Author Topic: [Poll] REAL GOLD BLOCKCHAIN?  (Read 7894 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

This would be brilliant bunker. How could you ever prove reserves though? The trend over time would be towards fractional reserves / corruption.

In my hangout with jonnybitcoin the week before I actually gave away some of how it could be done. I don't want to get into it here, but it's possible.

Doing a bit of market research are we? Just where in the world could a business like that store such reserves safely?

Perhaps as you say this poll / thread is all a matter of fun. Regardless, donkeypong has made the best contributions to this thread, and I agree that "No" is the best answer. The failure of Cryptosmith to make even a single sale in the 2 months of operation before Ryan decided to "run with the gold"  is another piece of evidence against this idea.

As for Digx I have nothing. I never heard of them myself.

I understand you're position since you were so close to all that.

Nonetheless.. would you characterize Bitshares today based on what it was last year? I think the capacity and capability to have a real asset backed chain certainly is.

Also.. how that was done with cryptosmith I would define as done COMPLETELY wrong... he could have just made off with the gold the same way he made off with the money. Wrong on all levels.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

I don't think @Empirical1.2 is comparing the prospects or viability of Digix vs. LISK or AUGUR.  I think he was just saying the supposed crowdsale wasn't truly open to the public, that it appears to have been quickly bought up by large investors who were in-the-know and ready with large chunks of funds.  He is probably right.  Although I think what that mostly says is that Digix was probably beyond the stage of needing to do a crowd sale. 

As for LISK, by calling it a "pipe dream" you are not giving it nearly enough credit.  Fact is, LISK is much further along than ETH is.  It has some real advantages over ETH and is a more complete solution.  A lot of people are going to be very surprised by how well LISK does.

Sorry but that's just how I refer to anything that has nothing but a website with no ground work done yet behind it going after money. It's nothing negative about any particular said project.. it's just a characterization of where they were starting from. Thinking on it a little more Lisk is derived from an existing blockchain so perhaps they had something showable.

Bottomline.. the crowdsale that was fashioned more favorably for more than just crypto was wildly more successful than those that fashioned themselves to ONLY crypto.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

My contention is that it's suspicious because given the references of much more popular projects it takes a long time to raise that amount of money from a wide investing audience.

Well to help ease your suspicions I will tell you why it did as well as it did vs the others you have mentioned. Simply put, both Augur and Lisk were pure pipe dreams with nothing to show but a pretty page saying they would do something with ethereum that had no connection to regulatory bodies or any kind of registered body that was responsible. Instead you put your money in and hope something comes out of it.

DigiX on the other hand was a 1 year old mature project.. had clear plans based on regulatory requirements on how their operation would work, and already had something to show people. It was very clear who the corporate entity that ran it was involved also. Also look at the nature of what they are looking to do.. bridge physical assets with the blockchain. This is of far more importance application wise, and more easily understandable than other said sandbox experiments.

With all that considered, it easily attracts more institutional investors who are willing to throw more money at it. Perhaps not millions, but if they had  ethereum as part of their portfolio putting a quarter million into it would just be a good hedge.

So the lessons that should be learned from this is if you want to see that kind of success.. do the hard work first, aim for things that solve real world problems, and don't make offerings pretending to be some mystical decentralized thingamabob that lives outside any reach of being convicted for breaking laws of any sorts. Then the serious money in the world will be able to start looking at your seriously.

Exactly they're a centralised entity who were clearly able to raise funds within hours from a handful of institutional investors so they didn't need to crowdfund. It comes across as a pre-orchestrated investment event that was either done as a legal workaround or because as a blockchain based service they think they will benefit from the perception of being crowdfunded like BitReserve. They also unlike most put a cap on funds raised.

Their crowdfunding thread is all of 5 pages long and 1/2 those comments are negative & I can't find one thread with lots of interest for this one year old mature amazing project... I think it has potential but as you say it's clearly attracted a handful of institutional investors vs. the decentralised crowd at this stage which is why I don't think it will be recognised as a valid crowdfund by the market and in the records.

(& I do see it has potential. I think I answered no to your poll originally but while not long term I actually could see myself using a gold backed crypto-currency for brief periods depending on how it was done.)

