RE: Incentive trees and what we can learn from Bitconnect
Something to consider about Bitconnect, they could also be using the loans to simply buy BCC tokens. This would reduce the supply of the BCC, pushing the price up for future loan givers (you cannot take out a loan without first buying the token). The thing is, no one really cares about the price of the BCC tokens except outside speculators, who again could push the token price higher doing margin like trading, so in other words as long as the price of the BCC token keeps rising I do not see how Bitconnect will run out of steam.
It's not some simple thing like most people seem to think it is and I'm not saying I trust what they are doing at all. If they offered proof that the tokens sent to their bot were being burned however, this would completely change my mind. The Proof of Burn model already is used for OpenLedger for instance. If they burned all tokens (or provably locked them up) or the supply were reducing then people could in theory track the reducing supply to be able to show the exchange is making some kind of measurable profit as it could be seen on the blockchain.
They do have a blockchain explorer: https://chainz.cryptoid.info/bcc/
So it can be analyzed to either prove or disprove my speculation.
The largest wallet has over a million tokens. I hope this is the Bitconnect team itself because if that is a whale that is a scary amount for anyone and probably enough to crash the whole thing. On the other hand if it is the Bitconnect team and the team by some miracle are ethical, then this could be the reserve fund to keep the network operational for years potentially, because as the price of the token goes up, the value of their reserve fund goes up, and as long as demand exists for the token and they have the ability to supply the token, they can fund themselves without the need to take much of the profit from the centralized exchange.
Transaction fees on their centralized exchange can generate profit, but I don't know if it is enough for the affiliates, perhaps for now? I also followed up on this post with an additional post in which I speculate on whether it is possible to create a mathematically sustainable affiliate program over Steem. So far I lean toward yes, based on the fact that we have similar concepts like Steem Dollars and stable tokens, there is no reason in mathematics why it is not possible and it's just a matter of managing black swan events, and limiting the risks to some acceptable range.
An algorithm can adjust commissions rate on a weekly or daily basis. As long as these rates are not fixed or guaranteed in code then the variable rate will allow it to remain sustainable because as long as it never goes beyond the budget constraint it is mathematically sustainable. So if set aside 5% or 10% in the budget, then whatever that represents in tokens is what affiliate marketers get paid.
I fine it weird that Steemit, a place where bloggers were getting paid $1000 per post a year ago, are now filled with people saying the math for affiliates to be making thousands per day is impossible? The only way it is impossible is if the price of the token doesn't support continuing to pay out at those rates, or if the growth of the program outgrows the ability to pay for it (a sybil attack of a sort). In that case just like with mining, you reduce the payouts across the board to adjust to market conditions which can make it sustainable.
We can explore the first possible application of SMT would be Steem, a token that rewards marketers of the Steem blockchain, we can probably take some points from Bitconnect an apply it here on Steem, that was the tokens would be a currency for marketers.... The difficult part would be getting the correct model as we want a token thats lucrative enough and not just a badge with no real value
bitconnect is a scam and has recently committed criminal tax evasion from the U.K will be cases against within two months
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10278342
Are you spreading fake news about Bitconnect on purpose? If you are trying to convince neutral people that it is a scam and you use out of date information then it makes you look like you have an agenda.
Here is the latest and correct information: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10948031
They started a new company and that explains why the old company is being allowed to expire. Also to qualify as a scam they have to stop paying people but since people are being paid you cannot call Bitconnect a scam. You can call it a pyramid or Ponzi scheme just like you can call any other crypto including the crypto we like to use but it doesn't mean the pyramid will collapse any time soon as they can adjust everything, from interest payments, to levels on their referral program, and have made changes.
