Search content
Sort by
Showing 12 of 12 results by buybitcoinscanada
Re: [ANN] SuperNET trades on BTER and Poloniex as UNITY id 12071612744977229797
Newbie accounts, please just ignore, move on.
We are very close to the release date for the v1 beta of the client, that is just noise to keep attention away.
Eth.
We are very close to the release date for the v1 beta of the client, that is just noise to keep attention away.
Eth.
If that is in reference to myself, well you need to pay closer attention
So you are bob and trying to get the price down?
What an astute observation. You're very perceptive. Yes, that is the logical conclusion of anyone who asks questions. They are nefarious baddoers and should be banned from the echo chamber.
Re: [ANN] SuperNET trades on BTER and Poloniex as UNITY id 12071612744977229797
Newbie accounts, please just ignore, move on.
We are very close to the release date for the v1 beta of the client, that is just noise to keep attention away.
Eth.
We are very close to the release date for the v1 beta of the client, that is just noise to keep attention away.
Eth.
If that is in reference to myself, well you need to pay closer attention
Re: [ANN] SuperNET trades on BTER and Poloniex as UNITY id 12071612744977229797
You were compensated how many 10's of thousands UNITY for those assets? And still more meaningless saying you "gave" them for free or below market value when they are fantastically shallow markets on totally unproven assets.
Where are you getting that he was compensated 10s of thousands of UNITY? From what I remember he exchanged the assets with no strings attached, but also put forth the bonus plan at the time which was voted on by stakeholders and overwhelmingly passed at something like 85-95% Yes votes.
I figured there might eventually be some issues with the wording, so I'm not too surprised that it's coming up. We could really use someone with some law training to make these things more clear and more explicit. But it also doesn't really matter too much at the moment considering it was already voted on by stakeholders and James has decided to share any bonus with people involved with SuperNET now anyway. That is if the conditions can even be met, which is probably not going to happen anyway.
That bolded part is wrong. He received a considerable amout of UNITY for those "assets".
Re: [ANN] SuperNET trades on BTER and Poloniex as UNITY id 12071612744977229797
Bud, give it a rest. James has been transparent the whole time. ICO investors did their due diligence, they do not need babysitting at this point.
If you don't like the conversation feel free not to join it. This is a legitimate line of questions. How could investors do their due diligence if this information was not made clear before, during or after the ICO even up until now. It seemed to be clear. But now that the moment is potentially upon us things are seeming quite muddy.
I do not like the conversation. It is bordering on trolling.
All the "mud" you are attempting to stir up now was exhaustively presented to the community from JL in the run up to the ICO. There was a lot of back and forth about the percentages and the sizes etc.
If you are pretending that this sort of dialogue never took place you were either not there at the time, or you are being disingenuous now.
In any case, your attempts to stir things up probably won't meet with much luck.
If you believe what I'm doing is trolling, then you are hopeless. Again, if you don't like the conversation don't join. jl777 is a big boy. He can handle himself.
Ad hominem attacks are the modus operandi of trolls. You are falling on your own petard.
Ignoring the content and purpose of the actual conversation and creating diversionary sidetracking is also trolling. So either we're both trolls or neither of us are. Once again. jl777 is able to handle the questions and he is who they are directed at and meant for. If you don't like it, please avert your tender eyes.
Re: [ANN] SuperNET trades on BTER and Poloniex as UNITY id 12071612744977229797
Bud, give it a rest. James has been transparent the whole time. ICO investors did their due diligence, they do not need babysitting at this point.
If you don't like the conversation feel free not to join it. This is a legitimate line of questions. How could investors do their due diligence if this information was not made clear before, during or after the ICO even up until now. It seemed to be clear. But now that the moment is potentially upon us things are seeming quite muddy.
I do not like the conversation. It is bordering on trolling.
All the "mud" you are attempting to stir up now was exhaustively presented to the community from JL in the run up to the ICO. There was a lot of back and forth about the percentages and the sizes etc.
If you are pretending that this sort of dialogue never took place you were either not there at the time, or you are being disingenuous now.
In any case, your attempts to stir things up probably won't meet with much luck.
