Thread topics include, but are not limited to:
Thread guidelines:
Other ways to interact:
TOQQN @ OOOBTC has come to a successful journey, i wish you all the best to your all the future events as well. me and my crypto audience always support good projects like this . #ooobtc #obx #tqn #crypto #bitcoin #ethereum #blockchain #btc #toqqn
Thread topics include, but are not limited to:
Thread guidelines:
Other ways to interact:
Thread topics include, but are not limited to:
Thread guidelines:
Other ways to interact:
Thread topics include, but are not limited to:
Thread guidelines:
If you're not sure what kind of discussion belongs in this thread, here are some example posts. News, TA, and sentiment analysis are great, too.
Other ways to interact:
What Is USDQ and Q DAO? Complete Guide from PLATINUM ENGINEERING
Mihaill Kudryashev, a Front-end engineer atPLATINUM ENGINEERING, wrote this article while seeking to raise awareness about USDQ, a stablecoin his team is helping to develop. Among the biggest benefits, USDQ brings full decentralization and predictive capabilities. Soon there will be even more fully backed stable coins: JPYQ, KRWQ, SGDQ, HKDQ, CNYQ, RUBQ under Q DAO governance. Slowly learning more about blockchains, Mihail has been effective in transforming vague ideas into effective front-end solutions with strong UI/UX. Within his team, he’s helped many crypto startups to make their voice heard throughout the emerging global crypto community. In this article, Mihail looks into the key benefits that users win from using USDQ.
USDQ brings stability, with no need to engage legacy finance
How do USDQ and Q DAO coins work within the ecosystem?
USDQ is decentralized stablecoin, which uses algorithms to offer higher stability and reliability. It's backed by Bitcoin (another top 10 cryptocurrencies will be added in future). The elegant system places all transactions on the blockchain and empower users to execute cross-border and disintermediated transactions at any time and from any place. It's pegged to the value of USD, i.e. 1 USDQ always equals 1 USD. The ecosystem's design borrows heavily from fractional banking systems. In the nutshell, USDQ is a customer-facing stablecoin and Q DAO is an internal "operational" coin; together they help create a stabilized safe haven for anybody who's looking to hedge against rampant volatility of crypto markets.
Introduction to Q DAO and USDQ
There's a number of factors that prevent mass adoption of cryptocurrencies. The biggest factor among this is high volatility, seen in crypto. Bitcoin, the oldest and most popular coin, has been fluctuating with prices oscillating between 20,000 and 3,500 in just one year of 2018. No potential adopters, be it merchants or individuals, would be happy with suffering huge losses that such drastic changes can entail. And it's this high volatility that USDQ is set to address, bringing stability and convenience.
Tether (USDT) is probably the most well-known and widely used stablecoin. However, it has been embroiled in various controversies from the very start with no end to these in sight. Although the system is supposed to assure the 1-to-1 fiat reserves for all Tether units created, the website content has been recently changed to say that the issuer views not only cash in the bank, but also various loans to other companies, as the reserves. Both regulators and crypto enthusiasts have voiced concerns, which might bode ill for Tether in the months to come.
USDQ works differently. Here, the stablecoin is pegged to US Dollar and backed by Bitcoin (+top 10 other cryptocurrencies in future). It's similar to lending operations and fractional banking systems. Overcollateralization is used to mitigate potential unexpected changes in assets prices.
The USDQ ecosystem is highly transparent as all of the operations are recorded on the immutable Ethereum blockchain, open to review by anybody and at any time. The smart contracts bring automation to business processes and eliminate the need for middlemen to assure trust and prevent abuse.
In order to determine how viable USDQ will be in the future, we need to discuss the two tokens used within the ecosystem.
Review of Q DAO and USDQ
Q DAO is governance token, entitles holders to participate in voting for new decisions. Importantly, holders are interested seeing Q DAO's prices growing and thus they are incentivized to thoroughly review proposals and deliver the best decisions. In this way, Q DAO imbues higher democracy and decentralization, on which many current crypto projects lag.
In addition, all the fees, charged for the system use, can be paid only in Q DAO.
In order to create USDQ, a user needs to transfer Bitcoins into a Collateralized Debt Contract (CDC). This will automatically trigger the smart contract to generate USDQ and send it to the user. In order to change USDQ back into crypto assets, users need to pay back the amount of USDQ they input and the fees, chargeable in Q DAO Tokens. Whenever this is done, USDQ is automatically destroyed and the Collateralized Debt Сontract is closed.
In addition by getting USDQ directly at the company's website, users can trade in USDQ on secondary markets. It's as easy as trading Bitcoin or Ethereum or any other coin.
Traders can store both coins in their wallets, assuring higher security. The stability and ease of use for USDQ open up wide ranges of adoption for both businesses and end consumers alike.
What makes USDQ stand apart
The main difference between projects like Tether and USDQ is complete transparency and openness in the inner workings of USDQ. All the data is easily accessible on the blockchain and there are no rumors or controversies as to the reserves held by the team, potential conflicts of interest or hidden agendas.
The CDС mechanics ensure that it's impossible to create fake units of USDQ, as smart contract can be activated only after an amount in Bitcoins is input. The development is being done completely transparent. Interested parties can review the smart contract, presented on the website. The audits and peer reviews were carried out to assure the highest quality of smart contract. The website-based scanner enables to track all the data about each and every transaction, including time, amount and collateral size.
In addition, should a "black swan" event occur, i.e. a drastic fall in Bitcoin prices, Q DAO is sold on secondary markets. Bitcoin value is liquidated to make a USDQ buyback procedure, which prevents any losses on the part of the system's users.
Additionally, PLATINUM BLOCKCHAIN ENGINEERING which is helping to develop the ecosystem is working hard to build up long-term partnerships with stakeholders in the crypto industry. The more liaisons the team wins, the better outlook for USDQ will be.
Why do we need stablecoins anyway?
Different assets produce varying levels of volatility in prices, when compared to each other. For instance, the purchasing capacity of US dollar has reduced over time with 1 USD from 1913 equaling 24 USD today (2019). This happens due to inflation 3-10% per year.
In comparison, Bitcoin almost tripled in value in 2018 and then fell down by as much. Thus, fiat currencies are more stable, when compared to cryptocurrencies.
Stablecoins don't attempt to fight inflation. Instead, coins like Tether and USDQ peg themselves to US dollar, bringing relatively higher stability to crypto trading communities. One of the most famous transactions with Bitcoin is when a pizza was bought with Bitcoin back in 2010. At that time, the pizza ended up costing just a couple of bucks, but today it costs millions. Although stablecoins continue to be impacted by inflation and exchange rates that come to them from fiats they peg themselves to, they are nowhere near the mindboggingly high volatility of crypto assets.
One of the major use cases for stablecoins like USDQ is concluding long-term contracts. For instance, when using a popular decentralized platform Augur, users can bet on the price of oil in 5-10 years. The problem is that you won't only have to account for future changes in oil prices, but also for prices in Ethereum or Bitcoin that you use to make the bet. USDQ solves this problem elegantly and without much trouble. Using it, users don't have to consider future changes in Bitcoin prices and they can concentrate on what they've come here for - betting on future events. And they don’t have to worry about technical details as it’s easy to purchase USDQ and use for trader’s purposes.
