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 - Empirical1.2

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 92
46
General Discussion / Re: Claims of BM saying BitShares has failed
« on: May 26, 2016, 01:22:23 am »
Quote from: Tuck Fheman on May 25, 2016, 10:37:06 pm
Quote from: btswildpig on May 24, 2016, 01:39:43 am
and it seems STEEM is not something we should remotely consider to invest in given the history .

Fuck history, look at the damn price son!  Anyone that bought that last dip just doubled up.  ;)

 Steemit is most like Reddit imo

Quote
As of June 2015, there were 36 million user accounts.

As of 2015, Reddit had 542 million monthly visitors (234 million unique users), ranking 14th most visited web-site in US and 36th in the world.[6] Across 2015, Reddit saw 82.54 billion pageviews, 73.15 million submissions, 725.85 million comments, and 6.89 billion upvotes from its users.[7

In October 2014 Reddit raised $50 million in a funding round... Their investment saw the company valued at $500 million.[10][11]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reddit

So Reddit is valued at like $15 per user?

So Steemit at a valuation of $30 million implies they expect to have 2 million users in the near future.

That's not taking into account that Steemit are actually directly paying for those users, are also directly paying for their content and have no monetisation so I imagine they will actually experience a significant loss per user for the forseeable future so their valuation should be...

47
General Discussion / Re: Claims of BM saying BitShares has failed
« on: May 26, 2016, 12:33:16 am »
Quote from: BunkerChain Labs on May 25, 2016, 10:29:59 pm
Quote from: Empirical1.2 on May 24, 2016, 04:56:58 pm
Quote from: Akado on May 22, 2016, 02:43:52 pm
The creator of a now defunct crowdfunding site fueled by Bitcoin, BitShares, wrote a biting online post on Tuesday arguing that the D.A.O. would most likely fail for the same reason that BitShares ultimately failed: “people problems, economic problems and political problems.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/business/dealbook/crypto-ether-bitcoin-currency.html

From his original post, I get that he only talks about BitShares mistakes in the past, he didn't exactly claim bts is dead? It's certainly not in a good condition but did he actually claim that? Or did the nytimes just twist his words?

Some of his blog post was correct regarding the DAO facing some of the same challenges as BTS.

However he came to an incorrect conclusion about shareholders being anti-spending. The anti-spending was more a direct result of BM/CNX being unable to add value to BTS since the merger (incl. merger itself) and as result shareholders are specifically reluctant to throw money at CNX & cautious and unexcited about other spending as a result. Graphene also seems to be a less popular codebase that is harder to independently add too, so we had very few non CNX related options, DAO and (also LISK holders - DPOS) should theoretically be presented with a much wider choice of options and lower barriers to entry. The merger also adds little value and puts downward pressure on price which shareholders aren't easily able to dissociate from other dilution. We were also mostly presented with developments BM was more interested in working on as opposed to things like margin trading that there may be a lot more support for.

So I think once the merger is over shareholders will be more likely to fund development as there will be less other downward price pressure. We should also have transitioned to a post CNX stage by then. I hope we are at least funding SmartCoin liquidity and one major feature prior to that though personally.

Stan also came to the same incorrect conclusions.

Quote from: Stan on April 19, 2016, 07:00:00 pm
Quote from: lil_jay890 on April 19, 2016, 06:17:18 pm
Quote from: oldmine on April 19, 2016, 06:00:29 pm
So when is the bond market proposal available for voting?

This is what I don't get... CNX complains that bitshares is unwilling to pay workers yet they never even create a proposal to vote on.

The only worker out there are bug fixers, GUI improvement and documentation.  Important, but none of those are adding a new core feature.

Proposals are based in part on what resources are available to work on them.
Resources are hired based on the availability of stable funding.
A constant battle over who controls the funding light switch means no one dares hire against any line item.
So the resources remain allocated elsewhere.

Voting is overrated.  I wouldn't want to ride on an aircraft controlled by voting passengers.
Give me a benevolent whale any day :)

What I find ironic given their above conclusions that decentralised voting is over-rated as well as the distribution of Steem is that it's slogan is...