If you believe what I'm doing is trolling, then you are hopeless. Again, if you don't like the conversation don't join. jl777 is a big boy. He can handle himself.
Re: [ANN] SuperNET trades on BTER and Poloniex as UNITY id 12071612744977229797
Bud, give it a rest. James has been transparent the whole time. ICO investors did their due diligence, they do not need babysitting at this point.
If you don't like the conversation feel free not to join it. This is a legitimate line of questions. How could investors do their due diligence if this information was not made clear before, during or after the ICO even up until now. It seemed to be clear. But now that the moment is potentially upon us things are seeming quite muddy.
Re: [ANN] SuperNET trades on BTER and Poloniex as UNITY id 12071612744977229797
What's the price Unity/BTC has to be in for James to receive his bonus?
.02109 btc
From OP:
Quote
Bonus plan for jl777
2 bonuses of each 5 percent of UNITY will be paid to James if the following conditions are met:
1. A tripling of market cap by the end of 2014.
2. A tenfold increase in market cap by the end of 2015.
The 3x Bonus threshold is 5737.1589 * 3 = 17211.4767 before end of 2014
The 10x Bonus threshold is 57371.589 before end of 2015
2 bonuses of each 5 percent of UNITY will be paid to James if the following conditions are met:
1. A tripling of market cap by the end of 2014.
2. A tenfold increase in market cap by the end of 2015.
The 3x Bonus threshold is 5737.1589 * 3 = 17211.4767 before end of 2014
The 10x Bonus threshold is 57371.589 before end of 2015
move on and good price.
Okay. So 573715.89 UNITY were bought/created during ICO @ 0.01 btc per. That puts the initial market cap at 5737.1589 BTC. Then there is the 10% non dilutive incentive bonus for jl777 (5% for each goal, x3 this 2014 and x10 2015). Now if these extra 10% get counted to the initial marketcap (actually 8160.61 BTC) then they of course must be counted to the goal marketcap, which means the x3 goal is 24481.83 BTC.
Then logic clearly follows if these 10% UNITY do not count in the initial market cap, they don't count in the 3x calculation either. This puts the initial marketcap at 5737.1589 BTC and the goal marketcap at 17211.4767 BTC.
What does not get done is: Calculating the 10% UNITY for the initial marketcap, but then do not calculate them for the goal marketcap. Clearly it is obvious why this makes no sense. It is just padding the starting cap and reducing the goal cap with no actual progress. It's a trick.
The price started at 0.01, so logic follows that a tripling of marketcap means a tripling of price, as Supernet does not have an inflating share supply.
Now the above comments I'm responding to are not from jl777. So, I think we need an official statement from jl777 as to how this gets calculated and a justification for that. This should corroborate what was stated at the beginning of the IPO & not include any "funny" accounting like outlined above.
My calculation shows 0.0234 as the threshold and really, not much chance of this happening at this point so no sense in getting all worked up about it.
However on the off chance that it happens, I would like to share the bonus with everyone that has helped SuperNET to get to where it is. There are 300+ people in the SuperNET slack now, a large number of them working really hard and while I was critical to get the SuperNET started, already I am becoming a small part of the big picture.
I expect some large controversy over how it will be split up, but I think giving everyone in Slack the ability to allocate some part of the bonus would be a decent way.
Something like, we rank everyone's contribution according to a sliding scale. Maybe simply the number of posts in Slack, or hours worked, or servers contributed, etc. So, maybe 5 categories of people, each with a different wt and they can allocate a proportional amount of the bonus to 3 to 5 people, using open voting.
Tally it up and distribute out the SuperNET.
What do you think?
James
You were compensated how many 10's of thousands UNITY for those assets? And still more meaningless saying you "gave" them for free or below market value when they are fantastically shallow markets on totally unproven assets. I think you are doing good work, but lets not be silly James. You created a bunch of assets that had and still have no present function, make a bunch of promises about them, toss them onto an ICO that investors piled 6k BTC into and take a sweet piece of the pie. Additionally, the non-dilutive aspect of your bonuses makes this piece of the pie much, much larger. And now we are going to play with numbers and say 2.34x is 3x. On top of this, you continuously remind us that you are becoming everyday diminishingly important to the process, progress and future success of this whole thing. Please do not take my words to be cynical. I am just calling something what it is in a blunt way. You are a visionary and prolific coder and laying a foundation for something amazing. If this all actually works out it will be a monumental feat. To repeat, I think you are doing good work if it all works, but lets not be silly and play games with the numbers.
