im not going to give you money lol
if you cant fund it yourself just give up. If you dont believe in yourself enough to take a premine and put in the dev hours why would others believe in you?
dead on arrival tbh
1 Like
If you don’t see the value in it, you don’t need to put any money in. It is still at an early stage, so risk concern is justified, and probably early stage project does not fit your risk profile. But the project will be developed, just a matter of speed. Participation from the community is welcome and will be rewarded accordingly and helps the decentralization of the project, but it is not a must. Opportunity and risk often come hand in hand. If you hate the risk, you will also miss out the opportunity.
2 Likes
i will farm it if I can but thats all I can promis at this point
That is good enough. Pre-seed funding is limited to accredited investors only, so most people does not qualify anyway.
The system flagged and hid the post for being “off-topic”. Not sure if it is related to the section about pre-seed funding. I removed it to see if it works.
So, vendors like those that sell solar panels would use this network as some sort of points-program for their customers? Like a customer purchases gear from them and gets some coins… then those coins can be used for other products or discounts?
Like when you collect enough points from McDonalds you can earn a free burger?
There are many customer-loyalty programs out there already: but if you can make yours off-the-shelf and tailored to a niche industry you may find success. I wish you luck!
Yes, that is the plan. But it is not limited to a single company so it is more like when you collect enough points from McDonalds, you can use the points to buy hardwares from Best Buy. So, if McDonalds went down, your points will still be worth something.
That’s WORSE than Chia.
You may understand the sentence incorrectly. The company owns 40% of the total supply, 60% of which will be allocated to community contributors other than me. And this 40% of the total supply will mostly be put into a market-making trading that stabilizes token price and only the profit will be cashed out.
Your white paper makes it very clear to me.
You have a huge pre-farm and a very strange economic concept that does not reward farmers and gives away most of the coins generated to somebody … we’re not quite sure who. You don’t even have a coin yet, just a theory of a coin. If you think you can get corporations to buy in to the coin then why not go to them for funding? As your system is designed NOT to reward farmers why would you come to them to fund you?
This is yet another Chia fork, and is one of the top 5 worst I’ve seen.
I would not waste a minute of my time or a penny of my money on your venture.
1 Like
This is not actually true because farmers get 20% of the total supply. You seem be to under the false assumption that the more percentage farmers get, the better it is for farmers. This is unfortunately false, because price matters much more than the percentage. If we give 80% to farmers, then you will quickly find out that no other people would adopt the coin except farmers, which makes the coin worthless. Then, no real world business can stem from it.
Farmers provide network security. But for a successful business, you will not much more than a bunch of farmers spinning some funny disks. If we want to build a cryptocurrency as an infrastructure for the whole world, then you will quickly realize that 20% of the supply is already quite a lot because the world is much more than just farmers.
Without farmers you do not have a functioning block chain. Without incentive you do not have farmers.
In what strange world do you expect your theoretical coin will have value? You own and have complete control over the 40% (80% allocation?) pre-farm and then control (allocate?) 80% of the coins produced by your non-existent block-chain.
The coin has zero value to your theoretical corporate investors/holders. If they can only trade it amongst themselves then your swimming pool is far too small. If you actually got listed and they could sell their coin then it would crash in value. Same if you sell yours.
Don’t give us silly promises that do not meet basic scrutiny.
By the way … is crypto not illegal in China anymore? You are a professor at a Chinese university talking on the internet about your crypto start-up? No Government concerns about electricity usage? No chance they might not come any day and black bag you?
Invest in my coin and watch me disappear!
Bugger off. Your scam is old and tired.
You have no physical address on your white paper or elsewhere, you do not have a corporate entity, and Dr. Jiang-nan Yang is not to be found on the internet, unless you are; Jiang-Nan Yang PhD, at the Leibniz Institute on Aging, who studied in China but does not live there now. That’s not you, is it?
Do you have an address? Do you have a corporation? Can you tell us where you are a professor and what you teach? Have you published any work? Do you have any proof of anything?
Your white paper’s whimsical and flowery economic non description of your business model and its imaginary economic system is a bunch of malarkey out of some Marxist universe.
Chia went public at over $1600 for two reasons.
- POST was a new idea to most and seemed pretty cool and innovative. Farming seemed to be an environmentally and financially friendly alternative to mining.
- Bram’s name behind POST and Chia added weight and excitement.
POST has proven to be problematic and uneconomic. No POST coin has made or held a solid value in public trading. Chia is now worth about 1% of its launch price.
Bram’s name is now a joke.
There is no reason for your coin to have an initial value greater than pennies … if and when you actually get a corporation, an address and a functioning block-chain.
I’m sure a few bewildered people will try farming your coin like all the rest, but most will look at the reality of spending cash to get 20% of nothing and stay very far away.
Once again, without farmers you cannot sustain a block chain.
My favorite part of your white paper is this bloated pseudo economic distraction:
“The fixed proportion allocation has the following mathematical property. If price change is continuous and the Maker places an infinite number of orders to always keep the proportion r, then some simple calculus (dV = rV/p dp) can show that the total value V of the assets at any time is only determined by the price p at that time by equation V = V0 (p / p0) r, where V0 is the initial total value and p0 is the initial price, ignoring trading fees. So, if price returns to the initial price, then the total value V will also return to the initial total value V0, with no profit and no loss, no matter what happens in-between. However, in reality, price change is not continuous and the Maker can only place a limited number of orders. So, it will always buy at a lower price and sell at a higher price than the above model, and therefore always generate a profit.”