Betting industry is just one of the many use cases, where USDQ can bring benefits. It can be successfully used for any transactions done across borders and long-term financial contracts. Virtually, USDQ opens up new opportunities any time value is exchanged and volatility has a negative effect.
Bottom Line
USDQ has a high potential to democratise transactions between companies and individuals globally, bringing fast execution and low volatility. The "PLATINUM BLOCKCHAIN ENGINEERING" is working hard to enable and improve various features in order to help USDQ to take leading positions on crypto markets.
Here are the main ecosystem’s features:
The system uses two tokens (USDQ and Q DAO) in order to tackle volatility, while staying on the blockchain.
USDQ is always pegged to USD 1:1. In order to come into line with as many national exchanges as possible and enter other markets, the company will issue other tokens pegged to the national currencies. For example, there will be CNYQ (for Chinese Yuan), KRWQ (for South Korean Won), as well as JPYQ (for Japanese Yen) at the early stage.
USDQ brings higher decentralization, driving this important vector in the development of crypto industry.
Q DAO holders are interested in seeing the coin grow and succeed, thus they will work hard to review and pick the best proposals for the system to move forward.
Taking into account these beneficial features, there's no question that USDQ will become a viable alternative to other fiat-backed cryptocurrencies like TUSD, USDT, GUSD, USDC etc. Competing with other stablecoins, both already operating and just being developed, PLATINUM ENGINEERING will roll out the new features and underlying tech solutions that'll help propel the coin.
USDQ is decentralized stablecoin, which uses algorithms to offer higher stability and reliability. Fully on-chain and monitored by high-speed AI robots, ecosystem offers reliable defences against malicious acts and attacks. First run in line of fiat-pegs, USDQ is brought by PLATINUM ENGINEERING Team, looking to edge together innovative solutions in collateralization, using stabilizing mechanisms for high-endurance stablecoins. Soon there will be even more fully backed stable coins: JPYQ, KRWQ, SGDQ, HKDQ, CNYQ, RUBQ under USDQ brand. Fully anonymous, USDQ breaks limits out of this legacy world.
PLATINUM ENGINEERING values your opinion and welcomes you to continue the conversation onTelegram or Facebook, where the company’s development team is always ready to help you find solutions to pressing issues. Working on projects like USDQ, Michael has gained an invaluable suite of skills and insights, enabling to roll out high-usability UI/UX with tight deadlines and lack of clear expectations as to user behaviors. The team has successfully produced white-label wallets,stand-alone fundraising platforms, as well asintegrated fundraising ecosystems. Any startup looking for a reliable partner to help execute a success-story will win from a free consultation with the PLATINUM ENGINEERING team about potential solutions to their needs and issues.
This overview may not be fully exhaustive and does not assess the viability of any project, nor its team legitimacy. Readers should conduct their own due diligence before using or investing in any of the listed Stablecoins. This article represents the author’s opinions only and should not be considered investment advice. All described functionality in the article is still under development, it can be changed/processed. Please follow the updates.
What Is USDQ and Q DAO? Complete Guide from PLATINUM ENGINEERING
Mihaill Kudryashev, a Front-end engineer atPLATINUM ENGINEERING, wrote this article while seeking to raise awareness about USDQ, a stablecoin his team is helping to develop. Among the biggest benefits, USDQ brings full decentralization and predictive capabilities. Soon there will be even more fully backed stable coins: JPYQ, KRWQ, SGDQ, HKDQ, CNYQ, RUBQ under Q DAO governance. Slowly learning more about blockchains, Mihail has been effective in transforming vague ideas into effective front-end solutions with strong UI/UX. Within his team, he’s helped many crypto startups to make their voice heard throughout the emerging global crypto community. In this article, Mihail looks into the key benefits that users win from using USDQ.
USDQ brings stability, with no need to engage legacy finance
How do USDQ and Q DAO coins work within the ecosystem?
USDQ is decentralized stablecoin, which uses algorithms to offer higher stability and reliability. It's backed by Bitcoin (another top 10 cryptocurrencies will be added in future). The elegant system places all transactions on the blockchain and empower users to execute cross-border and disintermediated transactions at any time and from any place. It's pegged to the value of USD, i.e. 1 USDQ always equals 1 USD. The ecosystem's design borrows heavily from fractional banking systems. In the nutshell, USDQ is a customer-facing stablecoin and Q DAO is an internal "operational" coin; together they help create a stabilized safe haven for anybody who's looking to hedge against rampant volatility of crypto markets.
Introduction to Q DAO and USDQ
There's a number of factors that prevent mass adoption of cryptocurrencies. The biggest factor among this is high volatility, seen in crypto. Bitcoin, the oldest and most popular coin, has been fluctuating with prices oscillating between 20,000 and 3,500 in just one year of 2018. No potential adopters, be it merchants or individuals, would be happy with suffering huge losses that such drastic changes can entail. And it's this high volatility that USDQ is set to address, bringing stability and convenience.
Tether (USDT) is probably the most well-known and widely used stablecoin. However, it has been embroiled in various controversies from the very start with no end to these in sight. Although the system is supposed to assure the 1-to-1 fiat reserves for all Tether units created, the website content has been recently changed to say that the issuer views not only cash in the bank, but also various loans to other companies, as the reserves. Both regulators and crypto enthusiasts have voiced concerns, which might bode ill for Tether in the months to come.
USDQ works differently. Here, the stablecoin is pegged to US Dollar and backed by Bitcoin (+top 10 other cryptocurrencies in future). It's similar to lending operations and fractional banking systems. Overcollateralization is used to mitigate potential unexpected changes in assets prices.
The USDQ ecosystem is highly transparent as all of the operations are recorded on the immutable Ethereum blockchain, open to review by anybody and at any time. The smart contracts bring automation to business processes and eliminate the need for middlemen to assure trust and prevent abuse.
In order to determine how viable USDQ will be in the future, we need to discuss the two tokens used within the ecosystem.
Review of Q DAO and USDQ
Q DAO is governance token, entitles holders to participate in voting for new decisions. Importantly, holders are interested seeing Q DAO's prices growing and thus they are incentivized to thoroughly review proposals and deliver the best decisions. In this way, Q DAO imbues higher democracy and decentralization, on which many current crypto projects lag.
In addition, all the fees, charged for the system use, can be paid only in Q DAO.
In order to create USDQ, a user needs to transfer Bitcoins into a Collateralized Debt Contract (CDC). This will automatically trigger the smart contract to generate USDQ and send it to the user. In order to change USDQ back into crypto assets, users need to pay back the amount of USDQ they input and the fees, chargeable in Q DAO Tokens. Whenever this is done, USDQ is automatically destroyed and the Collateralized Debt Сontract is closed.
In addition by getting USDQ directly at the company's website, users can trade in USDQ on secondary markets. It's as easy as trading Bitcoin or Ethereum or any other coin.
Traders can store both coins in their wallets, assuring higher security. The stability and ease of use for USDQ open up wide ranges of adoption for both businesses and end consumers alike.
What makes USDQ stand apart
The main difference between projects like Tether and USDQ is complete transparency and openness in the inner workings of USDQ. All the data is easily accessible on the blockchain and there are no rumors or controversies as to the reserves held by the team, potential conflicts of interest or hidden agendas.
