you cant see how it can be a disruptor?

Did you also think the internet wouldnt change how we live?

Drumorig

kaymin wrote: »

Well, some people just don't want to listen. Maybe there's food for thought for others though and an opportunity to get out while prices are high.

Well you advised someone it was a bubble at 3k so hopefully they ignored you and 3x their investment.
If they listened to you they won't be asking your opinion again.

Good luck

rapul

come on Kaymin back off your ruining threads with your never ending knowledge on all things crypto

GreeBo

rapul wrote: »

come on Kaymin back off your ruining threads with your never ending knowledge on all things crypto

I think its short for "Kaymin, fecked up thread, left".

Akrasia

Dohnjoe wrote: »

If you started up a blockchain related business tomorrow offering services to Irish companies, funded with a token-distribution, and started gaining revenue from providing those services. That token would have a tangible market value. The only question would be if the market value fairly represented the value of the company.

Really, no, there is a reason why share capital has a tradeable value. Each share is backed up by the value of the company, its assets and it's future profitability. Ordinary shareholders get voting rights and preference shareholders get first dibs on the company assets if the company fails.

Funding a company by issuing 'tokens' is like funding a company by issuing collectors edition tea pots. You can convince people that these collectors edition tea pots will be worth a fortune in 10 years time, but the company has no further obligation to the tea pot holders and the teapot holders can only recover their value if they can convince someone else that their teapot will be worth even more than the inflated price that they are trying to sell it at a future date.

shares are a regulated marketplace for a reason. Without the regulations there is all kind of sharp practice, insider trading, manipulation of share prices etc.

Compare that with the art market. All paintings are simply pieces of paper with paint on them. The market determines value based on a variety of factors. But fundamentally, the underlying assets are worth almost nothing.

The value of the art is entirely due to the fact that each piece of art is unique and a one of a kind. It's nothing to do with the canvas the art is painted on, it's the fact that it's a desirable object which is unique and will never be made again. Crypto currencies are not desirable objects in themselves, they are desirable only as long as people believe that the market for them will continue to rise. If you buy a piece of art, you have the utility of that art for potentially decades or centuries before it comes back on the market, hopefully at a higher price because the artist who made it has become successful or has died and so there is no chance of the market becoming saturated. Ultimately, the value of the art is dictated by that one super rich dude who would pay a million dollars for that rembrandt to hang over one of his gold plated toilets in one of his summer homes in the Maldives. Similarly with rare cars. People hold vintage Ferarris and restore them because they know there are small number of very wealthy people who could make it worth their while and buy that car off them for more than they paid for it, but in the meantime, they have the utility of knowing that they have a Ferrari GTO sitting in their garage at home.

With crypto currencies, while there might be a limited supply of each specific currency, there are an infinite amount of homogeneous alternatives given that any currency can be forked at any time, or any cryptocurrency can be copied by competitors as the technology underlying it is mostly open source.

The utility of cryptocurrency declines with price, I said this before and someone said that a single coin can be divided up to 15 decimal places, that missed the point I was making. I meant that the utility of the coin declines when there is any price attached to any amount of the coin. A free version of the blockchain has a higher utility than one that comes with a cost. A blockchain supported by a service charge where the coins had zero value rather than a transaction cost of buying each coin fragment on the market would allow companies to validate transactions on millions of IOT devices much more efficiently than one that required exchanges to trade fragments of coins. The exchange risk involved in cryptocoins makes them useless for global payment systems, and unless they are used in large scale commercial transactions, then there is no investment value in the coins other than as pure speculation/bubble markets.

If Samsung (as a random example) want to validate transactions between their global network of IOT devices I could see them using something like a Etherium blockchain to process these transactions, but the coins themselves would never be owned by anyone, they would be data units, a financial services tool used to validate transactions and all the coins would be owned and maintained by Samsung. If they used a traded cryptocurrency to do the same thing it would introduce needless risk and complexity and reduce the utility of the technology.

Tinder Surprise

Can we take this conversation into its own thread please.

kaymin

Drumorig wrote: »

Well you advised someone it was a bubble at 3k so hopefully they ignored you and 3x their investment.
If they listened to you they won't be asking your opinion again.

Good luck

So what is the fair value of the coins in your opinion? The fact of the matter is you have no clue how to put a fair value on it. To anyone that asked me I said it could continue rising or it could drop back to zero - in the short term. I couldn't advise someone to invest in something that long-term is zero but short-term could go anywhere.

Blacktie.

Drumorig wrote: »

Well you advised someone it was a bubble at 3k so hopefully they ignored you and 3x their investment.
If they listened to you they won't be asking your opinion again.

Good luck

While I completely disagree with Kaymin this is a ridiculous point. It's like going all on with sh!t cards and winning in poker. Ah sure it obviously won so you where ahead. Bad logic.

Anyway this thread has got pretty derailed. I made new one on the pros and cons of crypto. LINK

Drumorig

Blacktie. wrote: »

While I completely disagree with Kaymin this is a ridiculous point. It's like going all on with sh!t cards and winning in poker. Ah sure it obviously won so you where ahead. Bad logic.

Anyway this thread has got pretty derailed. I made new one on the pros and cons of cryto. LINK

Whatever, I couldn't care less, you debate with him if you want.

Akrasia

GreeBo wrote: »

The value of something is what you can sell it for. Nothing more, nothing less.

The market value of something is it's sale price, but the ultimate value of something is what it is used for.

My car isn't worth much to sell, but as long it drives, it has value to me as a mode of transport. Metals and raw materials are traded on the markets but the ultimate value is for the raw material is as a factor of production in something that has an end use value. The price of grain is linked to the price of bread. When the price of tulips got out of sync with the price people were prepared to pay for tulips at the flowershop, then we had that infamous bubble

rapul

thread ruined good job lads