Welshminer, the issue here is that YOU are comparing normal stocks to an Ethereum token, and my arguments are based on the fact that they are totally different. How's that for apples and dollars?
Your response still rests on the assumption that ICN has value. That is the assumption I am challenging - something which must first be proven in order to progress with your argument. And you haven't proven it.
What you're saying works in a world where you can prove you own a share of a company, have voting rights etc. What I'm saying, or rather asking, is for proof of this same value when discussing ICN.
If it were the same, it would state that on the terminology page here.
However, I would imagine that the team are in no position to make such a claim. And that's fine. If they can't say that, then they can't say that. But that does affect the value, and casts uncertainty upon it. And if THEY can't say that, then neither can anybody else - including you - and so I will dismiss that claim as nothing more than conjecture until you can prove otherwise.
I have demonstrated why I (and others) claim the value is unclear. The opposing viewpoint amounts to little more than a held belief that has no actual basis in reality, and can't be proven by any means. It's simply a case of "well that's just the way it is".
By the way, support level in no way gives people incentive to buy the token. My statement made perfect sense.
Daparski, you still don't understand my point. But...
I agree with this...
... but not this. I think the market does agree with me. If it didn't, ICN would be worth more now, in my opinion. The projections we can agree on, based on what Iconomi is, the assets, etc. should have this token outperforming many others. But it isn't. The market is on my side... or rather... the side of uncertainty.
Anyway, this is just an academic discussion. I'm not here trying to convince anyone that it has zero value and never will. We can leave it at that. I grow weary of these screeds. Until next time!
Your response still rests on the assumption that ICN has value. That is the assumption I am challenging - something which must first be proven in order to progress with your argument. And you haven't proven it.
What you're saying works in a world where you can prove you own a share of a company, have voting rights etc. What I'm saying, or rather asking, is for proof of this same value when discussing ICN.
If it were the same, it would state that on the terminology page here.
However, I would imagine that the team are in no position to make such a claim. And that's fine. If they can't say that, then they can't say that. But that does affect the value, and casts uncertainty upon it. And if THEY can't say that, then neither can anybody else - including you - and so I will dismiss that claim as nothing more than conjecture until you can prove otherwise.
I have demonstrated why I (and others) claim the value is unclear. The opposing viewpoint amounts to little more than a held belief that has no actual basis in reality, and can't be proven by any means. It's simply a case of "well that's just the way it is".
By the way, support level in no way gives people incentive to buy the token. My statement made perfect sense.
Daparski, you still don't understand my point. But...
Quote
As for the rest - we will need to wait and get official clarifications. The fact that these clarifications are not yet presented doesn't make ICN token useless.
I agree with this...
Quote
The market never lies and so far it disagrees with you.
... but not this. I think the market does agree with me. If it didn't, ICN would be worth more now, in my opinion. The projections we can agree on, based on what Iconomi is, the assets, etc. should have this token outperforming many others. But it isn't. The market is on my side... or rather... the side of uncertainty.
Anyway, this is just an academic discussion. I'm not here trying to convince anyone that it has zero value and never will. We can leave it at that. I grow weary of these screeds. Until next time!