The CDС mechanics ensure that it's impossible to create fake units of USDQ, as smart contract can be activated only after an amount in Bitcoins is input. The development is being done completely transparent. Interested parties can review the smart contract, presented on the website. The audits and peer reviews were carried out to assure the highest quality of smart contract. The website-based scanner enables to track all the data about each and every transaction, including time, amount and collateral size.
In addition, should a "black swan" event occur, i.e. a drastic fall in Bitcoin prices, Q DAO is sold on secondary markets. Bitcoin value is liquidated to make a USDQ buyback procedure, which prevents any losses on the part of the system's users.
Additionally, PLATINUM BLOCKCHAIN ENGINEERING which is helping to develop the ecosystem is working hard to build up long-term partnerships with stakeholders in the crypto industry. The more liaisons the team wins, the better outlook for USDQ will be.
Why do we need stablecoins anyway?
Different assets produce varying levels of volatility in prices, when compared to each other. For instance, the purchasing capacity of US dollar has reduced over time with 1 USD from 1913 equaling 24 USD today (2019). This happens due to inflation 3-10% per year.
In comparison, Bitcoin almost tripled in value in 2018 and then fell down by as much. Thus, fiat currencies are more stable, when compared to cryptocurrencies.
Stablecoins don't attempt to fight inflation. Instead, coins like Tether and USDQ peg themselves to US dollar, bringing relatively higher stability to crypto trading communities. One of the most famous transactions with Bitcoin is when a pizza was bought with Bitcoin back in 2010. At that time, the pizza ended up costing just a couple of bucks, but today it costs millions. Although stablecoins continue to be impacted by inflation and exchange rates that come to them from fiats they peg themselves to, they are nowhere near the mindboggingly high volatility of crypto assets.
One of the major use cases for stablecoins like USDQ is concluding long-term contracts. For instance, when using a popular decentralized platform Augur, users can bet on the price of oil in 5-10 years. The problem is that you won't only have to account for future changes in oil prices, but also for prices in Ethereum or Bitcoin that you use to make the bet. USDQ solves this problem elegantly and without much trouble. Using it, users don't have to consider future changes in Bitcoin prices and they can concentrate on what they've come here for - betting on future events. And they don’t have to worry about technical details as it’s easy to purchase USDQ and use for trader’s purposes.
Betting industry is just one of the many use cases, where USDQ can bring benefits. It can be successfully used for any transactions done across borders and long-term financial contracts. Virtually, USDQ opens up new opportunities any time value is exchanged and volatility has a negative effect.
Bottom Line
USDQ has a high potential to democratise transactions between companies and individuals globally, bringing fast execution and low volatility. The "PLATINUM BLOCKCHAIN ENGINEERING" is working hard to enable and improve various features in order to help USDQ to take leading positions on crypto markets.
Here are the main ecosystem’s features:
The system uses two tokens (USDQ and Q DAO) in order to tackle volatility, while staying on the blockchain.
USDQ is always pegged to USD 1:1. In order to come into line with as many national exchanges as possible and enter other markets, the company will issue other tokens pegged to the national currencies. For example, there will be CNYQ (for Chinese Yuan), KRWQ (for South Korean Won), as well as JPYQ (for Japanese Yen) at the early stage.
USDQ brings higher decentralization, driving this important vector in the development of crypto industry.
Q DAO holders are interested in seeing the coin grow and succeed, thus they will work hard to review and pick the best proposals for the system to move forward.
Taking into account these beneficial features, there's no question that USDQ will become a viable alternative to other fiat-backed cryptocurrencies like TUSD, USDT, GUSD, USDC etc. Competing with other stablecoins, both already operating and just being developed, PLATINUM ENGINEERING will roll out the new features and underlying tech solutions that'll help propel the coin.
USDQ is decentralized stablecoin, which uses algorithms to offer higher stability and reliability. Fully on-chain and monitored by high-speed AI robots, ecosystem offers reliable defences against malicious acts and attacks. First run in line of fiat-pegs, USDQ is brought by PLATINUM ENGINEERING Team, looking to edge together innovative solutions in collateralization, using stabilizing mechanisms for high-endurance stablecoins. Soon there will be even more fully backed stable coins: JPYQ, KRWQ, SGDQ, HKDQ, CNYQ, RUBQ under USDQ brand. Fully anonymous, USDQ breaks limits out of this legacy world.
PLATINUM ENGINEERING values your opinion and welcomes you to continue the conversation onTelegram or Facebook, where the company’s development team is always ready to help you find solutions to pressing issues. Working on projects like USDQ, Michael has gained an invaluable suite of skills and insights, enabling to roll out high-usability UI/UX with tight deadlines and lack of clear expectations as to user behaviors. The team has successfully produced white-label wallets,stand-alone fundraising platforms, as well asintegrated fundraising ecosystems. Any startup looking for a reliable partner to help execute a success-story will win from a free consultation with the PLATINUM ENGINEERING team about potential solutions to their needs and issues.
This overview may not be fully exhaustive and does not assess the viability of any project, nor its team legitimacy. Readers should conduct their own due diligence before using or investing in any of the listed Stablecoins. This article represents the author’s opinions only and should not be considered investment advice. All described functionality in the article is still under development, it can be changed/processed. Please follow the updates.
Thread topics include, but are not limited to:
Thread guidelines:
Other ways to interact:
Thread topics include, but are not limited to:
Thread guidelines:
Other ways to interact:
We allows you to pick between 1 to 5 concurrent connections on a subscription with no ip lock.
GameCenter is your one stop sporting spot where your going to find all the sporting events in one central place so you can easily find what's playing.
The service can be used with almost any m3u player. They also offer there custom app.
DarkMEDIA DOES NOT offer catchup or VOD.
Prices are quoted in Canadian dollars. (M=Months, C=Connections)
1 Month Packages - 1M1C = $10 - 1M2C = $14 - 1M3C = $18 - 1M4C = $22 - 1M5C = $26
3 Month Packages - 3M1C = $26 - 3M2C = $30 - 3M3C = $34 - 3M4C = $38 - 3M5C = $42
6 Month Packages - 6M1C = $46 - 6M2C = $50 - 6M3C = $54 - 6M4C = $58 - 6M5C = $62
Payment Options......
Trials are paid at $3 for 24 hours. If you like what you see and you want to go with a full subscription, I will deduct the $3 from the total.
The selection we offer....
If you have any questions or would like to try out our service please PM me.
Back in 2016 in Japan, the ADA token graphic looked a lot like a poker chip.
This from the Internet Archive.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160320233051/http://www.adacoins.com/
Pasted into Google translate and translated from Japanese down to the most interesting part:
With CARDANO, you can bet on the ADA and enjoy the game between users. The world's first attempt to provide a game environment that users, as well as operating organizations, can not make any mistakes has attracted attention.
The number of ADA coins issued is limited to 63 billion, just like the 21 million issued bitcoins, and as the number of ADA holders increases, the scarcity value increases and prices can be expected to rise.