Could you please show us how you came to the calculation of 0.0234 BTC/UNITY.
Re: [ANN] SuperNET trades on BTER and Poloniex as UNITY id 12071612744977229797
What's the price Unity/BTC has to be in for James to receive his bonus?
.02109 btc
From OP:
Quote
Bonus plan for jl777
2 bonuses of each 5 percent of UNITY will be paid to James if the following conditions are met:
1. A tripling of market cap by the end of 2014.
2. A tenfold increase in market cap by the end of 2015.
The 3x Bonus threshold is 5737.1589 * 3 = 17211.4767 before end of 2014
The 10x Bonus threshold is 57371.589 before end of 2015
2 bonuses of each 5 percent of UNITY will be paid to James if the following conditions are met:
1. A tripling of market cap by the end of 2014.
2. A tenfold increase in market cap by the end of 2015.
The 3x Bonus threshold is 5737.1589 * 3 = 17211.4767 before end of 2014
The 10x Bonus threshold is 57371.589 before end of 2015
move on and good price.
Okay. So 573715.89 UNITY were bought/created during ICO @ 0.01 btc per. That puts the initial market cap at 5737.1589 BTC. Then there is the 10% non dilutive incentive bonus for jl777 (5% for each goal, x3 this 2014 and x10 2015). Now if these extra 10% get counted to the initial marketcap (actually 8160.61 BTC) then they of course must be counted to the goal marketcap, which means the x3 goal is 24481.83 BTC.
Then logic clearly follows if these 10% UNITY do not count in the initial market cap, they don't count in the 3x calculation either. This puts the initial marketcap at 5737.1589 BTC and the goal marketcap at 17211.4767 BTC.
What does not get done is: Calculating the 10% UNITY for the initial marketcap, but then do not calculate them for the goal marketcap. Clearly it is obvious why this makes no sense. It is just padding the starting cap and reducing the goal cap with no actual progress. It's a trick.
The price started at 0.01, so logic follows that a tripling of marketcap means a tripling of price, as Supernet does not have an inflating share supply.
Now the above comments I'm responding to are not from jl777. So, I think we need an official statement from jl777 as to how this gets calculated and a justification for that. This should corroborate what was stated at the beginning of the IPO & not include any "funny" accounting like outlined above.
Re: [ANN] SuperNET trades on BTER and Poloniex as UNITY id 12071612744977229797
I hope NXTventure, Jl777hodl and BTCD will follow, they are far behind.
Once SuperNET is released and people see what kind of value these hold, I believe they will do quite well.
JLH and BitcoinDark are the reference asset/currency for InstantDEX. That alone is huge. (Not to mention the 5% of SuperNET fees going directly to BitcoinDark holders amongst other things)
Matthew
To holders or to active stakers? And in what form are the fees paid (assets, btcd, btc, something else)? If Btc for example (or anything other than btcd), where are they paid to?
James
all blocks will be counted with the same weight, so if an account staked 0.1% of the blocks, 0.1% of the revshare will be sent to that account. I just happen to have a database with the required info to find and tally the accounts that are staking
Thanks for the clarification.
Is an actively staking/(unlocked) wallet more vulnerable is some ways than a passive/(locked) wallet?
Re: [ANN] SuperNET trades on BTER and Poloniex as UNITY id 12071612744977229797
I hope NXTventure, Jl777hodl and BTCD will follow, they are far behind.
Once SuperNET is released and people see what kind of value these hold, I believe they will do quite well.
JLH and BitcoinDark are the reference asset/currency for InstantDEX. That alone is huge. (Not to mention the 5% of SuperNET fees going directly to BitcoinDark holders amongst other things)
Matthew
To holders or to active stakers? And in what form are the fees paid (assets, btcd, btc, something else)? If Btc for example (or anything other than btcd), where are they paid to?