Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - CoinHoarder

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ... 44
196
General Discussion / Re: Someone Give Me a Reason To Keep Holding BTS
« on: January 08, 2016, 05:17:52 am »
Quote from: donkeypong on January 08, 2016, 04:45:48 am
Quote from: CoinHoarder on January 08, 2016, 04:41:19 am
@clout

You are being ridiculous for faulting Bitshares for not attracting large banking partners. No decentralized cryptocurrency has been able to do that, yet Bitshares should have been able to.... give me a break.  ::)

Have you missed all of the recent articles that all of the large banks are all developing their own private blockchains? Sadly, Identabit is going nowhere. Banks want 100% of the pie and 100% control. It is the sad reality of the matter.

You're talking about the big banks. And largely, I agree. They'll take one look at our DPOS proposal debates and say 'no thanks'. They sure as hell won't put their back end on this blockchain while it's under decentralized control. BUT if enough smaller and mid-sized businesses give it a try, recognizing how much money it saves them and all the advantages it holds, there is a real chance that: (a) we add sufficient scale to start growing, and (b) that stability, which must be longer term in terms of governance (and not just one change after another, as we've seen in recent years/months), then that may attract some larger organizations. Our witnesses and committees and whoever the hoo-ha's are will be a lot less inclined to make changes on a whim when all of us have a vested interest in letting the system grow and prosper, which can only happen with stability and predictability. In my mind, there's a big difference between those BIG banks and everyone else.

It's a similar story with venture capitalists... they are only investing in Bitcoin companies, or brand new cryptocurrencies/side chains with which they can have a large part of the pie. I haven't seen any VC money going into any established alternative cryptocurrencies which have been around for a while. Again, how can you fault Bitshares for this when no established alternative cryptocurrencies are succeeding in this department..

197
General Discussion / Re: Someone Give Me a Reason To Keep Holding BTS
« on: January 08, 2016, 04:41:19 am »
@clout
You are being ridiculous for faulting Bitshares for not attracting large banking partners. No decentralized cryptocurrency has been able to do that, yet Bitshares should have been able to.... give me a break. Have you missed all of the recent articles that all of the large banks are all developing their own private blockchains? Sadly, Identabit is going nowhere. Banks want 100% of the pie and 100% control. It is the sad reality of the matter.

@Empirical1.2 @neo1344
Quote from: Empirical1.2 on January 08, 2016, 12:42:24 am
Quote from: neo1344 on January 08, 2016, 12:26:49 am
http://prestonbyrne.com/2014/08/17/dont-walk-away-run/
Bts has lost 90% 0f its value since above article was published.

That guy wasn't too bright imo, I think he was mostly attacking the pegging system and that it would fail with a 50% price drop but actually it's held up very well.
Good point Empirical1.2, Preston Byrne's main accusation was that bitAssets would fail, which has turned out to be false thus far. In my opinion he simply wanted attention (and got it) in is blog posts on Bitshares. He was largely wrong as bitAssets have closely resembled the value of their real life counterparts for a long time now.. the only thing he coincidentally happened to be right on is the price.

@Akado @morpheus @Ander
I don't think anyone disagrees that those features would be beneficial to Bitshares (prediction markets, bond markets, etc.) The problem is that we have a limited amount of developers and the community cannot agree on what is most important. Everyone has their own opinion, and unfortunately everyone cannot immediately get what they want. It is time to stop whining every time you don't get what you want. I was against dilution (among other things) and I'm still here supporting Bitshares. You need to sell your stake if you don't like the direction the project is headed, or learn to accept the way it is headed is the way it is going to go for the time being.

@onceuponatime @clout
Quote from: onceuponatime on January 07, 2016, 10:03:19 pm
Quote from: clout on January 07, 2016, 09:59:59 pm
I sold a month or so ago when Dan made the post about vision. I realized then that this going nowhere. Dan's too much of an idealist and this project has lived and died by that ethos.
So, if you sold "a month ago" does the title you gave to this thread make you some kind of troll or just an ignoramus?
+1000000000%  +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5%

@lil_jay890
Quote from: lil_jay890 on January 07, 2016, 09:26:48 pm
You can expect further abuse of shareholders, while changing the rules so frequently that no business can start much less survive... All while staying financially and intellectually centralized by CNX.  Todays whale slaying just gives more concentrated power to CNX.

