One interesting aspect of ICO's is that the owners don't necessarily need to build a business. It's far less work to skim the money and say the business failed. And until anyone goes to jail for doing that, it remains a lucrative opportunity.
Raising $120M in an ICO isn't the same as raising $120M from a VC. In the latter case, you get nothing if the business fails.
The big question is, why are people dumping so much more money into ICOs than into Kickstarter projects? Why does an ICO seem so much more legit? It's mostly the same thing. Yet ICOs are somehow raising 10x more than the most-funded Kickstarters without breaking a sweat.
Because it's actually pretty difficult to withdraw $40 million worth of Ethereum, and so people that are massively successful in BTC/ETH/LTC are able to just park some of their excess in these ICOs on the off-chance one of them is a hit.
That is a gross understatement. Vast majority of ICOs are deliberate scams, not just they aren't building a business, they have no idea how to do it, have no relevant skills, and whole 'idea' is lunatic and would be laughed off by even a beginner angel investor if pitched to him. In many cases, an idea is also technically unworkable due to scaling limits of blockchains used. It is just that: a scam. Not a bubble as in: 1990s tech bubble, or subprime mortgage bubble. There, you got something which didn't follow the profit curve you predicted. Here, you get nothing for your money.
A lot of the ICOs have similar looking web pages: modern bootstrap style, touting benefits which are generic benefits of any cryptocurrency, and a list of team members with PhDs and suchlike. You could write a playbook for this crap.
A share of coins in exchange for be posing as a cofounder of their world-changing cryptocurrency, including my photos and a couple articles here and there. Told them to GTFO.
ICOs do NOT give you equity ... that's what IPOs do. You get coins/tokens, not shares, and you have no ownership stake in the company. There's a big difference and it is exactly why they are running wild. If you got equity, then there would be huge amounts of regulation covering them.
> People buy into ponzi schemes, too, knowing full well that they are ponzi schemes.
Ponzi schemes are only bad if you are in the last batch of investors. The first ones do get a nice return (otherwise the scheme itself would not last long).
A smart investor could decide to put some money in a Ponzi scheme, as long as he knows what's his number in line, deciding to gradually disinvest some % as times goes on in order to collect the enormous gains.
This is why Ponzi schemes work so well. Everyone thinks someone else will be the chump who loses their shirt and they will get out just in time. It doesn't usually work out that way.
I do not understand your comparison with Kickstarter. You never invest in a company or project using Kickstarter, you will not earn anything in the future if the project succeeds. If you buy a shirt, you will only get that shirt, even if the company sells millions. You can not pass your position on to someone else. The comparison could be with stock exchanges. So the answer is simple. The barriers to starting an investment in ICO are minimal when compared to any IPO. And it is a global negotiation.
How not? You get royalties from their project and, if they succeed, you will be able to negotiate that for more than you have paid. And there is a possibility to receive ownership, I do not know if any of the recent ICO has given that, but they could; future products or services for the Token that you have bought.
https://omg.omise.co/
OMG holders can use OMG to validate the network. If they validate a block correctly, they get paid the tx fees from that block
https://blog.golemproject.net/golem-network-token-gnt-sale-2...
All transactions in the Golem network will be subject to a fee, approximately 5% of the transaction value. This will include both transactions between the users — payments for computing power — and transactions between users and software developers. The latter will consist of payments for the software used on the Golem network in a SaaS model. Where applicable, a blend of both open source and proprietary software will be used.
Any decent ICO reserves a portion of the new tokens for the founders, vested for at least a year, so they have an incentive to build something that makes them valuable.
A cap on the ETH to a level that's realistically usable for development can also be a good idea.
> why are people dumping so much more money into ICOs than into Kickstarter projects?
Because most of it is "free" money. It's not a coincidence that the great altcoin explosion happened after Bitcoin value had increased by several orders of magnitude, and the ICO explosion happened after Ether had.
Some people bought what they considered a lottery ticket for a few grand, found themselves with a jackpot, and decided to buy another lottery ticket with (parts of) the winnings. It doesn't feel like real money to them.
I don't know if we should feel better about it because of that, but at least it explains why so many of the altcoins and ICOs which are so clearly scams/ponzis can attract so much capital.
This is exactly why altcoins are popping now- investors are dumping their free Bitcoin Cash which materialized out of thin air into NEO and a bunch of other coins
This. So much. As a developer, I personally feel sick thinking about all the greed associated with cryptocurrency right now. I was an early adopter of both Bitcoin and Ethereum, but I only mined a bit or purchased enough to build little side projects for fun.