Quote
Steemit - The way social media should be - DECENTRALIZED

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1466593.msg14800086#msg14800086

If this was really the case, about it being directed at BM/CNX, why then not vote for all the proposals that were put forward that were not them? Heck majority of the proposals were not them.

I can understand this perspective and the conclusions drawn, I just don't think its that specific because the lack of support for others. Almost all workers teetered on losing support almost always on a daily basis, effectively making it unworkable (pun intended). This was out of basic economics arguments of dilution primarily... not BM/CNX.

The argument is that BM/CNX failed to add value over such a long period since merger (incl. merger) that the market was skeptical about any dilution for development adding shareholder value & the things they might have funded like a bond market I don't think were presented. (This was also conflated by merger sell pressure which amplified the idea that dilution for development is draining.)

Had BM/CNX as the main developers of BTS, managed to grow it's value post merger shareholders would have been willing to fund a wide range of other workers imo.

https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-startups-fail

Quote
Within 3 years, 92% of startups failed. Of those who failed 74%, failed due to premature scaling.
Premature scaling means spending money on marketing, hiring etc. either before you found a working business model (you acquire users for less than the revenue they bring) or in general spending too fast while failing to secure further financing.

While there are other ways to add value like increasing utility, partnerships and more, primarily BTS like many start-ups has struggled to find a business model/app that constantly attracted new users or generated revenue/profit.

(I still think that business model is SmartCoins and am in favour of funding SmartCoin liquidity and yield especially.)

BTS shareholders waited 14-18 months for something. If DAO via Slock.it for example, a LISK DAPP, or even something on BTS is funded that is hot and either brings in users by the droves or generates revenue/profit like good investments should then I don't think we will see anti-spending and will also see a willingness to fund more general development to keep the underlying platform competitive too.


48
General Discussion / Re: bitCNY optimization committee proposal voting begins
« on: May 25, 2016, 08:44:53 pm »
Quote from: BunkerChain Labs on May 25, 2016, 03:35:53 pm
Quote from: Chronos on May 25, 2016, 03:06:52 pm
@bitcrab is going about this the proper way. I am impressed and pleased by his patience and professional behavior.

He created a worker, which is not free, and it received over 250M votes over a period of weeks. This is enough votes to replace half the committee with his own supporters, but instead he has allowed the committee to remain and vote as they see fit.

He then created the committee proposal, set to expire June 21. I think it's likely that @bitcrab he could have easily enacted this by June 1, but again, he provided another 3 weeks for discussion. We should appreciate his patience in this matter.

Agreed!  +5%

 +5%

49
General Discussion / Re: Does anyone has an opinion to Lisk?
« on: May 24, 2016, 11:17:14 pm »
Quote from: Empirical1.2 on May 24, 2016, 05:43:43 pm
been very impressed with their business acumen to date.

Well I take that back too after their poor launch.

50
General Discussion / Re: Does anyone has an opinion to Lisk?
« on: May 24, 2016, 06:34:28 pm »
Quote from: EstefanTT on May 24, 2016, 06:02:27 pm
Quote from: Empirical1.2 on May 24, 2016, 05:43:43 pm
Quote from: Empirical1.2 on May 24, 2016, 03:52:35 pm
Quote from: EstefanTT on May 21, 2016, 10:34:42 am
Isn't it weird this increasing price ? Is there a remote possibility that lisk conserve its current price price after release ?
Unlikely volumes are very low.

I take that back. I see LISK will be trading on Poloniex from the outset. Should still fall from pre-launch prices but could trade much higher than I initially anticipated.

Besides getting on there, also great move announcing it only recently, been very impressed with their business acumen to date.
Very professional in all aspect until now indeed !

I guess the price will drop probably between 0.5 and 1$. If I can sell some at higher prices, I will definitively consider buying back some below 0.5$.

I'm not a trader, it's pure noob speculation. Any advice is welcome !

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

I don't really know. I see it settling above $0.5 too, so I doubt I will sell below there if it dumps initially and will probably also buy back in some at below that level.

I think a lot of people have the same idea though and considering the capital sloshing around on Polo I think it could surprise to the upside.

