[SOLD-OUT] CCMINER_100TB new asset!
-
@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.
-
@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!
-
@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.
-
@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!
-
@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?
-
@vier23 said in [ANN] CCMINER_100TB new asset!:
@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?
Thank you again!
You were here since day 0 so you know!
Everything has been done step by step!
-
@ccminer said in [ANN] CCMINER_100TB new asset!:
@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!Have I EVER done anything like this? Would you like me to state publicly that I back you again? I already said that I RESPECT YOU AS A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY AND WHAT YOU'VE DONE.
I have no ulterior motives here, merely stating that I keep having to repeat...
please either explain better what you're trying to accomplish, when seeking such large amounts in funding, or get the funding from another source to back this asset if possible.
You never said anything about it taking 9 months, had you done so, I'm certain this whole thing would have been a lot simpler.
But the fact is, that large of an amount selling will put sell pressure, that's an unavoidable fact.
Also, by definition, assets are things that you have, but it seems many people disagree on this.
I don't understand the overreaction to my statements here.
-
@crowetic said in [ANN] CCMINER_100TB new asset!:
@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. Also, 100TB is more than a few BTC.
If you calculated all of the Burst dumped via Asset Exchange, yeah, it would likely be a staggering amount. Isn't this more a problem of the system rather than the user?
-
@crowetic CCMINER100 is around since 33 days counting today!
I post EVERY SINGLE DAY about the operations, payout and new drivers!!
Now that I announced that I'm going to release the new CCMINER1000 asset you suddenly realized that I exist and you felt this urge to comment as you did!!
Please do not offend other people smartness like this!!!!
-
@crowetic I think the reaction to your statements stems from your initial comment, which was perhaps a little heavy/accusatory in tone. It may have come across a little stronger/more offensive than you intended but I think it came across as more offensive than constructive, hence all the reactions. Let's all try to be civil here and stay calm...we're all part of the same community.
-
@nox said in [ANN] CCMINER_100TB new asset!:
@crowetic said in [ANN] CCMINER_100TB new asset!:
@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. Also, 100TB is more than a few BTC.
If you calculated all of the Burst dumped via Asset Exchange, yeah, it would likely be a staggering amount. Isn't this more a problem of the system rather than the user?
Yes, correct, which is why in the last meeting, we came up with an asset rating agency, which would review assets, and give opinions on them, as well as haitch's ID verification. It would give suggestions, a detailed analysis of the asset and potential performance, then give the seal of approval.
This asset, however, was released before this decision.
I think there is a fundamental disagreement over what an asset is... and I personally believe that an asset is something that you HAVE, then you would like to share it with the community.
In this case, it is something that he would like to have.
But like I said, I'm partially okay with these types of things, but only if done in the correct way.
I'm sorry if you took my picture post as directly against you, @ccminer, but it wasn't... it was merely to point out the fact that a lot of selling going on during that time, and the assets doing this type of thing contributed to that.
-
@crowetic I was there at the meeting and you perfectly know that!
Why you came here like this and you didn't tell me directly there
-
@vier23 said in [ANN] CCMINER_100TB new asset!:
@crowetic I think the reaction to your statements stems from your initial comment, which was perhaps a little heavy/accusatory in tone. It may have come across a little stronger/more offensive than you intended but I think it came across as more offensive than constructive, hence all the reactions. Let's all try to be civil here and stay calm...we're all part of the same community.
Yea, I was not trying to come across as accusing him as the sole reason this happened, I even pointed out that BTC was also going up during the time, and that there were many others doing this same type of thing.
The fact is, selling to buy things to make an asset, puts sell pressure on the market, and IMO BURST just isn't big enough to do this quite yet.
In the future, it should be no problem, but right now, I don't think that we have quite enough volume, buyers, etc... for it to not have any effect.
-
@crowetic understood and I do see your concerns. Hopefully you guys can work it out!
-
@vier23 said in [ANN] CCMINER_100TB new asset!:
@crowetic I think the reaction to your statements stems from your initial comment, which was perhaps a little heavy/accusatory in tone. It may have come across a little stronger/more offensive than you intended but I think it came across as more offensive than constructive, hence all the reactions. Let's all try to be civil here and stay calm...we're all part of the same community.
Indeed was quite an unpleasant and ridiculous accusation!
And yes I took offence because I worked hard on this project and already started to work on the new one, and I don't think that my work deserve such a treatment!
Not to mention that I have been invited to the kore meeting more than one time, and he had the opportunity to talk with me directly about that, rather than acting like this... VERY BAD!
-
@ccminer alright there, let's try to calm down a bit. crowetic has already brought it down a notch let's try to do the same and talk about this in a nice and civil manner, yeah? we're all just trying to do what's best for burst. We're on the same team guys
-
@ccminer said in [ANN] CCMINER_100TB new asset!:
@vier23 said in [ANN] CCMINER_100TB new asset!:
@crowetic I think the reaction to your statements stems from your initial comment, which was perhaps a little heavy/accusatory in tone. It may have come across a little stronger/more offensive than you intended but I think it came across as more offensive than constructive, hence all the reactions. Let's all try to be civil here and stay calm...we're all part of the same community.
Indeed was quite an unpleasant and ridiculous accusation!
And yes I took offence because I worked hard on this project and already started to work on the new one, and I don't think that my work deserve such a treatment!
Not to mention that I have been invited to the kore meeting more than one time, and he had the opportunity to talk with me directly about that, rather than acting like this... VERY BAD!I didn't state anything directly saying you did something wrong... I pointed out a decline, and said that asset issuers doing this type of thing contributed, which I believe is a fact, and that your asset was also released during this same time.
I also said that BTC was going up and likely also had an effect.
I'm not criticizing your work by any means, merely the way you're acquiring the funding, and the lack of full explanation of how you intended to make it happen once acquired.
Also, I did PM you and invite you to talk in voice, but I got no reply to that. Only more negative responses based on something that was taken as a direct attack.
I do understand that fact that you have worked hard on this, regardless of my agreement with the methods.
This time though, you're looking for 10 times the amount you were the first time, and I simply don't think that BURST is really large enough yet to have this go off without having a negative effect on the price, which I've been working quite hard to move in the other direction, including placing quite a bit of buy support on the market.
-
@crowetic Please stop you know what you did!!!
I was at the meeting we talked, you could say, insted of acting like this now here!
Now if you what to apologize I'll accept and we will be ok!
Else you directly come to offend my job, and accusing me to damage the BURST community with it, so I'll keep being unhappy with you!
-
@vier23 @nox @haitch
Thank you for your comments.
That was quite unpleasant, I felt attacked directly and I reacted!
-
@ccminer @crowetic
I dont know how to do the @all here and have it work...This clearly is another important topic that is in need to be addressed and glad it is.
I have some personal thoughts on all the "BURST Mining Assets" launched, expressed them to a few people but not publicly so I will also be doing that in this post.I think it important for people no matter their credibility to be concerned how their assets would be viewed since it clearly does concern many people and their BURST investments and the price.
Considering how people could potentially view their projects and assets may alleviate many misunderstandings and frankly fears.
My personal opinion is that in taking into account ALL these numerous BURST assets and particularly the BURST mining assets is that they could be a reason for a part of the current IMO- "undervalued price of BURST". I admit I have no facts nor evidence of this but it could be the "Elephant in the Room".This Post was meant to be longer but dont have the time right not so am posting it as it is....