No.. I think you are conflating some ideas here. Before doing a crowdfund of course every single one of them does a little pre-marketing... nothing wrong with that. The fact that because they are doxable just made it MUCH easier for anybody with real money to invest. Again this is also about physical assets.. soooo very different from sandbox ideas... although the way they plan to operate I admit is very sandbox in itself. :)

Crypto ventures the way they are presented and as they are structured often have no semblance to how deals everyday are done in the rest of the world.

People everywhere are still shaking their heads over how so many of these offers raised as much as they did.

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline davidpbrown

Solving the problem of bridging from a cryptocurrency to a real world asset, would be a HUGE achievement and that requiring at least a location and law that would give people confidence that law would be enforced and asset audited and real world transfers that would occur.. otherwise you just have a house of cards==The Fed demanding people trust that they have real gold bars while issuing worthless paper.

The second challenge, beyond simple volume of asset, is what I understand colour coins are useful for - individual satoshi of a currency being uniquely bound to a unique instance of a real world asset - like a house or a car. That would be then another order of magnitude HUGE.

First step wait for any cyptocurrency to be acknowledged widely; second step see pegged currencies the like that BitShares does better than any other I've seen; then perhaps those above. So, yes ..
฿://1CBxm54Ah5hiYxiUtD7JGYRXykT5Z6ZuMc

Offline Thom

This would be brilliant bunker. How could you ever prove reserves though? The trend over time would be towards fractional reserves / corruption.

In my hangout with jonnybitcoin the week before I actually gave away some of how it could be done. I don't want to get into it here, but it's possible.

Doing a bit of market research are we? Just where in the world could a business like that store such reserves safely?

Perhaps as you say this poll / thread is all a matter of fun. Regardless, donkeypong has made the best contributions to this thread, and I agree that "No" is the best answer. The failure of Cryptosmith to make even a single sale in the 2 months of operation before Ryan decided to "run with the gold"  is another piece of evidence against this idea.

As for Digx I have nothing. I never heard of them myself.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2016, 06:17:31 pm by Thom »
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech2 Witness Reports: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23902.0.html

Offline tbone

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 632
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: tbone2
My contention is that it's suspicious because given the references of much more popular projects it takes a long time to raise that amount of money from a wide investing audience.

Well to help ease your suspicions I will tell you why it did as well as it did vs the others you have mentioned. Simply put, both Augur and Lisk were pure pipe dreams with nothing to show but a pretty page saying they would do something with ethereum that had no connection to regulatory bodies or any kind of registered body that was responsible. Instead you put your money in and hope something comes out of it.

DigiX on the other hand was a 1 year old mature project.. had clear plans based on regulatory requirements on how their operation would work, and already had something to show people. It was very clear who the corporate entity that ran it was involved also. Also look at the nature of what they are looking to do.. bridge physical assets with the blockchain. This is of far more importance application wise, and more easily understandable than other said sandbox experiments.

With all that considered, it easily attracts more institutional investors who are willing to throw more money at it. Perhaps not millions, but if they had  ethereum as part of their portfolio putting a quarter million into it would just be a good hedge.

So the lessons that should be learned from this is if you want to see that kind of success.. do the hard work first, aim for things that solve real world problems, and don't make offerings pretending to be some mystical decentralized thingamabob that lives outside any reach of being convicted for breaking laws of any sorts. Then the serious money in the world will be able to start looking at your seriously.


I don't think @Empirical1.2 is comparing the prospects or viability of Digix vs. LISK or AUGUR.  I think he was just saying the supposed crowdsale wasn't truly open to the public, that it appears to have been quickly bought up by large investors who were in-the-know and ready with large chunks of funds.  He is probably right.  Although I think what that mostly says is that Digix was probably beyond the stage of needing to do a crowd sale. 

As for LISK, by calling it a "pipe dream" you are not giving it nearly enough credit.  Fact is, LISK is much further along than ETH is.  It has some real advantages over ETH and is a more complete solution.  A lot of people are going to be very surprised by how well LISK does. 
 

Offline Empirical1.2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
    • View Profile
My contention is that it's suspicious because given the references of much more popular projects it takes a long time to raise that amount of money from a wide investing audience.