51
General Discussion / Re: Does anyone has an opinion to Lisk?
« on: May 24, 2016, 05:43:43 pm »
Quote from: Empirical1.2 on May 24, 2016, 03:52:35 pm
Quote from: EstefanTT on May 21, 2016, 10:34:42 am
Isn't it weird this increasing price ? Is there a remote possibility that lisk conserve its current price price after release ?
Unlikely volumes are very low.

I take that back. I see LISK will be trading on Poloniex from the outset. Should still fall from pre-launch prices but could trade much higher than I initially anticipated.

Besides getting on there, also great move announcing it only recently, been very impressed with their business acumen to date.

52
General Discussion / Re: Claims of BM saying BitShares has failed
« on: May 24, 2016, 04:56:58 pm »
Quote from: Akado on May 22, 2016, 02:43:52 pm
The creator of a now defunct crowdfunding site fueled by Bitcoin, BitShares, wrote a biting online post on Tuesday arguing that the D.A.O. would most likely fail for the same reason that BitShares ultimately failed: “people problems, economic problems and political problems.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/business/dealbook/crypto-ether-bitcoin-currency.html

From his original post, I get that he only talks about BitShares mistakes in the past, he didn't exactly claim bts is dead? It's certainly not in a good condition but did he actually claim that? Or did the nytimes just twist his words?

Some of his blog post was correct regarding the DAO facing some of the same challenges as BTS.

However he came to an incorrect conclusion about shareholders being anti-spending. The anti-spending was more a direct result of BM/CNX being unable to add value to BTS since the merger (incl. merger itself) and as result shareholders are specifically reluctant to throw money at CNX & cautious and unexcited about other spending as a result. Graphene also seems to be a less popular codebase that is harder to independently add too, so we had very few non CNX related options, DAO and (also LISK holders - DPOS) should theoretically be presented with a much wider choice of options and lower barriers to entry. The merger also adds little value and puts downward pressure on price which shareholders aren't easily able to dissociate from other dilution. We were also mostly presented with developments BM was more interested in working on as opposed to things like margin trading that there may be a lot more support for.

So I think once the merger is over shareholders will be more likely to fund development as there will be less other downward price pressure. We should also have transitioned to a post CNX stage by then. I hope we are at least funding SmartCoin liquidity and one major feature prior to that though personally.

Stan also came to the same incorrect conclusions.

Quote from: Stan on April 19, 2016, 07:00:00 pm
Quote from: lil_jay890 on April 19, 2016, 06:17:18 pm
Quote from: oldmine on April 19, 2016, 06:00:29 pm
So when is the bond market proposal available for voting?

This is what I don't get... CNX complains that bitshares is unwilling to pay workers yet they never even create a proposal to vote on.

The only worker out there are bug fixers, GUI improvement and documentation.  Important, but none of those are adding a new core feature.

Proposals are based in part on what resources are available to work on them.
Resources are hired based on the availability of stable funding.
A constant battle over who controls the funding light switch means no one dares hire against any line item.
So the resources remain allocated elsewhere.

Voting is overrated.  I wouldn't want to ride on an aircraft controlled by voting passengers.
Give me a benevolent whale any day :)

What I find ironic given their above conclusions that decentralised voting is over-rated as well as the distribution of Steem is that it's slogan is...

Quote
Steemit - The way social media should be - DECENTRALIZED

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1466593.msg14800086#msg14800086

53
General Discussion / Re: Ethereum price discussion
« on: May 24, 2016, 04:37:16 pm »
Been short ETH/BTC again.

Supply removal caused by DAO will be coming to an end and should actually reverse as gets spent putting pressure on price.

ETH needs a lot of new constant demand to sustain a billion valuation anyway due to high inflation.

Bullish on BTC as halving not too far off. (After halving BTC will need less average new demand to sustain 7 billion than ETH does to sustain 1.2 Billion.)




54
General Discussion / Re: Does anyone has an opinion to Lisk?
« on: May 24, 2016, 03:52:35 pm »
Quote from: EstefanTT on May 21, 2016, 10:34:42 am
The price is moving up just before the official release.

I'm not a trader but the price have a tendency to drop heavily when the real token hit the exchanges.

Isn't it weird this increasing price ? Is there a remote possibility that lisk conserve its current price price after release ?


Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

Unlikely volumes are very low.