Now I have non-technical friends and coworkers who are suddenly millionaires (literally, a friend bragged to me about having a few hundred BTC. He since quit his job) because they decided to dump their life savings into this stuff knowing nothing about it. It frustrates me to no end when I have family members ask, why didn't you buy or mine more? Why aren't you a millionaire? You were so into this stuff, weren't you?
Yeah, I was. As a developer, not as a speculator. It's not just about the markets. But all of the exciting tech constantly gets drowned out by the noise of people going on about lucrative investments and comparing coins to gold. I'm so sick of the hype. I'm disappointed at the lack of millions I could have made (maybe, if I were a serious "hodlr"), but I do actually see value in the tech so it's extremely frustrating...
Distributed ledgers and consensus algorithms are neat. Greed isn't.
I wonder how many of these instant millionaires are savvy enough financially and emotionally to handle the wealth. I could see it being easy to lose it all like many lottery winners, or lose friends or become depressed with nothing to do.
Occurrences of people getting hacked to the tune of 6 figures are common in bitcoin forums and subreddits. I think by now so many hackers must be rich out of this.
Ah, I imagined this would be the case, but I actually never looked for details. Do you have anything in mind to share with us? Or simply just go search on Reddit and you find plenty?
What does it mean to be a Bitcoin millionaire? Did they sell near the highs and buy near the lows? Or do they hang on to it because they hope it will go higher?
If you put $3,000 into bitcoin in early 2009 (EDIT: Actually, mid-2011), you'd have around $1M today.
There's not much sense losing sleep over that statistic though. Most of us had $3k and didn't do that. All you can do is keep your eyes open for the next opportunity, which may never come.
Looking at the activity on Bitstamp right now, I don't think selling a few thousand BTC even affects the price noticably. Someone just sold almost 30,000 BTC for within half a percent of the previous trade - which is basically just the bid/ask spread these days.
I understand that part. I just don't see how they could sell any coins because the urge will always be, "It's still going up! I can't sell now." So it seems to me the wealth is more "on paper" than on selling and spending the proceeds. Like the bubble in the late-90s?
(Not that I'm arguing or worrying. I was just curious.)
At some point you have enough money that it doesn't really matter. If you had $20k in Bitcoin you may be tempted just to keep holding. If you had $3mm, who really cares? Sell half or two thirds to diversify if you still believe it has room to grow or just drop it all into more traditional investments and take your interest and dividends for the rest of your life.
Holding millions of dollars worth of coins yourself, rather than in a bank can become quite nerve wracking. Open your wallet on the wrong computer, or let someone untrustworthy to see where/how you hide your key, or how much you own, and you can wake up one day with all your funds gone.
I know there is the other side of that, that the government can seize your funds in a bank account, but realistically they won't target you out of millions of people who have millions in their name.
That's what hardware wallets, paper wallets, and safe deposit boxes are for. It doesn't take that much effort or technical skill to keep coins very secure, and the information on doing it well is readily available.
I also want to point out that even if you did put $3000 in, most people don't have the guts to hold that much for that long. I've heard countless stories of people selling when Bitcoin was only worth hundreds because they panicked.
I didn't panic, but I thought it was worthwhile to exit when BTC was at about $12. It paid for the down payment on my car. I kept some (and I'm still holding a fairly substantial amount) because I do believe that it will revolutionize a lot of things and will be worth a lot more in the long-term. It wasn't about "having the guts" or "panicking" as much as it was about "I have an opportunity here".
Sure. I even thought to myself for quite a long time how it would have been nice to hold onto it until it was worth $1100-1200 a few years ago. But then I would have started wishing I'd held out for the $3k price. And surely, I would have wished that I'd held out for the $5k, $10k, $50k, or more. And truly, that's why I'm still holding a fairly substantial amount. But the most important thing is that I am not frustrated or disappointed in how I've handled this frankly unexpected and astonishing source of wealth ("wealth" perhaps is a strong word here). Because of other circumstances in my life, I feel lucky to be alive. I do not have any regrets about exiting most of my Bitcoin position when it was worth $12. It helped me to provide for my wife and myself, and that's more than some people get in life, so I'm really happy with how it worked out.
Sorry for being dumb. If someone wants to encash it to USD. Who's going to pay them? My knowledge in this subject is very minimal hence it sounds like the scene of Housing crisis.
There are many Bitcoin exchanges and "banks" where you can buy USD for Bitcoin from someone looking to buy Bitcoin. Currently, about $70 million per day - $billions per month - is exchanged for Bitcoin, so it's easy to get in or out of it.
> hence it sounds like the scene of Housing crisis.
If everyone wanted to sell BTC and no-one wanted to buy, it would crash just like anything else.
People hoping for the next 10x increase, people who want a tax-proof and mobile value store, people who need it for a transaction involving something illegal (e.g. paying off a ransomware operator), people who want it for a regular payment or money transfer.