The only neutral position I can take is to say it is inconclusive as to what Bitconnect is. It could be sustained or not depending on the motivates of the people operating the website which remains a central point of failure. Steem avoids this because Steem will exist without Steemit due to the design.
if you did your research properly and weren't trying to recruit people to your scam you would see that there are 3 listed with bitconnect in there name
bitconnect the cryptocurrency waas registered here by Ken FITZSIMMONS,
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10278342/officers
the one you listed has multiple people none being ken FITZSIMMONS
the exchange is the central point of failure which deals with over 90% of volume when case are put against will be seized and owners will be gone with what they can pull in an exit
it is conclusively proven to be a scam and you supporting are a scammer
get your facts straight before talking shit
You have collected your daily Power Up! This post received an upvote worth of 0.86$.
Learn how to Power Up Smart here!
@isacoin
I'm not offering any referral link am I? So I'm neutral but you are clearly anti. What is in it for you to care so much about this? I don't know who made Bitcoin either and at any moment if I'm a holder the creator could dump a bunch of Bitcoins. I don't actually hold Bitcoin but I also don't go to around making it my mission to prove Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme or call it a scam.
Here are some facts: Something cannot be defined as a scam as long as people are getting paid. In Bitcoin people get paid, in Steemit people get paid, and in Bitconnect people get paid. None of them are scams. This means according to the dictionary definition of scam, to be a scam requires fraud. Show fraud and you reveal the scam.
Are they Ponzi schemes? That is a different question but it doesn't matter to me as long as people are still getting paid. When people are not getting paid or when the thing stops working then it's a scam. This is from a very neutral point of view that I make these definitions. You also claimed "tax evasion" but provided no evidence of this.
Your point about "Ken FITZSIMMONS" really has nothing to do with anything. It was you who claimed Bitconnect was going to be shut down by the UK and I refuted that with the facts. It's not going to be shut down by the UK government. This is a separate question as to whether or not it is a Ponzi scheme which honestly I don't know or really care. As far as whether it is a scam, it does not meet the definition by any standard because people are getting their money back.
Scams do not give people their money back and scams don't actually make people profit. So if that is a scam I don't mind that kind of scam as long as it keeps paying out. When it stops paying out is when I join your side on that debate but not before.
References
who made bitcoin is irrelevant isn't a company and doesn't ask for money
bitcoin is in no way a ponzi scheme has much utility is not just a token like 100's of thousands of other crypto
not facts people can and do get paid by scams before they pull an exit
in bitcoin coins are created due to POW nobody is asking for money
Evidence for
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10278342
first tax filing was due in July 2017 and one week before bitconnect moved operation to Indonesia
bitconnect is a fraud due to fact that holding bitcoin would yield more and unless they hold reserves to match market cap wouldn't be able to pay if everybody wanted to withdraw
by the time it stops paying out will be too late will have exited
Yeah and Jamie Dimon says the same about Bitcoin. This is why I say:
All of it is gambling. You might prefer to gamble on Bitcoin as your own preference but lets not pretend like Bitcoin price cannot be manipulated, or like you know the motives for the creation of Bitcoin. Also POW does ask for money, how do you mine without paying money ? So you lock up your money in mining equipment which breaks after 6 months, and how do I know? I've got experience.
If the token goes to zero then all your equipment you are stuck with. Bag holder in equipment is no different than if you hold a useless mining contract, or anything else. It's not a scam, it's called you gambled and you didn't win. Profits are not guaranteed in Bitconnect, or Bitcoin, or any crypto, If you choose to mine no one is guaranteed to buy the token, and any little thing can go wrong to crash the price.
Jamie Dimons statements are not based on facts and bitconnect is nothing like bitcoin has no economic principles security or utility
POW isn't asking for money its economic cost to secure network rewarded by minting
any market can be manipulated bitconnect controls the exchange that handles 90% of volume takes payment in an asset more valuable than what it pays which makes it much easier and cheaper to manipulate
size of bitcoin network and growth shows no chance of going of going to zero bitcoin has economic principles and utility bitconnect does not
no little thing can "crash" price now examples being everything bitcoin has survived isnt going anywhere