It will be interesting to see how LISK does medium term though given they've adopted DPOS/101 delegate system.

- Graphene/BTS seems to be an unfamiliar codebase whereas LISK is Javascript which should be a lot more popular?

- BTS developers were co-located for efficiency originally but as a result there were not a lot of big developments that couldn't be done without going through CNX and it will take time for BTS to find it's feet post CNX, while I imagine with LISK it will be fairly easy for independent third parties to develop/add DAPPS from fairly early on.

- Since the merger, CNX was largely unable to add shareholder value despite multiple developments and the release of 2.0, this made shareholders reluctant to keep throwing money at CNX. LISK holders will probably be willing to vote in more proposals.

- BTS probably would have voted in things like margin trading which was never made into a full proposal and generally we were steered into the developments BM was most excited about working on at the time. Again LISK holders may be presented with much wider, more competitive options.

So it will be interesting to see if LISK can apply the DPOS model in a more competitive, value growing way, at the very least it should be superior to the current high inflation ETH Mining model. 

55
General Discussion / Re: The DAO price discussion thread.
« on: May 20, 2016, 11:00:34 pm »
Quote from: onceuponatime on May 20, 2016, 10:39:38 pm
But it's not fair. Mommy, it's not fair. That mean man won't let me get wealthy without work, creativity, or risk. It's not fair. Doesn't he know who I am? I am a MINER. Mommy! I'm an INVESTOR. Mommy!
********************************************************************************************

The following was released by Bytemaster well before the steem mining began:

How to Launch a Crypto Currency Legally while Raising Funds

"Perhaps the Bitcoin Communities cultural regulations are a blessing in disguise. By intentionally violating every one of their expectations you can minimize your token’s value at launch while still legally mining a token for minimal cost."

"You just need thick skin and the ability to ignore the Bitcoin pharisees and the angry mob they incite to nail you to a cross for failing to sacrifice your creation to the prevailing mining gods."
http://bytemaster.github.io/article/2016/03/27/How-to-Launch-a-Crypto-Currency-Legally-while-Raising-Funds/

**********************************************************************************************

Sometimes the stench of entitlement around here is just nauseating. Yeah I'm looking at you.

I didn't have an issue with the 'intentional violation every one of the Bitcoin communities cultural regulations'

The point I'm making is that the ANN didn't communicate or link to that and so in my opinion attempted to deliberately mislead investors for the reasons stated above (non-disclosure of deliberately making it difficult in ANN, implying a wide fair distribution by marketing as No Premine/No Instamine, implying a wide fair distribution by listing multiple unique miners present at launch (despite securing 80% of initial supply) and potential deletion of posts relating to mining/initial distribution.)

So my opinion it is those actions of omitting and misrepresenting of what they were doing in the ANN that might be viewed as miss-selling/misrepresentation & possibly intent to defraud.

If your opinion is different or you agree but you believe miss-selling/defrauding investors is acceptable that's fine. You're entitled to your opinion and views and I will still try to be polite and professional despite that not being reciprocated.

56
General Discussion / Re: The DAO price discussion thread.
« on: May 20, 2016, 09:24:10 pm »
Quote from: chryspano on May 20, 2016, 07:46:35 pm
Quote from: Empirical1.2 on May 20, 2016, 01:23:32 pm
Listing the unique miners present at launch is a further effort attempt at implying a wide, fair, distributed launch but given they secured 80% of the initial Steem for themselves, (so presumably many of those miners were the same entity/other) could be viewed as a further attempt to mislead/misrepresent.

If you have some FACTS besides your tin foil hat theories I would like to hear/see them.

Not sure if this particular version of events is true but I think this is the gist of the allegation regarding how they made the mining deliberately difficult...

Quote from: cryptohunter on April 05, 2016, 06:08:29 pm
Here's how they did it:

First, they did a typical instamine/flashmine/freemine scam (yes scam) where they released

(1) no compiled wallets
(2) no instructions to build
(3) incomplete and inaccurate instructions to mine

This wasn't bad enough. After the first 12 or so hours of mining, all their miners crashed, exposing that they were mining to 100 different witnesses to hide the fact that they (he) was one entity. The devs wouldn't have been caught except that their mining instructions were wrong, and no one else was mining because, even if they couldn't get the client to build, they entered mining commands that caused them to get no blocks. The devs will claim this isn't on purpose, but check the original thread. You'll see that no one mined a block when the dev's miners were down.