A company called "Input Output Hong Kong" (commonly known as IOHK) based in Hong Kong. There, Charles Hoskinson, the development leader, is the founder of BitShares, former CEO of Ethereum, and director of the Bitcoin Education Project and CEO )is. He is a key person in the cryptocurrency industry. "CARDANO" is Charles's latest project, which played an important role in the forefront of cryptocurrency.
Input Output Hong Kongbr Charles Hoskinson IT entrepreneur and mathematician living in Colorado. Studied number theory and mathematical theory at Metropolitan State University, University of Colorado at Boulder and progress to the field of cryptography. In 2014, we achieved the fourth fastest and most expensive funding in the history of the United States with the crowdfunding of Etheriam's cryptographic currency Ether. Continued research on the theme of "cryptographic currency" and "decentralized society" and participated in numerous startups.
Founder of BitShares, former CEO of Ethereum, Chief of Education and Chief Executive Officer of the Bitcoin Foundation.
The displayed rate is a reference of the current transaction amount and the rate is different for each transaction service.
About development partners Cardano, Ada Coin Introduction Video / Event Video / Manga Presale schedule Explains the mechanism of Cardano easily with animation. Video of Cardano and Event Report.
And What is CARDANO?
A gaming platform based on cryptographic currency.
You can create fair and secure games using systems such as Oracle and Smart Contract. The game ...
Hi /r/tax, I was wondering if any of you could clarify this for me.
For example, I made a net gain of $1000 from an altcoin on another exchange. I convert that altcoin to Bitcoin and send that Bitcoin to another exchange so I can cash out to USD.
Listed as the following:
Both 1 and 3 are taxable events, so how should this be listed on Schedule D/Form 8949? Should the $1000 gain from altcoin to USD be listed as one transaction or does the $1000 gain from converting altcoin to Bitcoin and Bitcoin to USD be considered separate, resulting in the $1000 gain being taxed twice?
Thank you for any clarification.
Thread topics include, but are not limited to:
Thread guidelines:
Other ways to interact:
Thread topics include, but are not limited to:
Thread guidelines:
Other ways to interact:
Thread topics include, but are not limited to:
Thread guidelines:
Other ways to interact:
Four months ago we made a reddit post announcing a social experiment to create a “self-destructing currency” called BOMB. The reactions were polarizing, to say the least:
Some comments were positive
A currency that no one wants to spend but everyone wants to have would result in an ever growing value. However, it might only be on paper because no one wants to spend it. I wonder what will happen. I really hope this gains popularity, very interesting.
Many comments were negative
Aaand this is why crypto is viewed with such cynicism. People can literally create their own private currencies in their basements.
Multiple comments were entertaining
LOL, I wonder how many FBI safeguards this will trigger.
The success and legitimacy of the project were still to be determined, but one thing was for sure: people were curious.
On January 15th, we launched one million BOMB into the digital abyss known as the blockchain. The rules of the currency were simple:
Over the following months, more than 750,000 tokens were distributed for free, over 3,000 individuals participated, and over 20,000 BOMB were burned through transfers and trading (2% of total supply). The social communities grew into the multiple thousands, and many respected projects began getting involved.
The intention was not to be used as a transactional currency, but rather a consistently deflating and decentralized store of value.
The problem we were attempting to solve (or at least experiment with) is the token velocity problem that plagues many of the tokens in the market today.
The goal was to become the deflationary currency of the decentralized world. Many currencies focus on speed, cost, and privacy. We focus on deflation.
The reaction of the events over the next months took us down a winding road of adventure and a fair share of heart attacks. One day we would get an endorphin rush after the co-creator of the #OccupyWallStreet movement wrote an article; the next day we would find a major vulnerability in the code that would literally cause us to re-issue tokens.
Through it all, the journey has been a rewarding one, and we learned a lot along the way. Here are the top 14 things we learned while creating a million dollar hyper deflationary currency.
One of the biggest things we wanted to learn when starting the social experiment was to ask:
“Can a deflationary asset survive?”
Good question in theory, but how do you measure that? Do you measure it by price? Do you measure it by how many people hold it? Do you measure by usage?
Within the community, one of our members recently public a “The Bomb Report”, a case study breakdown of some really interesting statistics and analysis of the currency and the success/failures it has had so far.
Price vs Total Burned Percentage
The blockchain industry consists of some of the most talented technical and visionary minds in the world. However, despite this, most average consumers haven’t experienced a blockchain application or used the currencies built on top of it.
While there is still plenty of time for true mass adoption to occur, it has become clear that the amount of technical value being developed is not equating to the amount of activity or users.
We believe this is not for lack of building, but for lack of storytelling and communication. Average consumers don’t resonate with technological features, they resonate with the stories and the advantages within a solution.
Bitcoin, the most successful cryptocurrency to date, has one of the best stories behind it. An anonymous and mystical figure behind the name of Satoshi Nakamoto took his passion and pain from the financial crisis of 2008 to create a better solution.
The building behind BOMB wasn’t intensive or complex at all, just a few dozen lines of code in solidity. But that wasn’t our story. Our story was our journey and social experimentation of a deflationary currency. That is why people joined, and this is what keeps people intrigued still to this day.
Despite the average airdrop value sitting over $200 per participant, 84.5% of people have not touched or moved their BOMB. Out of 3073 current addresses, 2604 people would rather hold than sell their BOMB.
Despite giving away all our tokens for free and answering questions as transparently as possible, the default response was skepticism; and rightfully so.
Despite over $13,000,000,000 in public capital allocated to the decentralized world in the first half of 2018 alone, over 1000 projects are now dead. Many of the people who joined the industry joined during this time and still feel the resentment to this day.
While it will probably take many years to overcome this skepticism, and may never go away, we learned it is important to take every comment and negative remark in stride. Some are valid concerns, but a majority aren’t actually mad or disgruntled with you, but at the industry as a whole.
Like most projects, when we started, our followers and community count started at zero.
During the first few weeks of sharing the story of BOMB with a few friends, the growth was extremely slow (relative to what it is today) at maybe 1–5 people per day.
Nobody wants to be the first to the party. When you’re walking down the street, everyone assumes the crowded bar is better than the empty bar. The one thing you can do to overcome this early stage is making your early adopters feel like absolute VIPs.
More than the early adopters getting more free tokens than everyone else, myself and the co-creators spent endless hours on telegram talking with each and every single person who joined. There was not a lost soul who wandered into our group that didn’t get an overly ambitious introduction.
This is the core and foundation that will set everything in motion. While I no longer introduce myself to every new person to the group, our community does, and its an amazing feeling.
When I first started telling my friends about BOMB, the natural response was “What else does it do?”
We as humans have a natural instinct to think more is better. Many founders start with a very clear mission to create something like a comfortable chair but they end up explaining their product as an “Anti-Gravitational Sitting Apparatus to Disrupt the Entire Furniture Industry with Built-in LED Lights and Omni-Rocking Functionality”
The problem is when we try to communicate this vision to the world, our vision becomes convoluted and messy. The most successful projects to date consist of the ones doing one thing better than anyone else.
When people explain what BOMB is, they explain it very clearly and concisely: A deflationary currency. When people explain how BOMB works, they easily recall and reference the three rules of the currency as stated above.
The biggest “OH SNAP” moment for BOMB occurred in February, just a few weeks after airdropping our creation to the world. A community member following the project found an error on the code that could open up the currency to exploitation in the future.