It's up for anyone's guess how big each of those groups is relative to the others. Believers tend to assume that the last one is big, e.g. the "send money back to the home country" use case.
It's more insane than that: $1 invested in April 2010 would be worth $1 million today. 1000000x ROI. (First exchange was BitcoinMarket.com and opened then at $0.003/BTC).
My guru as far as this lesson goes is Zachtronics. He's a game dev who makes programming games and who created infiniminer, which Notch adapted into minecraft.
Zachtronics' games are some of the most fun I've played, and from a brief encounter (not irl) with the guy he seemed unperturbed (or like he'd made peace if he ever was) by the outcome.
That's sound advice, but as you said it's easier said than done. Every time I read about BTC, I get sick to my stomach thinking of what could have been. It's very tempting to view money as a possible solution to all of life's problems, particularly for those of us who don't have very fulfilling lives to begin with.
This reminds me of a fun story. Back in 2011, our then head of IT kept a server under his desk that nobody but me seemed to notice. It was there for at least a year. One day over lunch he let it slip that it was a bitcoin node, but insisted it wasn't actually mining.
I was at the office one night kinda late, and I walked around the corner to see him working on the server. He was installing what looked a lot like a graphics card. Sure. Not mining.
In the end, he never got caught. I recently looked him up on LinkedIn and he hasn't been working for over a year. I obviously don't know this for sure, but given what a bitcoin enthusiast he was, I would not at all be surprised if he made a fortune mining for free by stealing the company's money and also investing heavily.
Indeed, greed in cryptocurrency is a thing.
(Created a throwaway to protect the privacy of the guilty, even though they don't deserve it.)
Back of envelope suggests he was stealing $20k per year in power, probably not more than that. Considering this was 2011, the return on that $20k could have been gigantic. Reimbursing them would have been a drop in the bucket, if he could do it without outing himself...
I'd say $2000 would seem more likely, assuming it's some monster thing that draws 2KW when running flat out. 1 watt-year in the US costs around $0.75-$2.
Your envelope is more inflated than bitcoin itself. I am a miner, and i was a miner back in 2011. One of my rigs right now uses 923W with 6 high end graphics cards. That rig costs me ~$3/day * 365 = $1095.
Do you really think you can hide the amount of heat from anyone - my rigs are basically a furnace - and in 2011, I think I could probably melt steel =P The guy may have had a few cards in there, but $20k is absurd.
Well, he said a lot of graphics cards. I plugged in 20 at 1kwh each. Trying to charitably interpret OP's tone of outrage, which seemed misplaced to me.
If you understood and saw the promise, why didn't you load up? If you believe Sathoshi's thesis, and believe that the technology can fulfill the stated function, it is kind of a no-brainer to buy a few/a bunch?
In addition, even now, at $3200, the market cap of bitcoin is still only ~50 billion. If you believe it has a good shot of being a superior global reserve currency, then it is still cheap and you should be glad that you can buy it for $3200.
Most people I know who knew about it but did not buy constantly thought it is worth less than the current price, whether that price is $3000 or $30. So they never buy. Your job as an investor/speculator is to guess what something is worth, not just look at a chart going up and wish you got in at sometime in the past. In addition, you need to realise that the people who really do well in any bull market or bubble are people who did stupid or manic things and managed to catch the upside. Sensible people rarely make outlandish returns. If you are a very level-headed, sensible person, you will not make outlandish returns, especially short-term.
> If you understood and saw the promise, why didn't you load up?
His answer is right there in his original post, he understands the tech, which is cool, but he doesn't understand money and markets, which is the real reason the entire edifice has any value at all. His observation is akin to being interested in technology purely at the intellectual level, and not understanding how it can serve humanity and fill needs that are desperately unmet in our present paradigm, and people are more than willing to pay to have those needs met. What they already pay to have what we have instead of that is the net economic cost of all states and state controlled financial infrastructure in the world (which, to be clear, I mean all financial infrastructure, because there simply is no such thing as a private unregulated financial instutition outside the bounds of cryptocurrencies), which by comparison make the entire cryptocurrency market cap even now after the rapid appreciation look like the office tea budget.
You need to understand both the tech and its utility to markets, and in turn the real utility of markets to humankind, and imho ideally the terrible threat represented by political authority, to do well out of the cryptocurrency wave. All these people that have loaded up without understanding the technology are eventually going to get taken as that technology matures and differentiates between all the available options, and they'll have no idea how to gauge the actual product level value of one relative to another, and they'll transfer value to those that do.
> I'm disappointed at the lack of millions I could have made (maybe, if I were a serious "hodlr")
He might say (and even believe) that he's looking at this purely from a dev standpoint, but it's just another investor angry over sour grapes.