Then, as I have stated many times, when their miners crashed again, I mined a significant amount of steem that night in their absence. To prevent my vesting that and driving the price of vests up on them, they relaunched to ensure COMPLETE CONTROL AND CENTRALIZATION.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1427230.0

(OP alleges they were exposed as mining to many different witnesses but being one entity in the initial launch and if true it's likely they followed a similiar modus operandi in the relaunch & is also why they were able to secure 80% of the initial Steem.)



57
General Discussion / Re: The DAO price discussion thread.
« on: May 20, 2016, 01:23:32 pm »
Quote from: svk on May 20, 2016, 09:10:32 am


Quote from: Empirical1.2 on May 20, 2016, 03:15:25 am
Quote from: lil_jay890 on May 18, 2016, 03:04:06 am
There are a lot of "projects" coming out of the woodwork now that people have seen how easily crypto investors part with their cash.

Most seem borderline scammy and there is no recourse for investors if the projects go belly up or if the founders leave with the cash.  Maybe you have some hope if you are in the us, but if your investing in something foreign you have virtually zero share holder rights.

 I'm not sure how much longer they will be able to do this before people get wise or regulatory authorities take a closer look at what is going on.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1410943.0

In their self moderated STEEM ANN, they didn't disclose that they mined 80% of the intial STEEM to themselves & also that they made it deliberately difficult for others to participate which is key investor information.  They also boldly labelled it as ' No Premine | No Instamine' which they knew was misleading given they'd secured 80% of the initial supply. I would have thought there was a high risk that would count as financial miss-selling but I assume they've taken legal counsel on most of their decisions.

Well since at the time of the announcement they hadn't mined anything there's nothing incorrect about that. The ~80% stake was secured through mining AFTER the announcement.

What they did do was throw a ton of mining power at it as soon as they made the announcement, possibly with a more efficient hashing code than the one available to the rest of us, but it's still correct to say there was no pre-mine or insta-mine. Even with their extreme mining power it took them weeks to get their target stake..

Yes but the strategy of making it deliberately difficult for others and mining the vast majority to themselves was known prior to that announcement. So not disclosing that in the ANN is misleading to potential investors.

Marketing it as 'No premine|No Instamine' 'implies' a wide, fair, distributed launch that the founders/others don't have an unfairly mined stake in which is not the case so that is misleading to potential investors.

Listing the unique miners present at launch is a further effort attempt at implying a wide, fair, distributed launch but given they secured 80% of the initial Steem for themselves, (so presumably many of those miners were the same entity/other) could be viewed as a further attempt to mislead/misrepresent.

The self moderated thread also says it will likely remove posts that are critical of the mining/distribution method.

So the omission, potential misrepresentation + removal of relevant investor (share/property distribution) information in the ANN is why I thought it could be viewed as miss-selling/misrepresentation though I imagine it's not legally enforceable.

Quote
Intent to defraud means an intention to deceive another person, and to induce such other person, in reliance upon such deception, to assume, create, transfer, alter, or terminate a right, obligation, or power with reference to property.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/defraud

58
General Discussion / Re: The DAO price discussion thread.
« on: May 20, 2016, 03:15:25 am »
Quote from: lil_jay890 on May 18, 2016, 03:04:06 am
There are a lot of "projects" coming out of the woodwork now that people have seen how easily crypto investors part with their cash.

Most seem borderline scammy and there is no recourse for investors if the projects go belly up or if the founders leave with the cash.  Maybe you have some hope if you are in the us, but if your investing in something foreign you have virtually zero share holder rights.

 I'm not sure how much longer they will be able to do this before people get wise or regulatory authorities take a closer look at what is going on.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1410943.0

In their self moderated STEEM ANN, they didn't disclose that they mined 80% of the intial STEEM to themselves & also that they made it deliberately difficult for others to participate which is key investor information.  They also boldly labelled it as ' No Premine | No Instamine' which they knew was misleading given they'd secured 80% of the initial supply. I would have thought there was a high risk that would count as financial miss-selling but I assume they've taken legal counsel on most of their decisions.



