Quote:
Originally Posted by PTLou
There exists headwinds to that growth in player acquisition. ICO bundling adds to headwinds for all but early adopters. Early adopters is by definition a very small market.
But you probably missed all that, because you were too busy thinking and writing about how brilliant you are.
It isn't helpful when you do this. I did not come up with this model, I "stole it", rendered it, formulated, translated it etc. I'm not claiming brilliance (if I did I was probably wasted
), but I am claiming this mechanism is significant.
I didn't say I am brilliant, but I DID say
understanding the significance of this mechanism and change is subtle. So you can't be upset at me, if we have all the pieces well understood but still aren't perfectly collectively understanding why I feel this is such a significant change to online poker.
To be clearer, you are deep into this dialogue on a subject very few other players understand the content of, that is not dumb of you imo.
Quote:
There exists headwinds to that growth in player acquisition. ICO bundling adds to headwinds for all but early adopters. Early adopters is by definition a very small market.
Yes its a small market, but we shouldn't forget the early (and long) dialogue we all had to describe the player's boycott problem. The "small early" market is the difficult one to achieve, even with great software and a lot capital. It has the most gravity to overcome. The longer acquisition requires a good product and a good service...
But this will be reflected in the price trend, that is part of the formula of it. Do you care, if the product or service is meh, but the value of your CHPs increases at a rate faster than you could hope to win playing on a different site? That is the
total question right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gzesh
What matters is that there needs to be a demand for CHPs from people who want to play poker. If there is, then there will not be downward pressure on the value and no need for the "whales" to engage in the price manipulation you envision.
That's right. And its not really "manipulation" or perhaps by some definitions it is, but there need not be a negative connotation. It is much like central banking, and that coinpoker will basically be inflation (value) targeting bitcoin (which might imply an even more increasing price versus bitcoin as bitcoin's deflationary value trend levels off).
The point is, the collectively psychology of the player field is about to SEE the value trend of CHPs. I and have, for quite some time, argued that this value trend, which is now (and otherwise) hidden, is what REALLY fuels the collective psychology of the players (but they might not have historically had alternative options for where to "invest" in chips regardless of their distaste for certain providers).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sprigjr
I really do think you could spin off anything right now and people would flock to a new coin. It’s all open source, you could rip off another coin and just get it picked up at an exchange.
Its not true. Projects have failed their crowdfunds. Acebusters did. Their software and project is not as good or distinguished as coinpoker but there is not really THAT great of an implied difference in their valuation. What seems clear then is that a few big poker whales were silent (and not so silent) investors. This is key because coinpoker is probably very much owned by poker players, and you would want to make sure of this. You want to make sure the major holders understand the mechanism they have created. So someone like Tony G, if he was a major holder, wouldn't ever want to dump, he would want to be part of the "bankerhood" that tends to the value trend of CHPs.
To rip off a coin and have no team backing it, and no capital otherwise, won't work in a free market (the crypto markets are "fairly" free). The lack of these important aspects will show up in the value trend of the token. This is key.
Last edited by Nooseknot; 01-26-2018 at 02:31 PM.