Rather than attempting to hide the situation, we made a medium post to explain the situation and news to the community.
Just a few weeks ago, many of our community members began to get anxious about a potential exchange listing that was taking longer than expected. While frustrating to take criticism for items we couldn’t control, we wrote a 19 thread tweet storm titled “Transparency Update”. Despite the negative news, the community loved it and felt closer to the project than ever.
People many times don’t mind what happened, as long as they understand why you did it, and the reasoning behind it. Yes, there will always be that 10% that won’t accept your answer. But the people who truly care about your vision and value will stick with you. Those are the people who matter.
Getting on an exchange after raising zero capital was definitely hard. We made a commitment early on that we would never ask our community for money, so everything we did had to be extremely scrappy and resourceful.
To help get us off the ground, a few of our early members kept talking about a community/technology called ParJar. In short, this was a telegram bot we could implement that allowed our community to openly trade BOMB instantly and feeless whenever they wanted.
There are a lot of items that helped us build our community, but we believe ParJar gave us more native engagement than any other campaign we have done. This organic incentivization ecosystem for individuals to exchange assets was and continues to be the backbone and foundation for our growth.
Even at the peak of the bear market, exchanges attempted to charge anywhere between $20,000 and $250,000; and those were the low-level ones. We definitely couldn’t afford this.
After doing more research, we narrowed down our goals with exchanges and what we were trying to accomplish. While many projects immediately want to get on the “bigger volume” markets, research showed there were only a handful of exchanges that had real volume. The rest were doing a lot of wash trading.
Instead of going after the top level exchanges, we focused on connecting with other respected and up-and-coming exchanges that would be willing to work with us on integration. The deflationary features inside our contract make us incompatible with many exchanges. This was a full-time job in itself.
After many months of searching, we were able to really connect with the team at DDEX (an exchange that is venture backed by reddit’s co-founder) that saw the potential in BOMB and took a chance on us.
While I have heard the term ‘Liquidity Premium’ before, I didn’t quite know how this would impact a deflationary currency. In short, a liquidity premium occurs when something costs more/less because it has high/low liquidity.
The best way for me to think of this is a house. Although houses are valuable, they many times take months to be sold or liquidated for cash. Because of this, prices can be up to 20–30% lower than it would be if it were liquid.
In relation to BOMB, our goal from the beginning was to decrease token velocity as much as possible. The side effect of this was low liquidity.
As soon as we reached Mercatox (a centralized exchange that didn’t burn the tokens) BOMB value increased by nearly 25–50% overnight.
Of course, we can probably attribute some of this to new eyeballs and demand, but it has been interesting to watch the arbitrage between a DEX (burns BOMB) and a CEX (doesn’t burn BOMB).
One of the biggest questions we got in the early days was:
How much are BOMB worth?
When we explained that the tokens were being given away for free, many equated this to no value.
In traditional coins or tokens, the value is determined (or at least decided) by the founders at the price they are willing to sell them at. If XYZ project decides to launch an ICO and sell them at $1, that is the given “value” of the token.
The problem with this premise is that this initial value is completely arbitrary and theoretical until it can be actively traded. I can attempt to sell my car for $250,000, but if the market will only pay me $250, that’s what its worth.
If we learned one thing from the 2018 bear market, its that the founder’s of projects are very bad at knowing the intrinsic value of their own tokens; many times 90–99% off.
Rather than giving our token an arbitrary number, we gave every single token away for free and let the world decide its value.
In the startup world, people many times reference the Lean Startup approach. The premise is pretty simple, get your idea into the world for as little amount of money as possible, and see if the world is willing to give it value. In the cryptocurrency world, everything seems to be backward.
Cryptocurrencies spend months planning an ICO, then another few years developing a project, only to find out if their idea is worth building. Millions of dollars are spent on the building before confirming the demand.
IF you truly believe you have an idea that people want or need, and IF you are willing/able to build an MVP first, and IF you want to build a community fueled project; give a portion away for free and let the market decide your fate.
Then, if the market gives it a thumbs up, you have some liquid capital to build your grand vision; all while raising zero capital.
One mission of BOMB from the beginning was to hopefully provide a financial case study for other people to learn from and implement into their own tokenomic structure.
We anticipated and expected others to do this. But, what we did not expect is the number of exact copy cats that would arise of the first weeks. At this time on Etherscan, there are more than five other replicas of BOMB that people created.
While we were originally discouraged at others attempting to directly imitate our project, we quickly learned that what made BOMB special was no the code, but the community of people around what we were creating.
You can copy code, but you can’t copy a community.
To this day, we haven’t paid anything beyond a few #BombUp rewards to our community. And yet, they do some of the most creative, amazing, and impressive creations we could have ever asked for.
Report: An in-depth financial and data-driven report on BOMB explosions, price, and analytics trends.
Art: Everything from designs to stickers for the community to use and play with.
Games: A community member-run group that gives away BOMB every day for playing telegram games.
Articles: Some of the most passionate people writing in-depth articles about the project.
Languages: Alternative languages that wanted to discuss BOMB in Russian and German.
There is no doubt that to some, BOMB will be nothing more than a meme coin, and we are okay with that.
One of the most fascinating parts of this experiment has been watching our original meaning, goal, and vision of BOMB change and evolve for other people over time. Instead of attempting to control the dialogue, we let the community interpret the project in whatever way they want.
This individual empowerment has truly given the currency a life of its own and the amount of fun, insight, and overall awesome people we have been able to connect within our short lifespan has been nothing short of amazing.
At the current rate of deflation, if the current pace stays constant the last BOMB is expected to be destroyed by 2031.
_______________________________________________
If you would prefer reading or sharing this story through a medium format, here is the link.
Four months ago we made a reddit post announcing a social experiment to create a “self-destructing currency” called BOMB. The reactions were polarizing, to say the least:
Some comments were positive
A currency that no one wants to spend but everyone wants to have would result in an ever growing value. However, it might only be on paper because no one wants to spend it. I wonder what will happen. I really hope this gains popularity, very interesting.
Many comments were negative
Aaand this is why crypto is viewed with such cynicism. People can literally create their own private currencies in their basements.
Multiple comments were entertaining
LOL, I wonder how many FBI safeguards this will trigger.
The success and legitimacy of the project were still to be determined, but one thing was for sure: people were curious.
On January 15th, we launched one million BOMB into the digital abyss known as the blockchain. The rules of the currency were simple:
Over the following months, more than 750,000 tokens were distributed for free, over 3,000 individuals participated, and over 20,000 BOMB were burned through transfers and trading (2% of total supply). The social communities grew into the multiple thousands, and many respected projects began getting involved.
The intention was not to be used as a transactional currency, but rather a consistently deflating and decentralized store of value.
The problem we were attempting to solve (or at least experiment with) is the token velocity problem that plagues many of the tokens in the market today.
The goal was to become the deflationary currency of the decentralized world. Many currencies focus on speed, cost, and privacy. We focus on deflation.
https://i.redd.it/da1yr3z2qf031.png
The reaction of the events over the next months took us down a winding road of adventure and a fair share of heart attacks. One day we would get an endorphin rush after the co-creator of the #OccupyWallStreet movement wrote an article; the next day we would find a major vulnerability in the code that would literally cause us to re-issue tokens.