59
Technical Support / Re: Bytemaster and team are no longer working on Bitshares?
« on: May 19, 2016, 03:15:49 am »
Quote from: onceuponatime on May 19, 2016, 01:49:07 am
Quote from: lil_jay890 on May 19, 2016, 01:17:19 am
Quote from: Pheonike on May 19, 2016, 01:01:46 am
Quote from: lil_jay890 on May 19, 2016, 12:48:45 am
Quote from: Pheonike on May 18, 2016, 10:56:03 pm
Quote from: abit on May 18, 2016, 10:08:36 pm
Quote from: tonyk on May 18, 2016, 09:40:56 pm
And most importantly...they already have (as one of the first orders of business) the bots to auto vote up or down posts by accounts they like/dislike...one of the parameters is even to do such burial in 0 seconds after a post. It is a no brainer that such automation on account and not posts voting, is so simple and easy to 'improve' to next include new accounts to be destroyed for simply voting 'for' a post by an account on the blacklist of the vote-masters...  Now each poster not only should not express a different opinion, but should restrain from even voting for something that the masters might not like, for the fear of being auto-blacklisted.
censorship automation nice steaming touch to the already existing total control  monopoly...
Why did you know so much, Tony? When you started to hate sth, you look into it to find more reasons to amplify the hate? Why not save some time & just ignore it?

Trolls can't ignore, they have to feed on something or else wither and die.

What I find hilarious is whenever we bring up actual real issues about the larimers and their massive screwing  and probably illegal actions against their shareholders (of various instruments), we get labeled as trolls.  No rebuttals, just dumb ass one liners and pictures of caves and bridges.

Please someone tell me how the larimers have not screwed their shareholders in every investment vehicle they have ever sold.  You may think your on the rocketship with steem, but why would you think it would end up any different from any other investment they sold to you?

Why not hold then accountable for at least one project instead of following them blindly until you're bankrupt?
This is all experimental high risk stuff. What I find amazing is how people complain about all rules and regulations of the fiat world and then the minute something doesn't go the way they expect, they want to drag all that stuff to crypto. If you want rules and regulations, why he'll are you messing with crypto??? Stay in the fiat world where it's "safe".

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

That's your response? Because in crypto it's OK to screw your shareholders because it is " high risk " investing?

If this is the prevailing rational, no wonder there are so many crypto scams.  The same people can rip you off not just once but multiple times and you just keep on buying new investments from the same people... Never holding them accountable, just praying they find the holy grail (they did find the holy grail, sucker's with money).

I bought more bitshares today. You think that I am a sucker. I get that. Now, are you just going to hang around here telling me that over and over again as I increase my holdings? What's the point?

No we don't think you're a sucker for buying BTS, but others might...

Quote from: Stan on April 19, 2016, 07:00:00 pm
Proposals are based in part on what resources are available to work on them.
Resources are hired based on the availability of stable funding.
A constant battle over who controls the funding light switch means no one dares hire against any line item.
So the resources remain allocated elsewhere.

Voting is overrated.  I wouldn't want to ride on an aircraft controlled by voting passengers.
Give me a benevolent whale any day.
:)

60
General Discussion / Re: ICOO PRE ANN -THE OFFICIAL CROWDFUNDING TOKEN
« on: May 17, 2016, 02:52:02 pm »
Just glanced at this, not sure I understand the ICO package thing or how it will work exactly.

Where OL does have an edge though is that it can credibly sell post ICO but pre-launch tokens. These pre-traded tokens often achieve a higher price and would make the ICO speculators liquid (& thus able to re-speculate elsewhere) faster.

While there would still be some skill required in the selection process, a fund that bought ICO tokens and attempted to sell them on OL pre-launch, (both to achieve a good return and to be able to re-invest the profits quicker) would be lucrative. (With 20% of profits going to OL/other for fund management.)

Given current OL volumes (& thus the amount of tokens it could realistically sell pre-launch) it may be more lucrative to attempt that yourself or with a few others.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 92

Page created in 0.022 seconds with 23 queries.