We are all "investors" whether you/he likes it or not. Even if you choose to keep all your funds in cash stuffed in your mattress - that's just investing in fiat currency :)
The technology hasn't fallen back. It's evolved, even. (With the new fork we'll potentially even see competing alternate realities soon :D) Several devs I know are still happily tinkering away and following the progress of various cryptos - if you're "sick" over the sphere as it currently is, don't blame it on external forces.
And what's stopping him? There is nothing he could do yesterday that he cannot today, other than invest at yesterday's prices.
Hell, it's probably significantly easier to develop with today's landscape - services and libraries being much more numerous than before - so you're going to have to enumerate specifics if you want to argue otherwise.
Having been bitten by this aswell (had ~100 Bitcoins in 2011) the issue is less with being angry about sour grapes and more about being I'll prepared for the situation.
When I made the decision to sell my BTC, I was completely uneducated regarding the economics of investments and didn't have any family members with any sort of investment at all, so there was nothing pushing me in the right frame of mind to consider BTC anything other than another tech-toy I created.
So the anger that I heard from many in a similar boat mostly stems from this sentiment "hey I was there, I was a programmer, I understood this, but still the wrong people won out, as always." because one wasnt educated to be a evil capitalist/banker/investor. (The evil connotation stemming from group think especially in Europe where rich = villain)
We will see more of this kind of behavior the next time a big tech crunch happens and the VC dries out for years. "Why did nobody teach me how to raise capital when it was still plentiful?"...
IMO it seems weird to be interested in a technology which enables digital scarcity and therefore value, but not be interested in the value created by a practical implementation of the technology.
It's a strange enough position to me that it makes me question whether people who say this actually understand the technology.
Plus, who cares about other peoples' "greed"? There's lots of greed in traditional finance but that doesn't stop most of us from investing in stocks and that kind of thing. If I think GOOG is a sane, rational long-term investment while others are going bonkers over it, I don't see why that would change my mind.
> In addition, even now, at $3200, the market cap of bitcoin is still only ~50 billion. If you believe it has a good shot of being a superior global reserve currency, then it is still cheap and you should be glad that you can buy it for $3200.
I don't really understand finance, so bear with me here : why should being a "superior global reserve currency" entail a stratospheric valuation? The USD has been a de-facto global reserve currency for the last 50 years, yet it's not like an individual dollar is worth 5000+ GBP, CHF, EUR, or JPY.
It seems to me like the high BTC valuation is being driven by speculation. That's fine and dandy, and as the Economist said is part of a "harmless bubble" - but ascribing this insane valuation to some kind of innate feature set of BTC seems to be misleading.
Happy to be proven wrong and/or educated. This isn't exactly my wheelhouse, after all.
> The USD has been a de-facto global reserve currency for the last 50 years, yet it's not like an individual dollar is worth 5000+ GBP, CHF, EUR, or JPY.
that is because Fed doesn't want it to be that way (and for a good reason) and prints [tons of] new USD. BTC can't be printed that easy and that unlimited.
Depending on how you define the money supply then you could say that the total supply of the US dollar is around 12 trillion dollars (based on M2 money supply.)
Given that bitcoin has a hard-coded cap of 21 million coins, if bitcoin became a reserve currency of the importance the USD currently has, you could assume it would reach a market cap of 12 trillion, meaning each bitcoin will be worth $570000.
The reason the USD value has not spiraled to $5000 each is because the economists advising the government believe in inflationary currencies, and believe for some reason that the best thing for a currency to do is to devalue by 1-2% each year. They give some reasons for this which, like a lot of economics are driven by conjecture and not evidence-based. Money is printed approximately to achieve this target, however in recent years, 4 trillion dollars has been printed and given to banks, again based on very little other than economic conjecture. I'm not going to argue with proponents of this sort of economic theory because its a waste of time, however I am glad that a currency not linked to a nation state is going to be able to challenge all of these assumptions.
Bitcoin's intrinsic value lies in the system that can securely, verifiably, transferably and trustlessly store numbers, assign them to password-protected wallets and keep the sum of those numbers below a constant (21M). Due to these traits, such a system is suitable for representing value just like gold (but BTC is more easily transferable). It is pretty hard to create such a system, therefore it is valueable.
Well, Bitcoin is such an outlier. $1 invested in April 2010 would be worth $1 million today. A insane 1000000x ROI over 7 years. It's nuts. No other investment opportunities even come close to that so it's very, very hard for most people to avoid greed and envy. Not sure what the solution is.
The solution is for the market to correct itself (if it is thus insane as claimed). If that happens it will be very very hard for the greedy to find buyers or sympathy.