Through it all, the journey has been a rewarding one, and we learned a lot along the way. Here are the top 14 things we learned while creating a million dollar hyper deflationary currency.
One of the biggest things we wanted to learn when starting the social experiment was to ask:
“Can a deflationary asset survive?”
Good question in theory, but how do you measure that? Do you measure it by price? Do you measure it by how many people hold it? Do you measure by usage?
Within the community, one of our members recently public a “The Bomb Report”, a case study breakdown of some really interesting statistics and analysis of the currency and the success/failures it has had so far.
Price vs. Total Percentage Bomb Burned
The blockchain industry consists of some of the most talented technical and visionary minds in the world. However, despite this, most average consumers haven’t experienced a blockchain application or used the currencies built on top of it.
While there is still plenty of time for true mass adoption to occur, it has become clear that the amount of technical value being developed is not equating to the amount of activity or users.
We believe this is not for lack of building, but for lack of storytelling and communication. Average consumers don’t resonate with technological features, they resonate with the stories and the advantages within a solution.
Bitcoin, the most successful cryptocurrency to date, has one of the best stories behind it. An anonymous and mystical figure behind the name of Satoshi Nakamoto took his passion and pain from the financial crisis of 2008 to create a better solution.
The building behind BOMB wasn’t intensive or complex at all, just a few dozen lines of code in solidity. But that wasn’t our story. Our story was our journey and social experimentation of a deflationary currency. That is why people joined, and this is what keeps people intrigued still to this day.
Despite the average airdrop value sitting over $200 per participant, 84.5% of people have not touched or moved their BOMB. Out of 3073 current addresses, 2604 people would rather hold than sell their BOMB.
Despite giving away all our tokens for free and answering questions as transparently as possible, the default response was skepticism; and rightfully so.
Despite over $13,000,000,000 in public capital allocated to the decentralized world in the first half of 2018 alone, over 1000 projects are now dead. Many of the people who joined the industry joined during this time and still feel the resentment to this day.
While it will probably take many years to overcome this skepticism, and may never go away, we learned it is important to take every comment and negative remark in stride. Some are valid concerns, but a majority aren’t actually mad or disgruntled with you, but at the industry as a whole.
Like most projects, when we started, our followers and community count started at zero.
During the first few weeks of sharing the story of BOMB with a few friends, the growth was extremely slow (relative to what it is today) at maybe 1–5 people per day.
Nobody wants to be the first to the party. When you’re walking down the street, everyone assumes the crowded bar is better than the empty bar. The one thing you can do to overcome this early stage is making your early adopters feel like absolute VIPs.
More than the early adopters getting more free tokens than everyone else, myself and the co-creators spent endless hours on telegram talking with each and every single person who joined. There was not a lost soul who wandered into our group that didn’t get an overly ambitious introduction.
This is the core and foundation that will set everything in motion. While I no longer introduce myself to every new person to the group, our community does, and its an amazing feeling.
When I first started telling my friends about BOMB, the natural response was “What else does it do?”
We as humans have a natural instinct to think more is better. Many founders start with a very clear mission to create something like a comfortable chair but they end up explaining their product as an “Anti-Gravitational Sitting Apparatus to Disrupt the Entire Furniture Industry with Built-in LED Lights and Omni-Rocking Functionality”
The problem is when we try to communicate this vision to the world, our vision becomes convoluted and messy. The most successful projects to date consist of the ones doing one thing better than anyone else.
When people explain what BOMB is, they explain it very clearly and concisely: A deflationary currency. When people explain how BOMB works, they easily recall and reference the three rules of the currency as stated above.
The biggest “OH SNAP” moment for BOMB occurred in February, just a few weeks after airdropping our creation to the world. A community member following the project found an error on the code that could open up the currency to exploitation in the future.
Rather than attempting to hide the situation, we made a medium post to explain the situation and news to the community.
Just a few weeks ago, many of our community members began to get anxious about a potential exchange listing that was taking longer than expected. While frustrating to take criticism for items we couldn’t control, we wrote a 19 thread tweet storm titled “Transparency Update”. Despite the negative news, the community loved it and felt closer to the project than ever.
People many times don’t mind what happened, as long as they understand why you did it, and the reasoning behind it. Yes, there will always be that 10% that won’t accept your answer. But the people who truly care about your vision and value will stick with you. Those are the people who matter.
Getting on an exchange after raising zero capital was definitely hard. We made a commitment early on that we would never ask our community for money, so everything we did had to be extremely scrappy and resourceful.
To help get us off the ground, a few of our early members kept talking about a community/technology called ParJar. In short, this was a telegram bot we could implement that allowed our community to openly trade BOMB instantly and feeless whenever they wanted.
There are a lot of items that helped us build our community, but we believe ParJar gave us more native engagement than any other campaign we have done. This organic incentivization ecosystem for individuals to exchange assets was and continues to be the backbone and foundation for our growth.
Even at the peak of the bear market, exchanges attempted to charge anywhere between $20,000 and $250,000; and those were the low-level ones. We definitely couldn’t afford this.
After doing more research, we narrowed down our goals with exchanges and what we were trying to accomplish. While many projects immediately want to get on the “bigger volume” markets, research showed there were only a handful of exchanges that had real volume. The rest were doing a lot of wash trading.
Instead of going after the top level exchanges, we focused on connecting with other respected and up-and-coming exchanges that would be willing to work with us on integration. The deflationary features inside our contract make us incompatible with many exchanges. This was a full-time job in itself.
After many months of searching, we were able to really connect with the team at DDEX (an exchange that is venture backed by reddit’s co-founder) that saw the potential in BOMB and took a chance on us.
While I have heard the term ‘Liquidity Premium’ before, I didn’t quite know how this would impact a deflationary currency. In short, a liquidity premium occurs when something costs more/less because it has high/low liquidity.
The best way for me to think of this is a house. Although houses are valuable, they many times take months to be sold or liquidated for cash. Because of this, prices can be up to 20–30% lower than it would be if it were liquid.
In relation to BOMB, our goal from the beginning was to decrease token velocity as much as possible. The side effect of this was low liquidity.
As soon as we reached Mercatox (a centralized exchange that didn’t burn the tokens) BOMB value increased by nearly 25–50% overnight.
Of course, we can probably attribute some of this to new eyeballs and demand, but it has been interesting to watch the arbitrage between a DEX (burns BOMB) and a CEX (doesn’t burn BOMB).
One of the biggest questions we got in the early days was:
How much are BOMB worth?
When we explained that the tokens were being given away for free, many equated this to no value.
In traditional coins or tokens, the value is determined (or at least decided) by the founders at the price they are willing to sell them at. If XYZ project decides to launch an ICO and sell them at $1, that is the given “value” of the token.
The problem with this premise is that this initial value is completely arbitrary and theoretical until it can be actively traded. I can attempt to sell my car for $250,000, but if the market will only pay me $250, that’s what its worth.
If we learned one thing from the 2018 bear market, its that the founder’s of projects are very bad at knowing the intrinsic value of their own tokens; many times 90–99% off.
Rather than giving our token an arbitrary number, we gave every single token away for free and let the world decide its value.