But remember... this whole price drop is because of negative people on the forum who scare away investors...lol

Either your account was conceived as an elaborate trolling scheme from day one, you already sold your stake and want to burn the house down on the way out, or you are the most retarded stakeholder of any cryptocurrency ever with all the FUD you've been spewing lately. Which one is it?


@fuzzy @luckybit
Quote from: fuzzy on January 07, 2016, 09:51:35 pm
Quote from: luckybit on January 07, 2016, 09:38:37 pm
If you have to ask this question then maybe it's time for you to sell.

If you cannot find an objective and rational reason to hold, to stay, then perhaps you shouldn't.

 +5%

I hate to agree but it isn't necessarily a bad thing..
You guys are way too smart for your own good.  +5% +5% +5% +5%

198
General Discussion / Re: make it stable &get a lot new user then test new function in devshares
« on: January 07, 2016, 04:27:02 am »
Quote from: fuzzy on January 06, 2016, 07:50:39 pm
beginning to wonder if you are paid to inject toxic fumes in conversations by competitors because if i were a competitor youd be my favorite person on these forums.

I wonder this about half the posters on this forum.

I am truly embarrassed. It is like they have no idea about supply and demand, or how big of a role public perception plays into that. All of these long time "supporters" attacking every move, decision, and statement CNX makes and they don't seem to realize that this will have a negative effect on the price. They complain about everything injecting negativity into every conversation, then in turn complain about the price falling without realizing that they are playing a large role in the price falling. Bitshares has a huge PR problem in the crypto community.. I frequent Bitcointalk and it is apparent. To make things even worse, Bitshares has a huge PR problem within its own community with these forums being a never-ending horror show. Something has to give.. either the price, or the horror show. We need to come together as a community, or abandon the project and dump our coins.

All I can say is that I'm happy 3/4 of my Bitshares are in bitBTC, bitGOLD, and bitSILVER... call me a bear, but there is so much negative energy around here that I am not sure I can stand to support this train wreck much longer.

199
General Discussion / Re: Mastering Approval Voting
« on: January 06, 2016, 02:51:51 pm »
dPoS will continue to be broken as long as there is no incentive to vote or penalty for not voting. At this point, I think the only way to fix it is by providing a penalty if you don't vote every so often, then your stake should be confiscated by the blockchain and burned. Kind of off topic from OP.. my bad.

200
General Discussion / Re: [POLL] Possible committee actions to help with liquidity
« on: January 04, 2016, 05:02:25 am »
I decided that I would indeed put my other project aside and work on a MM/Arbitrage bot that anyone can download and run on their computer alongside a CLI wallet. I am trying to make it stupidly easy to use so that my grandma could run it... I will be open sourcing it after I am happy that it is safe to for someone to run (won't lose a ton of money haha.)

Done:
- I got the wireframe just about done today: http://imgur.com/a/FelFn
- The settings are saved in a Mongo database (in case you need to reboot your computer, close the bot, etc..)
- You can access the bot from any computer with an internet connection if you forward the web server port

To-Do:
- I will add the ability to create a username and password for added security since you can access the bot from other computers if the port is forwarded.
- Write the Bitshares CLI wallet library
- Write the first exchange (Poloniex) library
- Write a MM/Arbitrage Logic library

I am going to firstly make sure it has the ability to perform arbitrage trades across all BTS/bitAsset markets (centralized exchanges and Bitshare's DEX.) I think that is much easier than making a MM bot. If I can finish that I may move onto some MM-like functions. In other words.. all of the hard stuff left to do.  :-X :'(

201
General Discussion / Re: [POLL] Possible committee actions to help with liquidity
« on: January 03, 2016, 02:29:21 am »
I'm glad that a few people like the idea of having an autonomous market maker! @Xeldal @Empirical1.2 @puppies @Akado

Quote from: Xeldal on January 03, 2016, 12:20:58 am
You can't guarantee trades will be profitable, but I like the idea.
Ah, OK my bad.. I honestly don't know a whole lot about market making, in that case this probably shouldn't be fee pool funded.