Well to help ease your suspicions I will tell you why it did as well as it did vs the others you have mentioned. Simply put, both Augur and Lisk were pure pipe dreams with nothing to show but a pretty page saying they would do something with ethereum that had no connection to regulatory bodies or any kind of registered body that was responsible. Instead you put your money in and hope something comes out of it.

DigiX on the other hand was a 1 year old mature project.. had clear plans based on regulatory requirements on how their operation would work, and already had something to show people. It was very clear who the corporate entity that ran it was involved also. Also look at the nature of what they are looking to do.. bridge physical assets with the blockchain. This is of far more importance application wise, and more easily understandable than other said sandbox experiments.

With all that considered, it easily attracts more institutional investors who are willing to throw more money at it. Perhaps not millions, but if they had  ethereum as part of their portfolio putting a quarter million into it would just be a good hedge.

So the lessons that should be learned from this is if you want to see that kind of success.. do the hard work first, aim for things that solve real world problems, and don't make offerings pretending to be some mystical decentralized thingamabob that lives outside any reach of being convicted for breaking laws of any sorts. Then the serious money in the world will be able to start looking at your seriously.

Exactly they're a centralised entity who were clearly able to raise funds within hours from a handful of institutional investors so they didn't need to crowdfund. It comes across as a pre-orchestrated investment event that was either done as a legal workaround or because as a blockchain based service they think they will benefit from the perception of being crowdfunded like BitReserve. They also unlike most put a cap on funds raised.

Their crowdfunding thread is all of 5 pages long and 1/2 those comments are negative & I can't find one thread with lots of interest for this one year old mature amazing project... I think it has potential but as you say it's clearly attracted a handful of institutional investors vs. the decentralised crowd at this stage which is why I don't think it will be recognised as a valid crowdfund by the market and in the records.

(& I do see it has potential. I think I answered no to your poll originally but while not long term I actually could see myself using a gold backed crypto-currency for brief periods depending on how it was done.)
« Last Edit: April 09, 2016, 03:56:27 pm by Empirical1.2 »
If you want to take the island burn the boats

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

My contention is that it's suspicious because given the references of much more popular projects it takes a long time to raise that amount of money from a wide investing audience.

Well to help ease your suspicions I will tell you why it did as well as it did vs the others you have mentioned. Simply put, both Augur and Lisk were pure pipe dreams with nothing to show but a pretty page saying they would do something with ethereum that had no connection to regulatory bodies or any kind of registered body that was responsible. Instead you put your money in and hope something comes out of it.

DigiX on the other hand was a 1 year old mature project.. had clear plans based on regulatory requirements on how their operation would work, and already had something to show people. It was very clear who the corporate entity that ran it was involved also. Also look at the nature of what they are looking to do.. bridge physical assets with the blockchain. This is of far more importance application wise, and more easily understandable than other said sandbox experiments.

With all that considered, it easily attracts more institutional investors who are willing to throw more money at it. Perhaps not millions, but if they had  ethereum as part of their portfolio putting a quarter million into it would just be a good hedge.

So the lessons that should be learned from this is if you want to see that kind of success.. do the hard work first, aim for things that solve real world problems, and don't make offerings pretending to be some mystical decentralized thingamabob that lives outside any reach of being convicted for breaking laws of any sorts. Then the serious money in the world will be able to start looking at your seriously.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2016, 02:24:32 pm by BunkerChain Labs »
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline fav

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
    • Follow Me!
  • BitShares: fav
you could join digix as a vault. since digix will be traded on dex it's a possible win-win

Offline Empirical1.2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
    • View Profile
No. The Digix crowdsale was incredibly suspicious. They raised what $5 million in 14 hours? Possibly a legal workaround or something else going on there.

I didn't thought that way before your comment... Have you some evidence that the majority of the tokens didn't reached a wider audience but only a little minority?
(the only suspicious, that make sense after your comment, was that they apologized because many fund-raiser never managed to sent their ethers to the crowd-sale addresses due to the "fact" that they didn't configured they wallet's for variable(?) GAS transactions ???...)
It was fully transparent so not sure why you consider it suspicious. There are lots of ETH early birds who've made tons of money and are looking at ways of diversifying while supporting ethererum, that's the easiest answer to why it took off like it did. The biggest individual investments were around $800k with several around $200k-500k.