Why would the market correct itself? What could possibly cause a crash, short of some kind of catastrophic security vulnerability being discovered, or hostile regulation in one of the core markets?
It was funny to compare Bitcoin to tulips back in 2010. However the Bitcoin ecosystem has now sustained impressive growth—by all metrics—for 8 straight years... I think we are past the "it's tulips" stage.
I was going to buy $3000 worth when it was $10 and I was talked out of it. The only way I sleep at night is knowing that I would have sold it when it hit $20.
A few million dollars really isn't much. And, once you make a few million, human nature takes over and decides it isn't enough--you always need more. I find it's helpful to count your blessings, and also remember that there's really something to the adage easy come easy go.
I feel the same way. And I'm ever since disgusted by cryptocurrencies as I see a lot of people who I don't want to be associated with them being the driving force. Also, I believe in distributed ledgers, I respect Bitcoin as being the first, but it's the worst from a technical point of view and wastes tons of energy, which is getting ridiculous!
I would feel the same if I started Google - to build something cool like a powerful search engine just to sell ads. Ewww!
There are better and worse ways of making money. Crypto speculation and ads are the some of the worse, in my opinion. Charge for your service - it's the only honorable and clean thing to do. Don't be a sellout!
Shortly put, I do believe in the blockchain, I don't believe in Bitcoin, which is majorly driven by low-class Chinese speculators and exchanges!
I don't think the google founders started the company "just to sell ads".
It is just how they make money. What they DO is make the best search engine, host every video and livestream anyone on earth wants to upload, run the best email service on earth, run the best cloud office suite etc etc.
Maybe that was the only viable option back then. Today, more people are willing to pay for services and not be bothered by mostly irrelevant and annoying ads! Yet, Google isn't changing as we're the product!
I was an early adopter of Contributor, which got shot down in its original form! This speaks loudly about nowadays Google!
I think you are reading it wrong. It isn't about greed. It's about recognizing an opportunity and having the drive and interest to jump on it, sometimes at great personal risk.
I have failed to recognize and/or act on a number of opportunities so far in my life.
One was when the consumer Internet was "waking up". Domain name registration was free. And, even later, as Network Solutions started to charge for them, domain names, good one's, were plentiful.
And so, there I sat, living through the technical birth of the Internet, fully understanding it from an engineering perspective and yet, due to my lack of experience at the time, never made the mental connection to the opportunity that lay ahead. While other less technical people gobbled-up tons of good and very valuable domains I was geeking out making use of the embryonic consumer Internet. These people made millions. I did not.
Another missed opportunity happened during the economic downturn of 2008. The market crashed. I had been a day trader a decade earlier and have always kept a level of awareness about the market. I was on the phone with a friend and made the comment that Ford was an absolute goldmine as it had dropped down to about $1.50 per share. The company had none of the problems the other auto makers had. It just got dragged down with the rest of the market. It told him I should get off the phone and buy 100K shares of F.
In other words, I recognized the opportunity and had the ability to take advantage of it. Yet, I did not. I would have made somewhere in the order of $1.7 million inside of a year and a half or so.
I'm sure people who also recognized the opportunity and brought themselves to pull the trigger made a killing. I, for some strange reason, did not.
I look at cryptocurrency and your comments the same way. You probably recognized the opportunity yet did not act. This has nothing to do with being intelligent or dumb. I have no clue what it is but it happens.
I wouldn't feel bad about it at all. Plenty more opportunities ahead. Just try to grab onto of one when the time comes.
Luck favors the prepared. I've slowly woken up to this stuff over the years, I figure in your life you'll have somewhere between 1 and 10 of such opportunities, how you handle those will make all the difference in how you'll live the remainder of your life.
Yup. I am currently studying the idea of designing better (more efficient) mining hardware. That's the arms race. I have a few ideas. Not intelligent enough yet to know if this makes any sense as a business venture given the current state of the art.
Not doing much with deep learning yet other than spending as much time as possible learning. Need to identify opportunities.
I did jump into the iOS fray years ago. It proved to be a bust. The App Store is so bad in terms of discoverability, building relationships with your users and the race to the bottom that it became impossible to make a profit.
You missed out on the boat. So did I (a developer as well). So did many others (developers or not). Learn and move on. No need to be bitter (because it is so blatantly obvious you are when you say things like 'they decided to dump their life savings into this stuff knowing nothing about it')
Who cares if you know everything or very little about it? They saw something that you with all of your 'vested interest and expertise' didn't - they saw that this thing would be a great investment.
So what next? You make a good point when you champion the technology itself. I love the tech as well and I'm learning all I can about it.
