Most likely because the level of difficulty is way higher for a BCO than just coding an ERC20.

A BCO is like a Decentralized Exchange, basically. 

One major difference is that there is no pre-mint.

For ICO/IEO/DCO all the tokens are created upfront then sold in large volumes to early investors.

In a BCO everyone has to buy from the Curve directly, in some cases even the project itself.
As the price raise up quickly along with tokens minted out the contract, it also favors much more early investors.

Also the liquidity is inside the contract, not in the pocket of the token issuer.
Thus, it makes it more transparent and ensure permanent liquidity for the token in a decentralized manner.

No more needs for market makers doing wash trading all day on centralized exchanges to ensure liquidity. (Case of ICO/IEO)

It is closer from a DCO (DEX Coin offering) but without the pre-mint and with a tailor-made AMM favoring much more early investors.




This BRO seems to be an interesting concept, looking like a SAFT (Standard Agreement for Future Tokens).
Similar to what Polkadot did with DOT but via a smart contract directly instead of paper.

Would eventually worth considering to mixing both for more fairness (BCRO?)  
Thanks for sharing




It does have major difference as the way tokens are emitted and the resulting P&L for investors have influence the future success of the project.

Bitcoin mining makes its distribution somehow fair: early miners received a lot, supply decreases overtime, driving its price up progressively.

The BCO contract reproduces this mechanism because every new token minted out of it is exponentially more expensive than the one before.
So if you buy from BCO contract earlier, you get the token at a better price.

Liquidity is also going inside the contract directly, (like a DEX's liquidity pool) so it is more transparent and fair (backs the token price with actual liquidity).

Anyone here already familiar with the concept of Bonding Curve Offering?

We have seen a couple over the last months like Aavegotchi (NFT), DXDAO, Perpetual Protocol, Hedgic...

It is a DEX-like token distribution method (mint/burn) with an AMM predicting the price of the token.
The AMM ensure permanent liquidity for the token, limiting liquidity risks which is high for ICOs.

https://defiprime.com/bonding-curve-explained

Have you participated in one yet?
What are your opinion about it?

Asking for feedbacks and opinions as we are considering launching one for TradingBull.io.

Seems what you refers to here is the "Last mover advantage"

Coming after allows to study others, identify what they do well and what can be improve and come up with a higher value proposition.

When it comes to Bitcoin and other Blockchains, the first mover advantage still prevails for now:

- Awareness and recognition is stronger;
- Older is a blockchain, safer it is;
- It often takes a lot of time for developers to master one blockchain, switching is significantly difficult.
- For ETH, building on it is easier, gives access to a large network and to a lot of alts for swaps. It isn't the case with newer networks.
- For Bitcoin, it became a symbol and has been categorized as ultimate "store of value" making it a particular use case in front of its intended utility.

It is possible that progressively we see the rise of other networks as alternatives to build on.
But it isn't instant and require for these blockchains to keep growing further meanwhile.

We are still at the premises of the industry, a lot of opportunities remain, eventually
Isn't it exiting?

More and more you see derivative (futures) contract called perpetual.
Meaning there is no expiration date so, in practice, you can trade them long term.

However a common practice is to trade these contracts on a daily or weekly basis because of the Interest you pay by holding them.

It is better to carefully learn and understand how the contracts work as they differ from an exchange to another and can quickly turn out complicated.

BitMex is giving some documentation about their own perpetuals:

Always difficult to predict what is going to pump next.

But there are some indicators:

- Some projects have lot of hype around them;
- Investors and traders are very sensible to announcements
- DeFi is definitely hot rn
- Bullrun is still on going
- Many coins haven't yet pumped and/or are still undervalued (peer comparison)

Don't think this bullrun is over yet.

Keep faith in Digitalik's Stock to Flow model 

The BTC pair is a good benchmark while trading as Bitcoin is itself a benchmark.

Actually best is to consider at the same time:

Crypto1/Crypto2
Crypto1/BTC
Crypto2/BTC
BTC/USD

Not denying that.
It is indeed an amazing invention and has started a whole industry with broader use cases for the blockchain technology.

Just trying to rationalize a valuation methodology here.
Companies, stocks, products... Everything has valuation models.

There is still the Stock to Flow but it is probably a bit reductive (it only considers scarcity).