Quote from: Xeldal on January 03, 2016, 12:20:58 am
In addition, if anyone could fund this pool, and take the chance on its profitability, it could be very popular.
I agree, it is a good idea for this to be fund-able by shareholders. This would also help with the issue  @Empirical1.2 brought up by allowing people to deposit assets the autonomous market maker was low on:

Quote from: Empirical1.2 on January 03, 2016, 12:21:32 am
Apparently it's a little bit harder than just setting at X%...

Quote from: monsterer on October 24, 2015, 03:32:24 pm
The problem with market making is its only profitable in mean reverting markets (sometimes referred to as ranging), as soon as you get a strong trend the market maker will lose money because it will end up with an unbalanced inventory of assets. That risk makes designing a good one very very complicated.


Quote from: Xeldal on January 03, 2016, 12:20:58 am
I think the idea of a simple native MM is a good idea in itself.  Maybe a fit for a smart contract.
I would prefer it to be autonomous or I personally would not likely deposit into it.

Quote from: Xeldal on January 03, 2016, 12:20:58 am
It probably wouldn't require committee funds but may be a nice addition.  And if profitable, is a nice addition to the committee account as well. The MM pool could simply issue a token for donations to it, and the token could be exchanged back in for the equivalent percentage ownership of whats left of the pool... minus some fee.

Pretty simple.

Agreed, this could be like a UIA, or there could be a specific MM account that people can load with different Smartcoins.

Quote from: Empirical1.2 on January 03, 2016, 12:21:32 am
I'd like to see something like this too. I still think we should attempt to come up with something, even if it has a daily limit/other. With more liquidity, BitUSD would be a more trusted option than NBT/Uphold but without it, it's the least favoured option so I'm always in favour of addressing this even if there's a cost and the market maker isn't profitable.
I concur

Quote from: puppies on January 03, 2016, 01:13:11 am
We seem to be bottlenecked by development.  Either cost or manpower.  If we can come up with solutions that don't require cnx, we will be all the stronger for it. 

Unfortunately, I agree but this could at the very least be put into the long term plans for Bitshares. I think increasing liquidity should be the main priority of development.

Quote from: Akado on January 03, 2016, 01:16:59 am
And we could all help with that https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20859.0.html

I can't build an autonomous decentralized MM bot, but I can attempt to build a bot that anyone could download and run on their computer. I will mess around with it... I have been learning Javascript/Node the past few months (I've been making Meteor apps specifically) and might be able to do that. I also have done some Java/C++/HTML/CSS in the past, but am really rusty in Java/C++. I think an open sourced Meteor app that anyone can download and run in their browser would be legit. I would need to study the economics of MM bots though first.  ???


202
General Discussion / Re: [BSIP] Percentage-based transfer fee solution based on CER
« on: January 02, 2016, 11:13:30 pm »
Quote from: jakub on January 02, 2016, 10:59:54 pm
Quote from: CoinHoarder on January 02, 2016, 10:54:00 pm
I thought percentage-based transfer fees were not possible because of stealth transfers?
But if we cannot do it for stealth, should this fact prevent us from having percentage-based fees on normal transfers?

This is what I was referring to. I thought that Stealth transfers prevented all other transfer fees from being percentage based, but maybe I am misunderstanding something. From your other thread..

Quote from: jakub on December 19, 2015, 11:47:32 am
In the last Mumble @bytemaster mentioned that percentage-based transfer fees are a complex subject, mainly because of these two reasons:
- it's hard to reliably determine the exact BTS value of an asset at any given point of time
- for stealth transfers the amount is not available

203
General Discussion / Re: [POLL] Possible committee actions to help with liquidity
« on: January 02, 2016, 11:06:00 pm »
I would like to go a different route with these funds, but it would take quite a bit of development. I suggest we use the funds in the fee pool to create an autonomous market maker. The price feeds published by delegates can be used and set the peg X% from the median price for each Smartcoin. Over time as fee pool grows, liquidity provided by the autonomous market maker will grow along with it. Slowly and permanently growing liquidity is better than putting a "band aid" on the problem (which is IMO what the OP does.) The autonomous market maker should only makes trades if a trade is profitable, so the fee pool grows slowly overtime from trading profits and also Smartcoin fee collection.

