Quote from: iamnotback on March 21, 2017, 04:16:31 PM

The problem with the ICO model is it motivates app developers who are only mining the speculators. My model motivates app developers who want to drive real user adoption. That is a very key distinction. Pay attention!

Quote from: iamnotback on March 21, 2017, 07:07:07 AM

Quote from: Ano on March 21, 2017, 06:52:32 AM

Quote from: thinklab71 on March 21, 2017, 06:47:28 AM

Re: edgeless.iO Crowdsale

Why can't US people get into this? It says US people are not allowed for crowdfunding

Due to US law which are not fit for this business that is the reason mostly online casino not offering their services for some countries.

This inability to offer ICOs to non-qualified USA persons (i.e. those identified to be sophisticated and have at least a $million networth) due to requirements of USA investment securities law, is I think maybe going to be another reason that my OpenShare project's method of funding apps without ICOs, is going to be very popular.

Even Iconomi's ICO was not offered in the USA. Click here to read Iconomi's explanation.

I doubt you appreciate the significance of what I wrote. So let's explain it in an economic model context:

Quote from: http://carnegieendowment.org/chinafinancialmarkets/68128

One obvious reason had to do with the financing of the commercial application of new technology. The French banking system, dominated by rentiers and the landed aristocracy, seemed to specialize in protecting savers, in part by mobilizing capital and investing in gold or in government obligations. The English banking system did this too, but it also seemed much more willing to finance infrastructure and manufacturing capacity.

In fact, more generally I have argued that the main reason industrial revolutions have occurred largely in England and the United States is because industrial revolutions are not driven by scientific developments but rather by the commercial application of scientific developments. For this to happen, it seems that a robust financing system is key. England, and later the United States, benefitted from a financial system that seemed to do better than others in financing new infrastructure and technological ventures.

A well-functioning financial system, one that allocates capital to new ventures, in other words, may have been the key difference between England and France at the end of the eighteenth century, and for this some historians blame the brilliant but erratic John Law and his Mississippi Bubble.

Facebook and Google are collecting rents! And standing in the way.

ICOs to lunch money, n00bs mostly just encourage more waste of unprofessional speculation.

Quote from: http://carnegieendowment.org/chinafinancialmarkets/68128

There were three key elements of the American System. Historian Michael Lind, in one of his economic histories of the United States, described them as:

infant industry tariffs,
internal improvements, and
a sound system of national finance

So let's correlate those to what we need to do for app and content providers:

a moat of paradigm uniqueness that can't be duplicated by the behemoths Facebook, Google, etc
advancing our technologies, e.g. my improvement on blockchains and programming language model
viable non-ICO funding model for 1000s of app devs and content providers

Michael Pettis needs to understand that the mode of finance may be changing, as well we are shifting from fungible fixed capital intensive Industrial Age to a non-fungible knowledge capital intensive Knowledge Age. Make sure you've read my Rise Of Knowledge, Demise of Finance essay! Loans don't work as a funding model in the non-fungible class of commercialization!

My thesis is China swallowed the end of the Industrial Age, which retarded its progress somewhat. China needs to shift, which is another reason they damn well better not regulate cryptocurrencies.

Quote from: thejaytiesto on March 21, 2017, 05:43:58 PM

I woke up with bitcoin going to $1100+ again and altcoins crashing, including ETH. Looks like you diversified at the wrong time. Maybe doing nothing and seeing the storm pass is the actual good choice?

Diversification is done to lessen gains and also lessen risks of loss. BTC is up 5% and ETH is down 7% (hardly a "crash"), so it worked exactly as planned thus far. I still have some BTC. I still expect ETH to outperform. I'm not a day trader. One day of volatility doesn't matter to me. Even if ETH declines back to $28 - $31, I can't conclude that I will lose in the end. Below that range, I would consider I made a huge mistake.

I also predicted BTC to rise, and called the bottom exactly at $990s in real-time. So once again, my record speaks for itself. I diversified just in case of an outside chance of that BU does something crazy (such as 51% attack BTC).

You are batting for speculative gains between coins (whereas I am just trying to stay level with the average rise of the crypto ecosystem in general) and you are watching your speculations daily like a hawk. I have no time for that sort of activity with my tokens.