Search content
Sort by
Showing 14 of 14 results by accripteau
LOL comparison.
It's no place for your lolpostille advertisement.
what advertisement? it just compare of technologies
it even state that factom is a good solution to do prove of existence entries
I could be wrong, but I believe Factom is organized like that to make it possible for users of the system to not be affected by blockchain bloat. Instead of having to download the entire blockchain and filter it, Factom allows you to only download the data relevant to your application. I'm not sure Apostille/NEM has that same ability. Bloat may not be an issue now, but if either system had billions/trillions of entries, it could become an issue very fast.
Yes, yes, we all agree on that. However, it does change the fact that whale or a group of manipulators plays the market by dumping 50-150 BTC every day or two, keeping the market under their control. In other words, if this is all so nice and dandy, why the fuck people do not buy Factom and break out of their hands. The easiest way to make them go away is to let them get burned.
I agree that that's probably happening but there's nothing that can be done about it other than try to grab a few more during dumps. If you believe in Factom, but lack whaleness, the only option is to buy and hodl long term.
And I believe it's even possible that the marketcap of Factoids could be above the value of the company.
Without a doubt. Because developers can use Factom's technology without any assistance from Factom Inc, there is incredible value there. Considering the lack of inflation and burning of tokens upon use, it has THE best economic model of all cryptos (at least until M3).
Do you guys margin trade on polo? You can close your entire position via a market order, these flash dumps are likely a margin long closing out via market and is taking out stops along with it. FCT float is small and orderbook at times can thin out, anyone with 20k+ long closing out on margin will cause that type of move.
Seems like a silly thing to do vs selling a bit at a time so as not to affect the price you are getting as much.
I think that's what CocoLibre is getting at. People unaware it's possible to sell a little at a time. You're given the option of 'close' which closes the entire position, but it's not clear that making a new short sell order achieves the same thing in custom amounts. I was unaware of this until a few weeks ago.
I'm not wondering about this numbers lisk.io vs factom.com since Lisk is a 100% community oriented project, while Factom aims at the enterprise market. Moreover, lisk.io is hosting a webwallet which brings a lot of visitors to their site. You're comparing apples to oranges 
Yeah, a project that might be more comparable is Maidsafe, which ranks at 255,813. Half as much better rank and twice the market cap.
Also keep in mind that Factom has two web presences, a .com and .org (360,601).
Why can the factoid market not sustain a long period of deflation?
My main thought there is that value eventually rises as a reaction to limited supply. But demand for entry credits acts as an equilibrium for a value rise because, when the value rises, suddenly those newly minted 73,000 factoids produce much more entry credits.
Why would you assume anything other than one entry per EC, which is the current situation?
I think Factom is a great idea but I am not really sure to be honest how anybody is making money here, or why the Factoid cryptocoins issued at ICO have any real value. Once M3 starts, the price of those Factoids created by inflation (878K per year) can be priced at whatever "price" is necessary to make them generate the required number of ECs at 0.001 cent per EC to support the annual data rate. This "price" would burn all annual Factoid coins produced by inflation, and result in a sustainable steady state.
But....why do Factoids issued at ICO have any value at all in this steady-state scenario? ICO Factoids are not needed for burning to create ECs - that is taken care of by the inflationary Factoids. Thus ICO Factoids are functionally useless. There is no reason other than a psychological one to tie the price of ICO Factoids we hold today to inflationary Factoids that will be created tomorrow and burned to create the necessary number of ECs to run the Factom project.
I don't disagree with the Microsoft 1980 analogy - but holders of ICO Factoids aren't holding shares of Microsoft, they are holding 5 inch DOS floppy disks that will never be sold.
I think Factom is a great idea but I am not really sure to be honest how anybody is making money here, or why the Factoid cryptocoins issued at ICO have any real value. Once M3 starts, the price of those Factoids created by inflation (878K per year) can be priced at whatever "price" is necessary to make them generate the required number of ECs at 0.001 cent per EC to support the annual data rate. This "price" would burn all annual Factoid coins produced by inflation, and result in a sustainable steady state.
But....why do Factoids issued at ICO have any value at all in this steady-state scenario? ICO Factoids are not needed for burning to create ECs - that is taken care of by the inflationary Factoids. Thus ICO Factoids are functionally useless. There is no reason other than a psychological one to tie the price of ICO Factoids we hold today to inflationary Factoids that will be created tomorrow and burned to create the necessary number of ECs to run the Factom project.
I don't disagree with the Microsoft 1980 analogy - but holders of ICO Factoids aren't holding shares of Microsoft, they are holding 5 inch DOS floppy disks that will never be sold.
As long as ICO factoids can still be converted to entry credits, they have utility. They also serve as a buffer in the event there's such large demand that all inflation added tokens are gobbled up or are being hodled. You're leading to a good point, which I think is the conclusion of this discussion, that it really comes down to speculation of the number of future entries. The factoid market could never sustain a long period of deflation, so with any addition to the supply, we can estimate how many entries need to be made to prevent overall deflation. So let's speculate 1 billion entries per month...
i = monthly inflation, 73k FCT
r = FCT to EC conversion rate, $0.001
e = new entries needed per month, 1 billion
(e*r)/i = $13.70
After M3, at 1 billion new entries per month, factoids need to be priced at least at $13.70 to prevent deflation. Of course people speculating on future use will hodl and add to deflationary pressure.
Well, we ve been listening to this story for the last 3 months or so. I understand they want everything to be perfect but I think the entire community s slowly losing patience which might reflect on the price.
Underestimated development timelines seem to be a common theme in this space.
https://i.imgflip.com/19137b.jpg
Why DOES THIS HAPPEN? Who dumps 100 BTC?
?
?Short-sighted day traders
How intertwined do you guys think the Factom INC valuation is with FCT as a currency?
they get burned when entries are made
Are you sure this always happens? What if someone purchases entry credits with a credit card from the website rather than with factoids, does the factoid supply still decrease?
I've never purchased from the website. Do they fill an entry credit address that purchaser supplies? If so, a factoid needs have be burned to create entry credits. It seems like that if an address was to be filled with code, it'd require a fork. Then they couldn't claim immutability and would require all nodes to update.
How intertwined do you guys think the Factom INC valuation is with FCT as a currency?
Not very... other crypto projects have very little business value yet their token value is quite inflated (compared to FCT anyway). Factoids have many things going for them from an economic standpoint like a very small supply, currently no inflation, they get burned when entries are made, and the technology piggybacks the security of other top blockchains. Overall, it's an excellent economic model.
How many entries per month is made by Factom themselves?
Do you think we are getting the short end of the stick as currency investors vs company investors?
Do you think we are getting the short end of the stick as currency investors vs company investors?
Building up business use for Factom has extreme implications on Factoids. The more Factoids burned for business use, the more valuable other Factoids will be. Entry credits being a fixed price allows Factoids to freely fluctuate in value relative to demand. Imagine if some of these partnerships really take off and produce billions of entries per month into Factom, that will put huge demand into the Factoid price.
You got to remember, the system is still being built. It's officially only 1/3 complete. So why should the business put much focus on the token (taking away focus from development or business) when any value behind the token is still only speculative? Also, any business deals will only help propel further development. It gives them financial bandwidth without having to inflate the token market supply (like other projects do).
You know I don't like how Factom doesn't want to show their currency side their bnktothefuture for example.
There may be legal reasons behind this. If true, it only shows business smarts. The project is still at an early stage, it'd be crippling for it to be disrupted by a lawsuit.
But what could be about a trillion?
Perhaps something that's an ongoing time interval? Maybe like video feed data.