204
General Discussion / Re: [BSIP] Percentage-based transfer fee solution based on CER
« on: January 02, 2016, 10:54:00 pm »
I thought percentage-based transfer fees were not possible because of stealth transfers?

205
General Discussion / Re: Bolstering DEX Liquidity (previously my rant/opinion on Bitshares' DEX)
« on: January 01, 2016, 10:10:40 pm »
Quote from: Nagalim on January 01, 2016, 10:00:41 pm
I think you're still a little confused.  The bitusd will be held in a multisig reserve as a tier 4 fund, it will not be spent unless the nubit peg is in serious imminent danger and we've spent all our btc (you know, depending on how we actually end up specifying the terms of the bitusd reserve.  It'll be a zoology reserve, again for anyone keeping track).

You are right, my bad I still do not fully grasp how Nushares works and the terminology.

Quote from: Nagalim on January 01, 2016, 10:00:41 pm
The providers will be paid in nbt.  For every nbt we give providers, this proposal would imply that the bitasset community owes Nushareholders 0.5 bitusd per nbt used.  These can be created using bts y'all print or whatever, it's not really my concern where you get your money from.  I'd suggest you print some fresh bts and lock it to make bitusd then give us the bitusd to Nu under the assumption that they probably won't even spend it.  Then you basically get free liquidity.  But again, not my concern.

I'd suggest we start with something like $1/day until we get a real handle on the price feed.  Of course, there's going to be plenty of beaurocratic hurdles to overcome to get a proper contract written and passed on the Nu block chain, then there's the matter of the ALP bot upgrade not being ready yet.  So this whole concept may take time (months) to come to fruition, but I truly believe it would be a lucrative endeavor.
I agree that it sounds like it would be a win/win agreement. I wonder if there is enough support in the Bitshares and Nushares community to make it happen. I guess I will let others here voice their support or concern so we can judge the Bitshares community's opinion..

206
General Discussion / Re: Bolstering DEX Liquidity (previously my rant/opinion on Bitshares' DEX)
« on: January 01, 2016, 09:14:39 pm »
Quote from: Nagalim on January 01, 2016, 08:53:07 pm
"Isn't that how a "liquidity pool" works in Nushares... the people fronting the Nubits make interest on their deposits, right? I understand liquidity providers take a risk, but so is the person fronting the bitUSD..."

I'm not sure I fully understand the question here, so I'll go ahead and clarify by talking about Nubits only and leave bitusd out of it.

So there are two parties with nbt: the operator and the provider.  The operator is granted funds by shareholders, and so must be trusted and contracted properly to give out the funds fairly to providers.  The providers then put nbt (and btc) up as market orders on their own account.  They are always in control of these funds, but as long as they prove the market orders are theirs by providing API info, the operator credits the provider and gives out some of the nbt granted by shareholders.

The end result is that we can get large amounts of funds (thousands of $$) by only rewarding a small, continual payout (single digit $/day).  So the shareholders take the risk that the liquidity provision will make the network more valuable than the cost for liquidity while the providers take on all default and volatility risks and get rewarded for it.  Everybody's happy, we make a contract, and the whole system becomes reliable and dependable for customers.

Thank you, I think I understand it better now. I understand now that we are paying for liquidity (at most $9 a day?) and not investing in the market making services themselves. Eventually the bitUSD funds will all be spent on Liquidity costs because there is a daily fee, so the bitUSD that will be provided upfront is pretty much a donation to the network to afford us more liquidity, correct?

The Bitshares shareholders would need to decide if having more bitUSD liquidity is worth the expense, and how would we fund the initiative? I can think of several different ways. As JonnyBitcoin mentioned we can use the reserve pool, we could create a worker proposal, or simply run the operations on donations (althoguh I'm not sure we would be able to raise enough via this method.)

207
General Discussion / Re: Pivot, Shamelessly Imitate, or Die A Slow Death- My opinion on Bitshares
« on: January 01, 2016, 08:19:37 pm »
Quote from: Nagalim on January 01, 2016, 07:41:27 pm
So let's do a thought experiment:
BitAssets pays $5,000 to one liquidity provider.  For some reason we trust that provider with our funds (like a T3 trusted custodial grant for anyone keeping track) but let's ignore that for now.  So the provider puts up the funds as a sell order and they get bought.  Now the provider needs to do the arbitrage shuffle to get the funds back on exchange.  In the meantime, there is no liquidity.  The provider gets tired of doing this all the time and starts charging a premium.  This generates competition, but we're still just picking the best offer out of the ones on the table and almost invariably have to pay premium.  Then the exchange defaults and we lose all our money.  Welcome to the first 6 months of Nu.