However, I'm also going to be dumping a significant amount of my networth in the next bitcoin which I believe will be Antshares/NEO.
BUY IT ASAP I tell'ya. Don't miss the wave again. Never again.
Why Antshares/NEO? Its chinese roots for one. The support by groups such as Microsoft and Alibaba. And for me, the reason why I champion it over all others is that as well as the aforementioned properties, NEO could be bigger because, they've created a platform that supports programming languages that all developers already know. Developer take up could be huge, especially in China and then the rest of the world.
Also, if you truly believe in Bitcoin as a technology, why not buy now? I still think that if it indeed delivers on its promise, it will be way bigger.
It's not for everyone. Some people have the appetite for risk and others don't and never will. You can invest or watch and complain while others become wealthy...all the while claiming to be highly technical and that everyone else is an imbecile who happened about their new found wealth by being careless.
Risk often appears careless to those with a weak stomach. Risk is typically very ugly. It's not supposed to be pretty. If it were, all and sundry would be participants.
Risk wouldn't be risk without risk is all I'd leave you with.
But like one of the contributors on the sub points out, ANS/NEO has some govt support (I use support lightly because there have been discussions with govt about NEO but nothing officially announced yet). Therefore, if this turns out to be the case, then undoubtedly, you'll find that NEO will be the crypto that wins in China. I think that this alone would make it very very big in terms of market cap.
Finally, technically, contract writing in ANS/NEO aims to be as easy as possible compared to ETH where unless you learn solidity, you cannot immediately jump in and start writing code for it. ANS/NEO aims to make it easy for any developer anywhere in the world to jump right in.
EDIT:
I think that many crypto-variants will exist simultaneously but that there'll be one or two that win because they implement ease of use quickly and well. Let's consider the internet in the early days; it was only useful to a select few who could withstand the pains of getting up and running with it. Crypto is the same way today. Few are willing to withstand the pain of its use - be it devs or regular users who may or may not double up as speculators.
If a coin can't be stupidly easy to use, then there cannot be mass adoption. ANS/NEO seems to have figured that out - making onboarding devs easy and attempting to reduce the energy required to run the network.
> Who cares if you know everything or very little about it? They saw something that you with all of your 'vested interest and expertise' didn't - they saw that this thing would be a great investment.
Just like Bernie Madoff's investment fund or any other Ponzi scheme.
> BUY IT ASAP I tell'ya. Don't miss the wave again. Never again.
It's always the green accounts that post this. I wonder why?
> It's always the green accounts that post this. I wonder why?
It's because when making strong statements I don't want to be shunned by people like you. I have feelings too you know.
That aside, you can mark this comment for a couple of months from now when ANS is worth $2000 +. It is so obvious to me that NEO will be big.
14c7DSHkWmcEZ7kiQ6sBL5YwzSqT6orU8r
Is the BTC address you can use to thank me for turning you on to this.
I've read on it and continue to read on it. There's enough material on the internet on it. Start with a quora search for a general feel of what is being asked about it and get a feel of why it is in such demand.
Finally, don't get bogged down with stifling analysis paralysis - invest in or develop on the platform if you like it. Don't feel angry at others nor be jealous of them for previous misses. Make a bet - if you win, you win and if you don't life goes on. Start again.
It's my opinion and you're a flagging bully. If you're smart enough to be on HN, you're smart enough to discern and determine where to invest. If I happen to learn about ANS and let others know about it, I don't see the harm in that. They can inspect the truthiness of my recommendations via pagerank.
> They saw something that you with all of your 'vested interest and expertise' didn't
No, they gambled. There was nothing to 'see'. It was reckless behaviour. Don't run around and spread retroactive financial advice that was unwarranted without the now available posteriors.
I think I would say that I have some regrets not buying/mining. When I first heard about bitcoin I thought that it was pretty neat but I did not want to support it because I thought it is such a waste of exergy.
I'm a full-time developer on Ethereum, and also wish I'd bought more early ETH. But developers who understand this stuff are in high demand right now, and there are all sorts of opportunities. There's plenty of money to be made by working instead of just hodling.
In order to bootstrap a currency you need the price factor to interest lay people and generate adoption. There is no other way. I haven't seen the argument lately, but in the early days when the price started to rise, there was a lot of complaining from people who wanted the price to be stable.
Stability is boring. It doesn't garner attention. It's the high fluctuations that generate interest and bring in new people to the ecosystem.
Without it, Bitcoin would have been basically another technology that most people would have never heard of.
Regarding ICOs, I have noticed a fair number of submissions to HN titled something along the lines of "[Insert market] ICO : sale opens [date]". These submissions are from new accounts with newly created Github and other social media handles with an anonymous user behind the submissions. Most of the submissions get flagged and the ICO never happens. Do these people think they can raise hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars anonymously with newly created accounts? It just screams scam.
