Quote from: tempus on May 18, 2018, 09:19:41 PM

Quote from: scolary23 on May 18, 2018, 08:09:40 PM

Quote from: tempus on May 17, 2018, 11:44:23 PM

...
With other words: It seems to me as if the future token price on exchanges will have something like a "natural cap" because a rising price would decrease the dividend-incentive. The other way may also be true of course.. if it goes down hard, it would become much more interesting.

However, in this conclusion I see a passive lever, regulation of the volatility.
It will begin to grow, which will not be interesting, for buying, and vice versa, with a decrease in prices, interest in buying will grow.

Yes, it's an interesting concept. But the main question whenever I try to find out if to do an Investment is: What do I buy, how to understand it's purpose and potential?

And in this case to me everything looked good first. But: The only purpose out of Investor-perspective is to receive dividends, while the token is no share. It does not represent ownership. There will be no dividends until the business gets traction, which is years away. And if that happens at all is a big unknown since nothing is a safe bet. But even if everything would go as planned - incentives for the "psychological market" are missing and a rising price of the token would make it's dividend-purpose less attractive.

The main problem is the time-frame. What I believe may happen: The token will hit an exchange, maybe or even probably not a big one. I doubt that the team will pay millions to get this on one of the top-exchanges and they also don't need that since the token is not needed for their platform. Once it can be traded, those who do research and check the numbers may come to conclusions like me: Why pay money for something now to MAYBE get some dividends in years and to what price? Since the dividend-purpose becomes less attractive if the price should rise while dividends are still years away there is a contradiction on the "psychological market - side"... speculation on the token price. Therefore there is the risk that the token will just dry up on exchanges long before the business gets traction. And if it really will get traction and generate profit: Unknown for a long time.

Binance as opposite example: BNB is deeply connected to the platform and they use 20% of their profit every 3 months to buy back BNB and destroy it and they are developing a decentralized exchange what will add more functionality. Result: It's a token that already is used because of it's functionality and the burning is like an indirect dividend, because the total supply decreases.

Factom: Also if a customer buys Entry Credits (also fixed in price) with Fiat, FCT is burned because of the conversion-transaction (FCT becomes EC) in the background. The market can speculate on high usage and would even be able to do so if Factom as company should not make profit, because the platform is not private.

NEO: You can buy NEO and it generates GAS. All of those tokens have "speculative potential". And as a Blockchain NEO can not go bankrupt.

The CCC-token misses the psychological momentum for the market. It may have that in future, once it becomes clearer if the business model will work out and/or if they add functionality. But until that happens the risk is too high for me.

If they would say: All unsold tokens will be burned - that would add incentive for the ICO in case it will not bring in the max cap. But they don't plan to do that.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, thanks for sharing.