In the startup world, people many times reference the Lean Startup approach. The premise is pretty simple, get your idea into the world for as little amount of money as possible, and see if the world is willing to give it value. In the cryptocurrency world, everything seems to be backward.
Cryptocurrencies spend months planning an ICO, then another few years developing a project, only to find out if their idea is worth building. Millions of dollars are spent on the building before confirming the demand.
IF you truly believe you have an idea that people want or need, and IF you are willing/able to build an MVP first, and IF you want to build a community fueled project; give a portion away for free and let the market decide your fate.
Then, if the market gives it a thumbs up, you have some liquid capital to build your grand vision; all while raising zero capital.
One mission of BOMB from the beginning was to hopefully provide a financial case study for other people to learn from and implement into their own tokenomic structure.
We anticipated and expected others to do this. But, what we did not expect is the number of exact copy cats that would arise of the first weeks. At this time on Etherscan, there are more than five other replicas of BOMB that people created.
While we were originally discouraged at others attempting to directly imitate our project, we quickly learned that what made BOMB special was no the code, but the community of people around what we were creating.
You can copy code, but you can’t copy a community.
To this day, we haven’t paid anything beyond a few #BombUp rewards to our community. And yet, they do some of the most creative, amazing, and impressive creations we could have ever asked for.
Report: An in-depth financial and data-driven report on BOMB explosions, price, and analytics trends.
Art: Everything from designs to stickers for the community to use and play with.
Bomb Up: A community member-run group that gives away BOMB every day for playing telegram games.
Articles: Some of the most passionate people writing in-depth articles about the project.
Languages: Alternative languages that wanted to discuss BOMB in Russian and German.
There is no doubt that to some, BOMB will be nothing more than a meme coin, and we are okay with that.
One of the most fascinating parts of this experiment has been watching our original meaning, goal, and vision of BOMB change and evolve for other people over time. Instead of attempting to control the dialogue, we let the community interpret the project in whatever way they want.
This individual empowerment has truly given the currency a life of its own and the amount of fun, insight, and overall awesome people we have been able to connect within our short lifespan has been nothing short of amazing.
At the current rate of deflation, if the current pace stays constant the last BOMB is expected o be destroyed by 2031.
_______________________________________________
If you would prefer reading or sharing this story through a medium format, here is the link.
Thread topics include, but are not limited to:
Thread guidelines:
Other ways to interact:
@ooobtcExchange We offer charity event like healthcare services, children education, We support entrepreneurs in:
Funding
Listing Advice
Talent Recruiting
Digital marketing
Blockchain development.
Telegram: https://t.me/ooobtcExchangeNews
Thread topics include, but are not limited to:
Thread guidelines:
Other ways to interact:
Thread topics include, but are not limited to:
Thread guidelines:
Other ways to interact:
I used to have an ideal of conversation as being a Socratic dialogue: people ask probing questions of each other about important philosophical issues and reveal the mistakes in each other’s logic, ultimately reaching life-changing conclusions through the argument.
Over the years, I have often tried to engage in such debate and while there have been some interesting discussions more typically it has been a pointless endeavor which simply leaves everyone involved convinced more thoroughly of their rightness and doubting the sanity of the others. To be sure, my abrasive style and personality have played a role, but this has itself in part come from the mistaken views of the world and human nature which I held.
By the standard I used to hold, conversation is largely pointless.
Now, of course, most normal people would characterize argument and debate as being very different than conversation. This is because their objectives in conversation are not trying to change someone’s mind but to exchange more basic information or simply enjoy each other’s company. To be sure, there is clear value in conversation of this sort, but it is not what I’m talking about here.
What I’m suggesting is that the attempt to change someone’s mind by reason is generally impossible and not worth trying.
We all have certain foundational beliefs which no one is likely to be able to change. What exactly these are varies widely by person: for some people it is religious, for others political, or philosophical principles (whether or not a person explicitly recognizes them as philosophy).
But what is common about them is that no matter how sound an argument may appear to some “neutral”, disinterested third party, if someone tries to reason you out of these core positions, your mind will always be able to find a rationalization in response. And again regardless of how strong or weak this response is judged by our hypothetical third party, it will be sufficient to convince you that your position is right and likely cause you to be somewhat annoyed at the person making an “obviously” bad faith argument against something so basic.
This is not, as it might appear to be, an argument that people are irrational nor that I am any different in this. It is simply a fundamental side-effect of the process of reasoning. One must have a basis upon which to operate; there is no green field to work from.
Even Descartes’ brilliant argument showing how one can prove to themself that one exists, which is as close to pure reason without any external base as it is possible to get, itself relies upon certain foundations: the desirability of trying to prove such “trivial” matters; the value of pure reason as a source for truth. And it rapidly moves on by “the clear light of reason” to further argument which rests upon, essentially, “it seems obvious to me that…”
This is, essentially, a generalization of Gödel's incompleteness theorems (not that I fully understand them and certainly don’t know how to prove it, but simply that I recognize this point is not a fundamentally original thought) and similar: we must always start with something which we simply believe and cannot prove.
This may seem trivial, but I do not think it is. What it suggests to me is that the space for productive discussion in disagreement is far smaller than is often believe by those who, as I used to, believe that everything that matters could in theory be resolved by honest, wise intellectual exploration.
Therefore, when we find ourselves in disagreement with others on a fundamental level, there may well be no resolution to be had other than the phrase I have so hated for so long: “agree to disagree”. Others are able to accept this with grace and move on. I have always been bothered by reaching such impasses. If we are in disagreement about an important issue which is the basis for much of our reasoning, then how could we come to any agreement on any of the things which follow as a result of that basic view? And how could we have meaningful discussion if we simply must avoid all consequences of a major section of our world view?
And so, to me, the segmenting of discourse into “echo chambers” of various sorts makes perfect sense: people must have a shared foundation in order to be able to meaningfully communicate productively.
And yet, that is not enough to make forward progress either, because while less irritating perhaps, discussion simply among those who agree is pointless too.
So, then, if we cannot in general convince anyone else of anything that matters, nor do we wish to simply preach to the choir, what discourse could be useful?
Among people who agree about, for instance, valid sources and other basic foundations, but who disagree about a particular fact, then linking to a source can actually be productive. This is as opposed to those who do not have such an agreement beforehand, where linking to a source can just be a self-congratulatory act which is unproductive.
If you truly wish to have your own beliefs examined for whether or not they are incorrect, or their limitations; or if you simply want to try to refine and make more coherent something which you’ve vaguely thought, then it is useful to express your views not for the purpose of changing another’s opinion, but for the purpose of understanding your own.
This is what this piece is for me: a response to my own thoughts, particularly set in motion about a month ago when the title occurred to me, about what is and isn’t useful ground for disagreement and debate.
This is something which is often presented but rarely genuine: whether intentionally or unintentionally many people who present themselves as looking to have their own views challenged are actually going to respond with rationalizations to anything presented. While that means that this apparent opening is often unproductive, there is a kernel of sincere and thoughtful people who are open to examining their beliefs and are looking for something to build on to do so. I actually consider this less important than it may often seem, as people’s desire for self-justification generally means that there is abundant material available for one who looks to understand any major viewpoint, so there is relatively little need to try to seek to be the one to minister to such a unicorn.
