Stop thinking everything is a conspiracy, these accredited investor requirements are put in place to weed out the weak hands and to prevent Joe Schmoe x 100000 from putting his 500$ Walmart paycheck into a fund during a correction then demanding to be taken out when his account is down 50$.
Is that why the requirement is $2m instead of $15/hr ? Why isn’t it scaled by income percent? It is binary to create an artificial barrier to entry and cut out people based on wealth rather than knowledge or ability. It is a conspiracy to keep highest ROI projects out of the hands of those who aren’t wealthy. Crypto is disrupting this, and that’s why so many people made millions in 2017. Bitcoin ROI is still less than facebook.
Because you can be dumb as fuck with your money while still making very good income. If you have 2m saved up, odds are you've made some really smart financial decisions.
I hope you don't think the 2017 pump was due to people somehow all at once realizing crypto was a '''revolution and a way to invest without being wealthy'''. You can invest without the 2million by the way. You can go buy stock right now with whatever money you have.
Plenty of rich people got completely scammed by Madoff and Scientology. Being rich is correlated to making good investment decisions, but it is not a requirement to becoming rich. Stocks are completely different than VC. IPOs are how VCs dump their bags on the public after getting massive returns.
Either way, being told how someone can spend or waste their money is wrong.
You aren't as anonymous as you think you are.
The millionaires utilizing XMR to its actual use case aren't compromising their identity on public forums.
They’re probably under contract to accept it for some minimum amount of time, with financial penalty if they pull out (heh heh). I’m sure keeping Verge while it’s failing will not cost them nearly as much as having to give back the 3 million or however much it was.
Its unlikely they have to keep verge, just accept it. This doesn't really cost them anything.
We need reliable ATMs first. A lot of the ATMs ive visited are either completely buggered or buggy and unreliable.
We as a community need to seek out and use the maintained ones and dismiss the crap ones.
Vote with our wallets and push quality forward.
A lot of ATMs are clearly straight up cash grabs.
ATMs are worthless. We should be building stuff for the future. Building bitcoin atms is like Netflix shipping dvds.
I think the point is where XMR is better at being fungible it makes it worse at attempted scaling in the future. Not necessarily where XMR and BTC are today.
Monero scales better than Bitcoin and wouldn't run into problems with full blocks and high fees. Monero's problem would instead be large blocks / big sized blockchain, which would inconvenience people trying to run a full node on a phone.
The undercover agents clearly told him they are drug dealers. He acknowledged that and asked them to stop telling him about it. Clearly a fucking douchebag.
Plenty of people believe differently about the drug industry. I wouldn't say that makes someone a douchebag. For all we know they were just selling weed. In twenty years will other drugs be viewed the same way? I think so.
If I'm reading the Poloniex order book correctly, right now you'd only need to sell about 25,000 XMR (or 400 BTC, or $3M) to fill the entire buy order book and lower the XMR price to 0.0025 BTC or about $20. The 25,000 XMR needed to fill the book is just 0.1% of 16M circulating supply.
Turns out, by selling 0.1% of the supply one could lower the price 10x.
This just doesn't seem right. Am I missing something?
That's normal, and it's why volatility exists. It goes both ways too. If someone wanted to come in and buy 25,000 monero, the price would probably at least double. In reality, buy or selling slowly works better because there some "shadow liquidity" which is just people who will add their orders ot the book if prices move quickly. it's why things pump and then dump, because poeple who wanted to sell at $400 were on the sidelines and didn't get to the market until the price was $600. Those are more likely to be okay just market dumping since its well above their desired price. Monero's thinner books are more likely to result in bigger spikes in price because its use case is likely more desirable for larger blocks of orders.
He's still the face of Litecoin, so whether or not its open-source, that doesn't matter. His statements can and have made the price drop and people look to him to make statements about LTC.
Proof that decentralization works, when you create a shitcoin and you can't stop your creation from succeeding.
Go read the fucking terms of agreement. I dont give a shit what happens, I refuse to hold EOS. I read their terms, I’m not just pulling this shit out of my ass.
Well then stop talking shit
Letting people know that the coin they hold may or may not have any utility as far as the eventual EOS blockchain isn't talking shit. That is if an EOS blockchain happens, since the FAQ clearly states that it is up to the community to create an EOS blockchain using their platform: the people responsible for the EOS platform are not creating blockchain for EOS so they cannot make any promises about the ERC20 token.
I am literally stating facts from the FAQ and if you didn't know them and think they are unpleasant or they affect your view of the coin, then you really ought to thank me and look more into it rather than stick your fingers in your ears and tell me I am talking shit.
I'd rather see all of us do well here in this space.
The eos blockchain is open source so it’s virtually impossible for someone not to launch one. Now if eos was closed source, I’d agree that risk would be pretty high. People know it’s not a scam because many have used the blockchain already. Consensus is what will drive the token based chain to launch and succeed. If you don’t agree with this then you also don’t think bitcoin will work. And by the way it is ALWAYS the responsibility of the community to keep blockchains alive. If there was one party capable of keeping it alive it would be centralized
I do not believe people think this way when investing. Even in monero sub it seems many people do not understand the anonymity set monero provides.
well its self defeating anyways since increased price = increased fee. But anyways, I'm optimistic on bulletproofs because all else equal monero becomes much more useful. If the price doesnt increase, it's just a better coin. And if the price does increase, you probably have a better anonymity set. It's just not a release that produces a lose scenario. My prediction is that use will not materially change, but that the decrease in fee will allow people to justify higher prices for monero before it seems like its hurting monero. In this case, the equilibrium is for monero's price to increase by 1/[bulletproof efficient gained], or something like 5x. Though I do think the $0.60 fee is too much, so maybe we only get half of that so the fee stabilizes at $0.25