You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: A Couple of Words on the Fair Sale of EOS
However, if every big investor does that, token price will be too high. Since it will be in an exchange after the first 5 days of ICO and further daily ICOs will be held, that too high of a price will naturally lower. Big investors wouldn't want that so they would have to put lower investments giving enough opportunity for the small investors to buy at a higher percentage than how ICOs did recently. In other ICOs small investors wouldn't even be able to get a single token because big investors pay to be the first.
Well, that depends. If a big investor has $100,000 and a small investor has $10,000, and they both equally spread out their investment among the 341 days (long distribution) or among 3 days (short distribution), then in either case they will both get the same percentage of the available EOS.
It is true that in a shorter window, the money invested per day will be higher, but the number of distributed tokens will be proportionally higher as well, making the average price in both cases (long and short distribution periods) the same.
Of course, EOS developers and investors want people to speculate as much as possible with the price of their product, hence the longer distribution period. This will, however, have a negative impact on the price of EOS. The hype will be over way before the 341 day period, for two reasons - first, because no one was able to explain what is the difference between a blockchain and a blockchain operating system (people just repeat mindless marketing banther, which they don't understand themselves, and EOS doesn't have a single completed operational application, showing its usefulness to the communiuty as of yet), which brings us to reason two - the secondary market would decrease the price with time, beause of reason one, effectively dissuading any investors to continue bidding for EOS tokens.
Remember, at this point in time, the EOS price is driven by sheer hype and speculation and not a single practical example of its use. People are investing in their dreams, not in something they've actually seen produce a product or a service.
I'm guessing this is kind of personal. It's not the big investors' fault why small investors have only so much to invest that they deserve to be compromised so hard. This token distribution is not a way to make small investors relatively grow more money than big ones. If they do that, then what will drive big investors through time?
Thing is that the bigger investments you put, the higher is the risk so you might want to thank that you're still not yet a big investor if you aren't.
The purpose of this is to lessen the dominance of big investors not to specifically make smaller investors grow more money. EOS has learned from past ICOs wherein the big investors dominated because they put so much money to be first in the line of putting money. Let's try to use what we learned from the past instead of making what small investors have in mind.
You're already using one practical example of another technology behind EOS and that's Steemit. That technology is called Graphene and it was also made by the same man.
There's nothing personal - I'm just annoyed that I see one crypto created after the other, with the sheer purpose of cashing in on hype, without actually adding any value to the crypto world (there's no social aspect - we don't gain any new useful technology to decentralize the world, it's just another business project).
If you claim that Steemit is "another technology behind EOS", than this begs the question - why create EOS, if we have Steem? You can read more about it in the reply I just posted above (or click here).
Maybe the investors of those cryptos you were referring are very positive about the future of that platform. Some take the opportunity to make more money through its pump and dump. Crazy, right? Then that's a confirmation that you're in crypto world. They also feel that whoever does crazy things right now and take big risks may be among the richer to richest 'cos they speculate that traditional currencies, which are fraudulent, will crash.
Every penny or dolllar paper that we give and take are really just made up, and big banks take profit from it as a business model. 'Cos it's a business. Their service is a business. Their money creation is a business. With the big demand for a representation of value, there's no doubt taht owners of these big banks are among the richest.
EOS is for general cases. Steem's focus is for social media and it came first. Steem can be assembled to EOS as well as every other services/platforms on the internet right now. So it's something big.
Fiat money are just as "made up", as crypto currencies. There's no benefit of one over the other. Indeed, banks take profits, but they provide a very important role - the interest rates influence the value of the currency and hence increase or decrease the speed of the economy, keeping a reasonably low inflation.
Cryptocurrencies, on the other hand, have no central authority. That's why no one is stopping Poloniex from charging whatever commission they want, making it harder for users to operate with their funds at times when they are losing (as was recently the case with Bittrex, if I remember correctly), or even appropriating people's money for themselves - you can't really complain to anyone about that.
Hence my question - what are the social benefits of EOS? So far I only see - using your terminology - a "pump and dump".
It is true that EOS can be used to create another Steemit - but did you read my comment, asking why would we need another one?
Think of ebay utilizing EOS resources because of its scalability, the ledger, and that it requires no transaction costs.
EOS is more on the business side. You should watch the presentation at Consensus 20017.
We need EOS because it could solve the problem as to why large scale businesses cannot use Bitcoin or eth because of their transaction costs and that they are not relatively scalable.
The question is why would we need to to build another Steemit when Steemit is already big and has acquired big developments since.
It is impossible to remove transaction costs - even if the technology charges nothing for transferring EOS from one user to another, there's always the cost of transferring EOS to a fiat currency and vice-versa.
Imagine having to buy something from EOSBay (I should copyright that :) ) - you would either have to buy EOS with dollars or exchange another cryptocurrency for EOS. In either case, you will pay some cash to the exchange you are using and to the miners of the other cryptocurrency.
Also, if there are no transaction costs, the developers and sysadmins behind EOS will demand payment for their work and hosting services, which will have to come from somewhere.
Additionally, most people have no idea what Bitcoin is, let alone exchange their money for it, or even manage converting it to EOS, to buy something from EOSBay, when the normal eBay is still fully operational and sufficient.
This is why I highly question the feasibility of this project - even if it is technically sound, to begin with, and not another "pump and dump".
And I agree with you about Steemit - that was my point, we don't need another one.
I'm not sure man. It's up to you but I'm really putting money to this. Just like in every other seemingly unfeasible project out there, I'll take a risk. I've also been absorbing references about EOS and how disruptive it could be - the scarcity that it will try to fill in and I must say that I'm on the right position.