Why are you using calculus to value assets and algebra to tell us that if the asset returns to its original price it has not changed in value? Flowery useless chatter about nothing. Smoke and mirrors from the snake oil salesman.
Then you hit us with this, “the Maker … will always buy at a lower price and sell at a higher price than the above model, and therefore always generate a profit.”
Last guy I heard that could make such a guarantee was Bernie Madoff.
The next best part is where you project a $400 Billion company valuation at IPO. This is truly laughable.
Your white paper is LARP based in some reality where everybody in the world signs on to your plan and accepts your hopefully benevolent dominion. You live in a fantasy world and/or you are just a simple scammer.
You seem to have a twisted view on various topics so I wouldn’t find the time to reply to all. But for this section of the white paper, do you actually understand the mathematical part and calculus? I have doubt in this because you seem to not be aware that a person with a doctorate degree isn’t necessarily a professor. If you don’t understand it but is interested in how it works, I strongly suggest you consulting someone who does understand calculus. All I can show you here is a simplified experiment:
Let us assume that you have $100 of fiat money and 100 ENGC to try out this fixed proportion allocation and the current price of ENGC is $1/ENGC for easier calculation. Let us try to figure out the amount of assets you will have after price drops to $0.5/ENGC and then comes back to $1/ENGC if you follow this trading strategy and keep half your assets of fiat and half as ENGC. When the price is $0.5, 100 ENGC is only worth only $50 and is less than the $100 fiat in the portfolio and your total assets drops from $200 to $150. So, you will have to use $25 to buy 50 ENGC to have the same $75 of fiat and ENGC. Now you have $75 plus 150 ENGC at price $0.5/ENGC. Suppose the price comes back to $1/ENGC. Then, you will have $75 fiat and $150 worth of ENGC, with a total of $225 in assets and 12.5% in profit. You will then have to sell 37.5 ENGC to get a portfolio of $112.5 and 112.5 ENGC to achieve equal allocation.
You can change various numbers in this experiment and even add more steps to balance your portfolio to equal values of fiat and coin at different prices. But as long as the price return to the original price, you are always guaranteed to make a profit. Pretty amazing, right? If you can clearly understand this, then I think most of your other doubts could be resolved.
The math is simple. Your use of the math is criminally stupid. You quoted some calculus that proved nothing and then used algebra to show us that return to start equals no loss. Brilliant!
How about instead of giving us your usual condescending reply stating that I do not understand you, you actually answered the questions?
“As long as the price return to the original price you are always guaranteed to make a profit”. Assbackwards bullcrap. How do you guarantee return to original price?
You are claiming to be using a system so that you “always generate a profit”. There is no such system.
Your coin is not pre-farmed, it is pre-allocated with you receiving 80% of coin output to do with as you please. You will need to find some true rubes to invest money in your scam.
Do you have a corporation or ANY business entity behind your scam?
Do you have a physical address?
Do you have any proof of who you are?
Can you tell us how many coins will be pre-farmed and what percentage of created coins are retained? I can answer the second part. You keep 40%, peeps of your choice get 40% and farmers get 20%. You are allocating coin production. Why should you get 80% of the farmer’s crop?
You are a thief and a bad actor trying to hide behind a curtain of mathematical silliness.
I am not sure if you are thinking logically. There is no guarantee that the price will return to the original price, nor did I claim it anywhere. Don’t do straw man attack. The math is to lay out a market-neutral measurement of a trading strategy. Of course, price fluctuates and can go both higher and lower. Making profit in a bull market does not mean that the strategy is good, and losing money in a bear market does not mean that the strategy is bad. The math is to provide an objective measure about different strategies independent of market conditions. And “profit” in the white paper is clearly defined as excess compared to the neutral strategy where no profit or loss exists when price returns to the original price.
This sounds funny, since I clearly stated that this is still at an early stage of the project and no entities have been established yet.
For accredited investors, there will be lawyers involved and due diligence will be done. I don’t think I am obligated to prove to random strangers on the Internet who I am.
That is a wild accusation. I have clearly stated the tokenomics. I am not sure how you can attack it as “thief”. I am not a native English speaker, but do you even know what a thief is? If you have carefully read the white paper and understand what is going on and decide that it is not for you, then just spend your resource on other projects aligned with your understanding of things. Name calling doesn’t help anyone. 40% of the supply will be provided to buyers of innovative products, neither the team nor farmers. If you have concerns about this in principle and think farmers should get everything, I think there are such projects such as Chaingreen. You can definitely go for such projects. However, Energeticoin is designed to reward buyers of innovative products, so farmers are not the most important participants here. They are rewarded, but are rewarded with half compared to buyers of innovative products. They are not peeps. Instead, they are heroes that provide critical funds for innovative companies in early stages. I am not sure why you are so strongly against them.
Your white paper claims that you will have a corporate value of $400 Billion at IPO.
You do not even have a company formed yet.
You are right. You would only be a thief if you actually got this off the ground.
Currently, you are just a dreamer.
And I clearly stated that it is a very optimistic estimation. And the value comes from restrictions placed on the assets to provide benefits such as higher price stability for the community through the fixed proportion allocation and token burns. It is not like that anyone could cash out such a large amount of money.