But, since so much conversation is pointless, recognizing it and moving on rather than getting bogged down in it is more productive.
There is a large realm of productive material, for us to gain knowledge on a more “superficial” level - much does have a shared basis, and we don’t see these issues visibly in, for instance, learning a language or learning history (even though there really are philosophical issues underlying both, but generally speaking a person can find much productive ground). Since our time is limited, it makes sense to pursue these unambiguously productive areas instead of beating our heads against a wall trying to convince others about things we consider important but which are foundational for them and which they have not sought to question.
Examples of pointless discussions from unbridgeable views:
While this might seem unintuitive as I have written about how I see Bitcoin and gold as having complementary strengths rather than being in opposition, what I mean when I express it as a pointless category is that trying to tell a Bitcoin fanatic about the uses of gold is a waste of time, just as trying to explain to Peter Schiff that it’s possible for people to create sustainable and meaningful value out of nothingness arbitrarily is a waste of time.
The “Bitcoin-only” and “gold-only” camps will never change their mind as a result of someone trying to come in and ‘save’ or ‘educate’ them.
Quite similarly: those who believe Tesla will save the world have essentially no common ground to discuss productively with those who believe Tesla will go bankrupt and vice versa. There are simply fundamental differences about approaches to reasoning which will not be surmounted by the surface arguments like “but he lands rockets!” or “look at the historical rates of cash burn!”
Less obviously: the actual outcome will not resolve this either. Even if Tesla becomes wildly successful, the critics will still believe dishonest and unjustifiable actions to have been taken. Even if Tesla fails, the supporters will not believe Musk did anything wrong.
World views are generally proof against what might seem from the outside to be events which should break them.
Given the general argument I’ve made, this should be fairly obvious. However, I spent a fair amount of time over the years arguing some of this from both sides (when I was much younger I was an evangelical Christian ; by college age I was an “evangelical atheist” ; in hindsight, I don’t consider either a good way to spend time).
This too follows clearly from the positions I’ve taken. No socialist is going to convince a capitalist that profit is evil. No capitalist will convince a socialist that profit is good. (Choose whatever dichotomy and examples you find appropriate.)
Examples of productive discussions sharing a common foundation:
These examples have been generally covered previously or are self-explanatory.
Specific facts between mutually respecting people
World view in rare cases where seeker wants introduction to different view
Skills (languages) or Bodies of knowledge (history)
Determining positions
This last is a potentially interesting one: even when changing a person’s mind may be impossible and unproductive, unbridgeable divides as far as resolving the disagreement can still be productive in terms of understanding what exactly the relative positions are. The socialist may not convince the capitalist of anything, but if they simply want to understand what the capitalist believes, that could be productive (and vice versa).
Of course, if it devolves into trying to convince the other person they’re wrong rather than trying to understand their position, it goes back to being pointless.
My choices:
As a practical matter, what am I doing with these views?
I’ve been using Twitter for the first time lately. I find it interesting and useful in many ways. However, there is a potential to waste a lot of time there trying to argue things where the other person will never be convinced.
Other people wiser than myself may well choose to hear all voices, but I wish to maintain an environment where I find what I’m reading useful and where the people I hear from are ones where I think I could engage productively or at least enjoyably.
So I am unfollowing and blocking fairly quickly when I encounter views which I consider to indicate unbridgeable divides of opinion. Unfollow is my first step. If I wasn’t following the person previously and find something irritating they say, I will block rather than engage.
In rare instances I will engage where I think there may be a productive discussion but I won’t go into extended arguments.
However, I have long held a different view for this subreddit: I specifically want to encourage and allow dissenting voices. I wish to avoid building an echo chamber here for a multitude of reasons, but in particular because I think it’s extremely important to try to avoid having a blindspot about critical issues with the system or will drawbacks to any proposed changes.
In the framework of what I’ve discussed here, this could be seen as a combination of wanting to maintain space for understanding other views (even if we don’t change each other’s minds) as well as trying to deliberately hold open at least in some cases a willingness to change my mind. For instance, while I am strongly opposed to ever removing the 337 nillion cap, I want to allow such discussion and encourage anyone with those views to be free to express them. In other areas, like the block size cap, while I had held a stronger position toward larger blocks on principle, and still tend in that direction, some of the discussion previously here and more broadly on the other side has at least led me to more of a wait-and-see approach.
Some various concluding thoughts:
Twitter is an example where there is generally little to no strength of relationship as a starting point. This makes any challenging discussion more difficult and less likely to be productive and is part of my hair-trigger in unfollowing and blocking.
However, in general I don’t tend to believe that in most cases a long-term relationship changes what ground is productive so much as it changes the calculation about whether one unproductive area justifies severing a connection. Necessarily those we have chosen to be part of our lives will not agree with us in everything, but there are likely to be areas not worth engaging in.
For those we have no particular prior need or desire to have in our lives, I see no reason to accept any noise.
I tend to believe that without some shared common basis, there’s not much point in taking in what’s presented by someone. This can be seen as creating one’s own echo chamber, but the more positive way I might put it is that you have to have a reason to respect what a person is saying for it to be worthwhile to listen to them. Someone whose arguments you are likely to reject almost entirely is not worth listening to in the first place, as the goal should be to get new information or listen to someone who might change your views rather than to simply suffer through for the sake of having heard what can be known in advance to be something you will reject.
Weighing the various perspectives on the overall issue I’ve put together here led me to this view which is a refinement of what I’ve thought for a while. We do not want mindless fanatics. And we do not want to try to convince people who aren’t interested or those who have already decided the whole concept is worthless.
However, there is still a productive sliver left there: people who are interested in cryptocurrency but have not already set their opinions in stone. This fits in with the early mindset I had that we would want to have offering technical support as a core competency (and which is something I’ve been proud of this community doing well). This also fits into my original coin-a-day series, long defunct, trying to offer a view of the strengths and weaknesses of various cryptocurrencies. Perhaps this may be worth reviving in some form in the future, but the general concept at least fits my views here: offering a perspective to those who are looking for it, but not trying to convince anyone who has already decided and just wants to argue.
As I have been discussing here, at this point my choice is generally: I make no attempt to change someone’s mind. Occasionally I’ll make one response I expect to be futile. Twitter is not suited towards meaningful in-depth communication and there is no established relationship to anchor a difficult discussion. In closer relationships, topics simply become no-go areas.
I’ve probably swung too far towards avoidance from confrontation at this point, but I’ve got too much scar tissue from years of fruitless argument.
Some examples of aspects I collected while putting this together
https://twitter.com/Venado_0320/status/1125060447646957570 (twitter thread which shows a specific example of TSLA bull vs bear thesis and pointlessness of general discussion although room for discussion on one specific aspect)
https://twitter.com/Jonathankrier1/status/1125922545679527936 (twitter thread example of production conversation - starting from same point of view but slightly different knowledge)
https://old.reddit.com/r/RealTesla/comments/bmcy5q/teslacom_forum_5719_collision_while_using_auto/emwbohb/ (comment about people changing their mind over time)
https://twitter.com/jposhaughnessy/status/1128005778445611010 (news and knowing what isn’t so)