We then developed automatic liquidity provision such that we can decentralize this process and lay the exchange default risks on the providers shoulders instead of the network.  Anyway, long story short, no matter what the costs for liquidity provision exist.  You say providers profit, but they take on risk and opportunity cost and their profit is well earned.  The network pays a little to get functionality, which brings in new money.  Economies are not a zero sum game, sometimes you gotta spend a little to grow the network.

I still don't get why there is no obvious incentive for the person(s) fronting the bitUSD (other than the value to the BTS token from the added liquidity.) Isn't that how a "liquidity pool" works in Nushares... the people fronting the Nubits make interest on their deposits, right? I understand liquidity providers take a risk, but so is the person fronting the bitUSD...

I just realize you run a liquidity pool for Nubits.. http://nupond.net/ ... right? I guess you know a lot more about this than I do, so maybe I am still misunderstanding something. Is the only benefit of people depositing into liquidity pools the added liquidity and the pool pockets all interest? Perhaps that is my misunderstanding.. I am interested in continuing this conversation because liquidity is a major problem with Smartcoins and the Bitshares DEX.

208
General Discussion / Re: Pivot, Shamelessly Imitate, or Die A Slow Death- My opinion on Bitshares
« on: January 01, 2016, 07:41:48 pm »
I'm going to change the name of the thread to DEX liquidity discussions as that is the way the conversation has shifted.


Quote from: Samupaha on January 01, 2016, 11:05:55 am
What do you think of Market Maker Incentivization Worker Proposal? Could that provide useful incentives for liquidity?

Yes, I think it would certainly help. However, I think we need to pursue all possible avenues of increasing liquidity because that is the main issue with the DEX right now.

Quote from: JonnyBitcoin on January 01, 2016, 12:24:46 pm
we need to use the reserve pool as collateral to create a bunch of smartcoin to help liquidity.

I like this idea, we would just need to garner shareholder support. What do you think the pros and cons would be of using this money in the way you proposed in your thread versus using the money in the way Nagalim is proposing? I am thinking Nagalim's proposal provides more liquidity, but there is more risk involved with his proposal than with your proposal.

(reference: Jonny's thread: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20836.0.html)

209
General Discussion / Re: Pivot, Shamelessly Imitate, or Die A Slow Death- My opinion on Bitshares
« on: January 01, 2016, 07:29:17 pm »
Quote from: Nagalim on January 01, 2016, 09:22:51 am
You say it's risky for the bts holders fronting the bitUSD and say nothing about the shareholders fronting nbt.
True, my bad... whomever is fronting the Nubits also has risk.

Quote from: Nagalim on January 01, 2016, 09:22:51 am
You need to understand that liquidity costs money.  You try to 'solve' the cost of liquidity by widening the peg and you end up right back where you started.  If your network can't put up a couple dollars a day for a working product, what good is you whatever a million marketcap?

Ya'll will learn sooner or later that liquidity provision is about opportunity cost and you need to reward liquidity providers with a portion of your marketcap if you want a tight peg.

So.. in your proposed deal only the liquidity provider makes a profit, is that correct? In that case I'm having trouble understanding why we couldn't fund the purchase of the NBT and the bitUSD and be the liquidity provider ourselves. It would help negate the risks of fronting the money and provide incentive for people to do so. That may be the only way that this would be feasible... unless the money is raised by a worker proposal, or by the fees that are already locked on the chain (those options would of course require everyone to be on board with it).

I feel like I must still be missing something in the deal you are proposing?