Pushing this mind process a step further:

- The network doesn't lead to scarcity;
- Neither scarcity build the network (a continuous supply would have, probably not as fast, but still)

Then both the scarcity and the network actually lead to the price.
Can also eventually add the utility on top of it.

So Network + Scarcity + Utility = Price

Can we mathematically price each of these components individually ?

Network = Active addresses (AA)
Utility = Transactions (Tx)
Scarcity = Supply (S)

If we consider the time dependency, then it should be a derivative function:

d(AA)/dt + d(Tx)/dt + d(S)/dt = dP/dt

The trick is in Tx, as there is a good volume of it off-chain (Centralized Exchanges transactions).

Decentralization being a necessary and required (boundary) condition for public chains: If not meet then P --> 0

That's an interesting statement.
Though we should probably separate each networks from their application(s).

- Bitcoin network is exclusively applied to BTC the currency
- Ethereum network is applied to ETH the currency + to storing and running dynamic programs on top of the network.

Now, regarding decentralization, there are actually 2 main types of it:
- Of the network via the validators and consensus (51%)
- Of the (circulating) supply (which bring us back to scarcity)

How allowing programs to run on top of Ethereum Network is having a negative effect on its decentralization (and its ETH currency) in practice ?

Tend to agree with this, wanted to see if we could come up to it through the discussion.
Bitcoin is a particular case as the network is exclusively applied to BTC.

In the case of networks with a broader utility as networks, it becomes actually more visible that value is coming from the network itself.

You are jumping a topic to another here with in mind consensus.
The blocktime is the window during which transactions are still verified and included to the block.
It goes the same with consensus mechanisms others than PoW.


Understand you're a maxi and there will be no constructive discussion out of it. Let's keep it here.


Level of privacy you get is largely dependent on regulators, forensic tools, mapping agencies and government's involvement.
Thus, decreasing over time up to transparency.


Set aside the judgment of value and personal opinion, a product goes beyond than just its "Founders" or "Public Face".
If some Exchanges are playing politics instead of remaining neutral, it is their own positioning.

We could also discuss Facebook, Mc Afee or Kalanick but better to keep personal opinions out of a constructive reasoning.

Eventually everything is an actual upgrade of Bitcoin, even Bitcoin itself.

The Segwit implementation/upgrade and block size debate has split it in 2:
Bitcoin and BCH without none really being the Original Bitcoin anymore.

So yes, upgrades, modified versions, whatever it is.
Their value proposition is evolving slightly along the way.


Timestamp is a form of time dependency (time-stamped).
The network is "writable" only for a 10 min window after which it becomes immutable.


But Bitcoin isn't yet optimized for this purpose: High transaction time & fees, network congestions, no privacy, no other use cases (utility) for the network like ETH or EOS.

The whole reflection is revolving around also considering upgraded forks of Bitcoin, which, on paper, have a higher value proposition:

- LTC is processing transactions faster (blocktime 2.5m) + scrypt algo
- XMR also has a lower blocktime (2min) + privacy
- BSV should also eventually be more optimized for scaling.

Then, if we are rational on the value proposition, Bitcoin should be valued less than them.
But still differentiate on a couple points:

1- The symbol it represents for the industry
2- The base pair for most other crypto (progressively loosing it for stablecoins)
3- The most known and advertised
4- The biggest network

Since we would all prefer to think it has real value and isn't a pure speculative instrument built out of hype, point 4 should prevail.

The main use case for the database is BTC (transactions). Exclusive usage in the case of Bitcoin.
Ethereum is a way more useful network than Bitcoin (as a database and a network), for example, yet isn't as strong (in terms of computing power). MCap wise neither.
More networks to come will be more optimized and allow more and more use cases as DB/Network.

But BTC is a symbol, and has the stronger network so far (computational power)

We can argue that what is giving value to Bitcoin isn't only its properties as a scarce p2p e-cash system.

The network is actually extremely valuable by itself, as an immutable time-dependent database.

"Imagine SQL under firewall operating as a new kind of internet."
A network applied to transact instantly with anyone, anywhere and without middlemen.

Then the question coming next is the one of the chicken and egg:

Is it Scarcity --> Network --> Price ?

Or Scarcity --> Price --> Network ?

According to the Stock to Flow model, to $100k by end 2021 

https://digitalik.net/btc/