I personally participated and I setup my ETH wallet for the very first time that same day. Only issues I had were the slow syncing times took around 4 hours using Mist.

Sent fra min MotoG3 via Tapatalk

My contention is that it's suspicious because given the references of much more popular projects it takes a long time to raise that amount of money from a wide investing audience.

Digix clearly doesn't have even a minuscule fraction of the interest LISK/Augur had/has & yet it supposedly raised the same amount of money in <1% of the time from a wide investing audience?

Have you some evidence that the majority of the tokens didn't reached a wider audience but only a little minority?

You've positively affirmed my contention and Liondani's concern in your response.

The biggest individual investments were around $800k with several around $200k-500k.

So we can confirm that they didn't raise $5 million from thousands of small individual investors in a traditional crowdsale sense like LISK and Augur did but rose the majority from people purchasing 5% equity plus, with their money ready to go within hours of launch.

Possibly a handful of ETH rich whales as you speculate, possibly even one or two who broke their orders up into smaller purchases but more likely just the owners/investors in the underlying Digix company. (Slightly similar to STEEMIT, setting it up to become the majority owner of STEEM.) Or similar to BitReserve who claimed to have the second largest digital crowdfund in history but actually the vast majority went to a single investor....

Quote
Bitreserve has become the second largest crowdfunded digital currency company by hitting US$9.5 million in a public Series-B investment round

http://cointelegraph.com/news/bitreserve-raises-us95-million-in-second-largest-crowdfunding-round-in-the-digital-currency-sector

But you don't see them on this list,  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest_funded_crowdfunding_projects

Similarly given the evidence it's unlikely Digix will be recognised as a 'valid' crowdsale.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2016, 09:52:14 am by Empirical1.2 »
If you want to take the island burn the boats

Offline svk

No. The Digix crowdsale was incredibly suspicious. They raised what $5 million in 14 hours? Possibly a legal workaround or something else going on there.

I didn't thought that way before your comment... Have you some evidence that the majority of the tokens didn't reached a wider audience but only a little minority?
(the only suspicious, that make sense after your comment, was that they apologized because many fund-raiser never managed to sent their ethers to the crowd-sale addresses due to the "fact" that they didn't configured they wallet's for variable(?) GAS transactions ???...)
It was fully transparent so not sure why you consider it suspicious. There are lots of ETH early birds who've made tons of money and are looking at ways of diversifying while supporting ethererum, that's the easiest answer to why it took off like it did. The biggest individual investments were around $800k with several around $200k-500k.

I personally participated and I setup my ETH wallet for the very first time that same day. Only issues I had were the slow syncing times took around 4 hours using Mist.

Sent fra min MotoG3 via Tapatalk

Worker: dev.bitsharesblocks

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

A nuclear bunker full of gold and a 24/7 webcam on it to provide proof of reserves? Call it the Fort Knox Webcam and you'll have plenty of takers.

Me, I prefer to carry gold on my person. They can have it if they can get it off me.



I can't argue with that!

Although the point of this fun poll was just to see what people thought of this.. its not specifically about the bunker. :)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline Vizzini

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: vizzini
A nuclear bunker full of gold and a 24/7 webcam on it to provide proof of reserves? Call it the Fort Knox Webcam and you'll have plenty of takers.

Me, I prefer to carry gold on my person. They can have it if they can get it off me.




« Last Edit: April 09, 2016, 03:06:45 am by Vizzini »
Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line.

Offline BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode

I'm not sure how they implemented it, but uphold.com also provides gold- (and silver, platinum, and palladium)- backed crypto assets which they claim are 100% backed by physical assets.

https://support.uphold.com/hc/en-us/articles/204329985-Does-Uphold-hold-real-precious-metals-or-precious-metal-e-g-gold-or-silver-shares-ETFs-

This not only lacks in details but has zero transparency.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
www.Peerplays.com | Decentralized Gaming Built with Graphene - Now with BookiePro and Sweeps!
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Offline destenson

I'm not sure how they implemented it, but uphold.com also provides gold- (and silver, platinum, and palladium)- backed crypto assets which they claim are 100% backed by physical assets.