All of the successful ICOs seem to have a team full of PHDs, investors, and seasoned entrepreneurs and they also have commitment from a few well known investors and entrepreneurs as social proof. Some even have "pre ICO sales" to reward their inner circle.
For people in the know, I have a few questions:
* Who invests in these ICOs apart from the "pre ICO investors" who are generally close friends of the founders?
* How do ICOs reach these people (I'm guessing a subset are clueless retail investors and the average Joe who gets excited by the words blockchain, cryptocurrency and ICO)?
* What is the legal status of ICOs?
* Are there any case studies regarding how successful ICOs take place?
(I have no plans of starting my own ICO, just want to understand how these ICOs work.)
> Who invests:
- Some of the hundreds of thousands of people who have made big $ in crypto - especially ether
> How do ICOs reach these people:
- There are numerous forums/chatrooms/reddits/twitter posters etc etc. One of the common tricks is for ICOs to reward 2-3% of tokens in "bounty programs" which basically rewards participants for facebook/forum/blog/youtube posts/spam. Very large ICOs like bancor have done this
> Legal status of ICO's
- Unclear, but they are global and switzerland - where many of them are based out of seem to have liberal laws. For the SEC they seem to have indicated that you are likely to get in trouble if ICO's are more equity based, whereas "token" based network payment stuff is less clear.
The high early liquidity of ICO's basically mean that if an ICO has capped investment and has any sort of credibility, the ICO will reach its cap rapidly and when it opens on the exchanges it'll be up 3-10x and you can dump it and make a fortune, regardless of whether it is actually vaporware or a ponzi. This does not really happen in the past 3 months as the high demand ICO's generally take as much money as possible and don't cap it.
I think its sad that this business is going the way of the venture capital biz where well connected people get early/cheap dibs and average joes only get in once all the potential gains have been sucked out. Compare this to the ethereum ICO where everyone really got a fair short. I also think that if these have ponzi elements, being a preferred/connected/private investor in a ponzi makes you complicit in the ponzi scheme, whereas being an average joe just means you're playing the game.
> Are there any case studies regarding how successful ICOs take place?
No idea, most ICOs I'm aware of are hugely problematic and on the grey side of ethics at best. If the founders are pre-mining/keeping a large portion of the coins for themselves I would stay way far away. Bitcoin by contrast wasn't an ICO the only way someone got Bitcoin was by mining it.
It's kind of funny seeing the development of large companies on blockchain tech. If they don't invest in researching the potential they can be left behind and everyone will criticize them for being against new tech, but if they do invest into researching it, then they're just chasing buzzwords. It's incredibly frustrating to read some of these comments when people speak up about their companies investing in new tech and being shunned for it.
I work for a huge company where a mouse is the boss. We are looking into blockchains very seriously. (Obviously not speaking for them, just saying.) Since that is the case, I don't think your assessment is correct.
In a way it seems the early adopters and hoarders are rich or are going to be rich and every one else, including people who think even now there's an opportunity and they are going to invest, are going to make that happen.
Dumb question maybe, but if you bought bitcoin at the right time and now have $ 1 million worth of them, is it actually possible to convert such a large amount to dollars right now, and where would you do that? What if it were 10 million, 100 million, a billion?
You can see the depth of the various exchange’s order books on bitcoincharts.com. For example, if you sold 4000 BTC on Bitstamp right now, the price would fall from ~$3250 to $2300, and you would earn ~$11m: https://bitcoincharts.com/markets/bitstampUSD_depth.html
Selling ten times that (40.000 BTC) would only net you ~$26.5m so, to answer your question: selling just $10m worth of BTC on a single exchange will move the price significantly. For $1m worth of BTC you’d move the price very little.
Right. The future is uncertain. It’s impossible to know whether there will be any orders at all in the order book a second from now. But as soon as you place your sell order, a proper order book locks all other orders such that they can’t be pulled until after your sell order has executed.
Yes, but why would you? If you understand it well enough to have hung on that long you understand that the full potential is a lot higher than where it is now.
Maybe you want to buy a nice house or yacht, because you think those are more practical and/or fun than a number in a database/blockchain. Obviously, you'll leave as much as possible in bitcoin.
Bitcoin yes, definitely, Ethereum maybe, other crypto tokens that have gone up as much or more like Stratis or NEM probably not without a large drop off as you affect the market (can't remember the technical term)
Every time Bitcoin hits an all-time-high, these news articles get posted. "Oh, it's all a bubble! Surely, it will all come crashing down.". But now you also see analysis posted like: http://fortune.com/2017/07/03/goldman-sachs-bitcoin-price/
Anecdotally, but you can also see the trends in wallet increases, nearly everybody I know under 30 owns crypto.
