[SOLD-OUT] CCMINER_100TB new asset!

ccminer

@haitch Thank you! To put a bit of smartness in this crazy nonsensical accusation, and I repeat quite offensive!

I insist that this is a plan to put my future project under bad lights, for some personal (or friends) benefit, quite sad! :(

crowetic

@ccminer said in [ANN] CCMINER_100TB new asset!:

@haitch I never dump any coin, I trade them, since 2013 when I started with crypto!
It is in my own interest to get the higher price, because I'm working with BURST as well.
THinking that I'm dumping like a dumb is quite ridiculous and offensive as well.
PLUS I can see a conflict of interest, because crowetic has more than one asset, my first asset was quite succesfull and I guess he is simply trying to use his position to put my future project under a bed light!

This is quite ridiculous!

For one, just because I have assets, does not mean there's a conflict of interest...

Second, and very importantly, the assets that I have, and the ones that I will release in the future, have the things that are backing them BEFORE selling them.

I'm still going back to the same thing that I've said before, that an asset is NOT something that you DON'T have.

I will never be okay with an asset that is started with nothing, and dumps coins in order to acquire something with which the asset will be backed.

We can argue about this all day if you'd like, call it a conflict of interest if you like, but as far as I see it, launching an asset with nothing, and dumping coins given to you by the community to acquire something, is not what should be done.

vier23

@ccminer I was quoting crowetic. But I think what crowetic is concerned about is the fact that you would be selling a lot of burstcoins (dumping) to buy the hardware, which would affect the value of burstcoin. I was merely suggesting a compromise where you perhaps do this a little slower on a planned schedule, vs doing it immediately after your current release of assets sell out. I think this would help to a certain extent.

Don't get me wrong ccminer, I do appreciate your hardwork and am a happy investor in your asset. I'll let you guys sort it out. I just wanted to put in my two cents

ccminer

@vier23 Thank you!
I was not talking about! You have to understand that the new project will be developed in 9/12 months.
I mean I collect the coins in a long period of time, I do not apsect to take millions of burst in one hour and run on POLO to "dump" them.
This will be an operations that will takes time, as I said from 9 to 10 months if my calculations are correct!

Plus, we must understand that trade and change coins doesn't mean DUMP! it's trade and trade cereate volumes and volumes are good!

haitch

@crowetic But as @ccminer said, he's already got drives for the new asset - people are buying a share of that and @ccminer is then using that to expand the asset - so not starting with nothing, selling shares in what he has. Just like you want.

haitch

@vier23 @ccminer's "dump" will be less than 0.5% of a weeks volume, thats not going to affect the price.

crowetic

@ccminer said in [ANN] CCMINER_100TB new asset!:

@vier23 Thank you!
I was not talking about! You have to understand that the new project will be developed in 9/12 months.
I mean I collect the coins in a long period of time, I do not apsect to take millions of burst in one hour and run on POLO to "dump" them.
This will be an operations that will takes time, as I said from 9 to 10 months if my calculations are correct!

Plus, we must understand that trade and change coins doesn't mean DUMP! it's trade and trade cereate volumes and volumes are good!

Yes, creating volume is good, but in order to BUY the hardware, you have to SELL the BURST. Right?

This amount of BURST sold, would definitely put immense pressure in the opposite direction of what we've been working hard to accomplish.

it will either make it harder for the price to move UP, or it will push the price DOWN.

All I'm saying here, is it would be nice, if you funded this in another way... for an amount as large as what you're looking for, it will make BURST take much longer to get up to a higher floor that we've all been wanting to see, no matter how you look at it.

I don't see what it is about what I'm saying that doesn't make sense.

ccminer

@haitch Indeed, as I said!
Here recently there is this idead that change BURST= DUMP.
No people is not like that!!

Plus my exchange operations are not simply fullfill the open buy orders, but try to sell with the best price!

ccminer

@crowetic What asset are you trying to pubblicize!
Be honest

crowetic

@ccminer said in [ANN] CCMINER_100TB new asset!:

@vier23 Thank you!
I was not talking about! You have to understand that the new project will be developed in 9/12 months.
I mean I collect the coins in a long period of time, I do not apsect to take millions of burst in one hour and run on POLO to "dump" them.
This will be an operations that will takes time, as I said from 9 to 10 months if my calculations are correct!

Plus, we must understand that trade and change coins doesn't mean DUMP! it's trade and trade cereate volumes and volumes are good!

