Search content
Sort by
Showing 7 of 7 results by NewWorldBitOrder
Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
2014 will be a brutal year for the price.
When these coins get sold, many of the people who buy them will sell as many as they need to get their initial $USD investment back.
During the next rally probably..
There will be a surplus supply and shortage in demand.
When these coins get sold, many of the people who buy them will sell as many as they need to get their initial $USD investment back.
During the next rally probably..
There will be a surplus supply and shortage in demand.
This might be one of the worst posts of logic I've ever read in this thread.
Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
FYI guys, the coins will be auctioned off in 10 blocks of about 3,000 coins each... that means, at today's prices, it would be $1.8 million per block... but they'll probably get a discount, so let's say 1.5 million.
i don't think there are many investors willing to pay that kind of money. could it be something set up for wallstreeters with big backings to enter the game at a relatively low price?
i don't think there are many investors willing to pay that kind of money. could it be something set up for wallstreeters with big backings to enter the game at a relatively low price?
The coins will go at a PREMIUM as people can buy without exchange fees and all the legalities that implies. These will be bought by corporations or wealthy people wanting simplicity and transparency. An auction will almost guarantee the go higher than current rate.
Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
Big news. Definitely explains the drop.
This isn't bearish news lol. The coins will be sold at a premium.
This is just an excuse the market was waiting for.
If I understood better about bitfinex, I would bet that it would go higher (in the up coming weeks).
You do bring some legit observations about the bearish issue (and I did expect 700 for this week already since it hit 680 last week).
Its barely getting 650. Lets see what happens mid to end week.
You do bring some legit observations about the bearish issue (and I did expect 700 for this week already since it hit 680 last week).
Its barely getting 650. Lets see what happens mid to end week.
Market is feeling rather heavy. That is why I exited my position at small loss.....for the nth time in the past phucking week, thus largely devouring the profits I made on the way up (again, less than half of what I could have made if I wasn't a shit trader)
Houbi and Stamp lead. So Bitfinex being over extended is not a market mover ,IMO.
Plus I still can't wrap my head around the fact that Finex never has less than 15 million in longs at crazy interest rates. It has never made sense to me.
bcnext or whatever the name of the initial distributor was is as unknown as satoshi - I doubt this will be an issue in the future.
The issue is that "based on an injection of 21BTC by 73 original stakeholders, 1 billion Nxt coins were ejected from the Nxt genesis block."
http://i.imgur.com/bt6zNBR.png
If these original stakeholders solicited investment from the public in exchange for Nxt shares, how could this not be construed as a security offering?
Well good luck with the SEC enforcing that.
Good luck finding BCNext and good luck shutting down a decentralized exchange. Good luck with jurisdiction outside US. Good luck not adjusting to the evolution of cryptos.
If the innovators in this industry were as worried as you, there would be no industry.
Satoshi premined bitcoins. How'd that work out?
It looks like you created a new account specifically to respond to my post questioning the legality of the Nxt IPO. I think I struck a nerve somehow.
If any of the founders sold shares to US residents, then I believe SEC registration would have been required. How is this different than Satoshi Dice? But SEC registration most certainly did not happen (please correct me if I'm wrong), so I believe the SEC would have a case against any of the 47 initial founders should any of them financially profit by selling their stake to US residents.
EDIT: This is interesting. Perhaps the Eric Voorhees / Satoshi Dice precedent just killed the IPO model for launching cryptocurrencies.
If any of the founders sold shares to US residents, then I believe SEC registration would have been required. How is this different than Satoshi Dice? But SEC registration most certainly did not happen (please correct me if I'm wrong), so I believe the SEC would have a case against any of the 47 initial founders should any of them financially profit by selling their stake to US residents.
EDIT: This is interesting. Perhaps the Eric Voorhees / Satoshi Dice precedent just killed the IPO model for launching cryptocurrencies.
It's one of the reasons I dropped the IPO model for MC2. I kind of wonder if it has ramifications for spinoffs too, because with a spinoff of Bitcoin you could buy bitcoins now and get coins for them later.
Someone at the company I work for is talking to some corporate lawyers right now about the legality of these IPOs in general.
Note that a lot of banking for other IPOs seems to be done offshore, too (not naming names), and that they're going so far as to avoid the term "IPO" lately.
I think developers have to start thinking about the Voorhees-issue if they are receiving money (bitcoins, USD, etc) in exchange for some sort of virtual token. In my mind, this applies to any "pre-mined" coin when it is clear that pre-mine was effectively "closed." So this would apply to "insta-mines" too.
In reality this won't matter for 99% of altcoins because serious money won't be made. But in the case where a pre/insta-mined coin does take off, then I could see the founders getting the Voorhees treatment (or worse).
Eventually I think the SEC will lose control here, but until then it is important to understand exactly what the laws are. It's a shame really, because this probably affects the ability of bitcoin start-up companies to fund-raise via colored coins
The SEC would have to prove NXT was shares. As has been pointed out shares don't get trade as currency. Since soon millions of NXT will be traded as currency, then how is your SEC lawyer friend going to make his case.
Your argument is a stretch at best. Eriks shares were never used as currency.
Just because you don't think it's a currency does mean its not.
The case against currency IPOs is weak at best.
Now, that IPO type model (which will also be Etherium I believe) isn't necessarily a scam just because it breaks accepted "rules".
Selling shares of a new tech to the market at whatever price the market will bear, is not scamming. I don't have any evidence that NXT is scamming anyone. I have also sold shares of my companies to the public.
What I don't believe is that these things will become currency. At least my shares have never succeeded on that
I'm not sure the IPO model is even legal (in the US) unless the developers register with the SEC. How is selling shares in Nxt different than selling shares in Satoshi Dice? We know Mr. Voorhees recently got nailed for this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=637435.0
Were any initial investors from the U.S.? If not, then this is void anyway, right?
Also, to make a blanket statement that IPOed coins can't be currencies makes no sense to me. If a coin is accepted and used for purchases it is a currency. NXT has integration with major payment processors supposedly in the works and may become one of the few cryptos accepted for non-gambling related purchases in the near future.
I think most people that criticize NXT are making emotional arguments or have not used the client.
Meanwhile the OP is correct re: XMR (no longer MRO). It will be big one day.