Will there be a bubble bursting? Sure, much like the dotcom bubble, crypto will see its downtrend too. But look where we are now. Businesses like pets.com could thrive.
Not all early internet developers got rich. People who bought domains like pets.com and pizza.com got rich, and they did not need a lot of technical know-how. If they did, the internet would have always been the playground of highly technical people, and would not have seen wide adoption or eternal Septembers.
I first got into Bitcoin around 2013 after lots of articles were posted about it on Hackernews. Second stint in 2015. Finally started again two months back. There is still (a lot of) money to be made. Some people say I missed the boat by not buying the outlier BTC when it was 1$, but I could have also bought it at 50$ or 200$. Heck, you think Bitcoin is going to stay at 3300$ forever? Ethereum was 1$ 2 years back. That's a 200x-300x ROI there. I have no doubt some newer coins will do an easy 5x in 12 months. Past two months for me have been life-changing (possibly life-changing for my family too).
Some of these crypto companies are going to be the next Google's. Or they will use their winnings (or ICO) to bootstrap a competitor.
Are there scammers, hackers, hoaxers? Yes, it is still very much the wild west. Compare your email box around 2000, and the amounts of spam you had to sift through. Some less tech savy and/or naive people will get suckered in and some people will invest more than they can stand to lose. This is unfortunate, but beyond my control. I may even make some money of their irrational behavior. But people who read HackerNews? I've no doubt they can sift through the crap to find the diamond mines in the making. To spot if a team is technically advanced or just faking their marketing and headcount.
About the blockchain. To me it is like the early days of the internet ~1997, but for the financial world. It has the potential to disrupt Central Banks, FinTech, Money Transfer, Micropayments, Identity & Privacy, Money lending, Smart Contracts, Provenance, IOT, ... Far from boring, far from bubble.
This month will see the third wave of large-scale Bitcoin interest. I've spoken to web developers that are learning blockchain and smart contracts to prepare 3-5 years out. People are actually betting their livelihood on this technology. Is that a guarantee that the crypto market cap will increase? No, but it is a sign of the times we live in and the sweet spot that Bitcoin hit this month.
The point with cryptocurrencies is that it's a coin with two faces, the technical side and the speculative side, and most of the time one is not related with the other, and makes no sense for us technical guys because the tech is not related to the valuation.
BUT if you understand that there are two (non related) faces of the same "coin" (pun intended) , you can use your technical expertise to have an edge on the speculative side, why all the craziness with crypto? check out this stats:
https://icostats.com/roi-since-ico
Where in the world you can bet 1000$ and earn 1.000.000$ ? , Are all ponzi schemes? Definitely many are totally scams but many of them are here to stay as a part of the future.
Now do this exercise, pick a number from 1 to 100, done?, go to this link and check your crypto with the number you pick searching it by the first column.
https://coinmarketcap.com/historical/20170101/
And check If you had bought 1000$ at the first price how much did you win or lose today, you can answer this exercise if you want here!.
My point is, why not use our technical expertise to separate the wheat from the chaff?, understanding that you are playing on the speculative side with the help of your tech expertise the odds are in your favor.
I take heart in knowing that most of the people who made money were developers, especially from ethereum which I bought to play with.
Be careful of getting emotional about it. It could well be techies and goldbugs who knew about it early on and regret not buying earlier that succumb to fomo last after stewing over it too long.
It's best to buy just enough to assuage your feelings so that you're comfortable with whatever happens and then forget about it.
With so many being created, cryptocurrencies will come and go so speculating on which will become the winner is a time consuming obession. As dev Andreas Antonopolous says the best investment you can make is in learning the tech.
Solidity and other smart contract developers are in serious demand, paying stupid salaries as every finance company plows money into them. The space is still full of opportunities for developers if you look forward and around and not back.
>the value of which is then inevitably measured in… US dollars, which says something.
Which says a lot. These are crypto commodities at best. The real currency is the US dollar.
I really wanted crypto currencies to work, instead they've made me see the value in the Federal Reserve System even though I don't like the way it's run.
The promise of a systematic currency supply growth was enticing, but now I see what spiking demand can do with a fixed supply. Perhaps this is a problem that could be solved via a new supply algorithm.
Raising $120M in an ICO isn't the same as raising $120M from a VC. In the latter case, you get nothing if the business fails.
The big question is, why are people dumping so much more money into ICOs than into Kickstarter projects? Why does an ICO seem so much more legit? It's mostly the same thing. Yet ICOs are somehow raising 10x more than the most-funded Kickstarters without breaking a sweat.
reply