You should be a lot more clear with the timeframe then, from what you mentioned... "I will release the next phase to fund 1000TB in the next few days" definitely makes it sound like you're going to release it all at once, dump the coin, and buy the hardware.

nox

@ccminer Consider taking BTC for CCminer 1000 it will alleviate the concerns shared about dumping

This is also correct. Along with specifying more details about the plan, including timeframe, and how exactly the BURST would be sold...

In this case, with such a large amount requested from the community, it makes sense to give a bit more explanation.

haitch

@crowetic 0.5% of a weeks volume is going to put immense pressure on the price? What about the other 99.5% ?

crowetic

@ccminer said in [ANN] CCMINER_100TB new asset!:

@crowetic What asset are you trying to pubblicize!
Be honest

If I were 'trying' to publicize an asset, there would be an announcement thread for it.

Just because you think there's a conflict of interest here, does not make it so... in fact, I LOVE ALL BURST ASSETS. As long as they are done in a way that makes sense, and doesn't negatively affect anything that we all want to see happen.

If you had said from the beginning that the process would happen over more than 8 months, I doubt this sitaution we have now would have come up whatsoever...

However, I do not appreciate the insinuation that I'm after anything personally here.

I'm always FOR people doing things with BURST, and releasing assets. I've never been anything but for them.

nox

@crowetic said in [ANN] CCMINER_100TB new asset!:

Here's an image to show...

This shows, you launched your asset on the 13th of November... Right after this there was a steady downtrend, when before that we had a floor above 120... Yes, BTC increase played a part here, but asset releases like this, that DUMP coins in order to buy hardware... in HUGE amounts... also contributed to the downtrend...

Doing this with 33 BTC worth of BURST, would have a MUCH larger effect.

I simply don't understand why we would encourage dumping a bunch of coins in order to build an asset of this size. I understood people backing smaller assets doing this, to a point... but IMO BURST cannot handle a 33BTC dump at this time.

@crowetic I understand your concerns and agree to an extent, but to suggest an asset valued at at a few bitcoins caused a few hundred thousand dollar change in Burst price is not rational.

ccminer

@haitch said in [ANN] CCMINER_100TB new asset!:

@crowetic 0.5% of a weeks volume is going to put immense pressure on the price? What about the other 99.5% ?

The fact is that there is not DUMP!

crowetic

@nox said in [ANN] CCMINER_100TB new asset!:

@crowetic said in [ANN] CCMINER_100TB new asset!:

Here's an image to show...

This shows, you launched your asset on the 13th of November... Right after this there was a steady downtrend, when before that we had a floor above 120... Yes, BTC increase played a part here, but asset releases like this, that DUMP coins in order to buy hardware... in HUGE amounts... also contributed to the downtrend...

Doing this with 33 BTC worth of BURST, would have a MUCH larger effect.

I simply don't understand why we would encourage dumping a bunch of coins in order to build an asset of this size. I understood people backing smaller assets doing this, to a point... but IMO BURST cannot handle a 33BTC dump at this time.

@crowetic I understand your concerns and agree to an extent, but to suggest an asset valued at at a few bitcoins caused a few hundred thousand dollar change in Burst price is not rational.

I simply pointed out that it could have contributed to it if not done over a period of time. Along with many other assets that were doing the same thing.

I merely think an asset should be something that is acquired first, then sold.

ccminer

@nox There is nothing rational with this absurd accusation!
as If I'm going to get 33 BTC in one hour and run to the POLO to change them in 1 seconf!
I don't even think that a person like crowetic thinks something like so dumb, I simply think he is trying to put bad pubblicity on my future project for some personal (or his friends) benefit!

crowetic

@ccminer said in [ANN] CCMINER_100TB new asset!:

@haitch said in [ANN] CCMINER_100TB new asset!:

@crowetic 0.5% of a weeks volume is going to put immense pressure on the price? What about the other 99.5% ?

The fact is that there is not DUMP!

I don't know why you're getting so heated over this conversation, all I'm saying, is I would appreciate if the asset was funded in another fashion, and/or that you explain better what you're doing when requesting this type of funding.

ccminer

@crowetic Well men you come here and accuse me to be responsable to the dump of the price since my operation has been launched, you know sorry if I'm not happy with you man!

vier23

@crowetic the thing is @ccminer's 100TB asset was done over a period of time (about a month). He released 60,000 assets at a time and only released the next 60,000 when half of the mining power for the next round of assets had already been plotted. People following ccminer's progress would have known that. I guess the misunderstanding started because you were unaware of how ccminer's asset worked/grew. Hopefully everything is ok now, since it's been clarified that it is gradual and not a massive dump of bursts?