210
General Discussion / Re: Pivot, Shamelessly Imitate, or Die A Slow Death- My opinion on Bitshares
« on: January 01, 2016, 07:56:40 am »
I organized your post so it is easier to respond to.  :P

Quote from: CoinGame on December 30, 2015, 11:01:18 pm
This is the most flattering thread I've seen for Nu on this forum, One year ago Nu was a ponzi scheme, horrible economics, disaster waiting to happen... on and on. (I mean it could be a disaster waiting to happen... who knows.) Now I arrive at this thread. I mean it's literally at the point where someone is suggesting to merge the design of Nu and B&C into the project and the responses are like "great idea!". We haven't really had to market Nu. I think we put out our first paid ads for NuBits on The Daily Decrypt just a couple weeks ago. That's it for paid marketing as far as I'm aware and it took us a year to get there. The project focuses mainly on results. I can promise you though if you guys decided to start following the implementation of Nu and B&C it will be the best free marketing we could ever ask for. I'm giddy just thinking about it.

First of all, not many people in the community have responded to this thread. There is probably little supports for merging Nushares/Nubits' design into Bitshares. I think a deal such that Nagalim is proposing is more realistic. Bitshares is not a complete failure, it has many benefits Nushares/Nubits/Peercoin do not have. Although Nubits has more liquidity than bitUSD, SmartCoins have other advantages such as leveraged trading, collateral, and it is much easier to trade different types of assets (BTC, GOLD, etc.) Furthermore, SmartCoins are only a small subset of what gives Bitshares its value. I'm not going to elaborate, but read through the pages here and you will understand what I mean: https://bitshares.org/technology/

It may be good marketing for Nushares/B&C if their features were implemented in Bitshares, but I still see Bitshares winning that war because it would have the features from both SmartCoins and Nushares/Nubits. I think the technologies combined are much better than them existing on their own. Thus, I see it being better for Bitshares in the long run unless Nushares/Nubits also integrates SmartCoin-like assets.

Quote from: CoinGame on December 30, 2015, 11:01:18 pm
How does anyone expect investors to have any faith in BitShares if you guys have to pivot every nine months? What has this project consistently done well with since launch?  That's genuinely an honest question. I would like to know. My impression is the project tries to do everything, and because of that nothing gets done well. When is BitShares going to decide to focus on doing one thing really well?  I don't have a deep understanding of the project but I like to come by here and catch up on happenings. There's no real product focus. There will be no community or vision to stand on if the project doesn't have legs. I think the future of BitShares would be brighter by finding a real identity. Not through the community but through the product. I'm not really sure what this project is trying to do, and I don't think i'm alone there.

Bitshares is inherently chaotic by nature. At first we tried separate chains like you guys, but we found that there were benefits to combining the chains (something I supported since the beginning). Bitshares embraces innovation of all types and is not focused on a single industry, thus there are many opinions of what direction the project should and shouldn't go. The chaos is interesting because there's always something new to talk about. Some people see this as a weakness as you can see in the latest DEX vs MAS debate, but I see this as Bitshares' strength.... If it had not innovated in many different areas, IMO it would not be at where it is today (a top 10 market cap coin). The DEX, although functional, has not been a wild success due to low volume and liquidity, and thus Bitshares is really relying on the existence of those other innovations to support its value. The value of the BTS token would be much worse off if Bitshares was only simply a DEX. You are certainly right though as you said. As evidenced by recent debates you are not alone in thinking Bitshares needs to become a master in something or else it risks being average at everything.

Quote from: CoinGame on December 30, 2015, 11:01:18 pm
Just wanted to leave some thoughts since this is a very strange thread to see on here. The BitShares community is much larger than Nu, and it has some really great members. It's why I like to come lurk.

I only have a small percentage of my cryptofolio invested in Bitshares, and thus I feel like I am more objective than some of the forum users that are heavily invested in Bitshares on here.  All of my ALT investments (of which I own many different coins/securities... mainly only innovative projects) are pretty evenly split to hedge the risks with most of my portfolio in Bitcoin/Litecoin because of network effects. Maybe I am just stupid/delusional/crazy... OK, I know I am at least a little crazy because I prefer studying cryptocurrencies than talking to human beings.  ;)

I like to come here too even though I am not a large Bitshares investor, because there are a lot of smart people around these forums and there are usually interesting threads going on. Bitcointalk is just spam, shills, and trolls nowadays. I like to come here to vent, post ideas, and share my opinion on different things. I'm not sure anyone ever reads what I write, but I enjoy doing it nonetheless!   8)

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ... 44

Page created in 0.023 seconds with 20 queries.