/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>27882734
I think it's disappointing that you think this is FUD just because there's evidence to suggest short term speculative price could possibly be influenced by the release of tokens sold to investors much below market value. The %s are plain to see, and I think I posted the same pic included in my last thread. I even disregarded them in my initial calculation on CIRCULATING SUPPLY.

>>27873733
>Assuming tokens in Team, Ecosystem Development and Foundation haven't been touched and the Protocol Emissions & Liquidity Rewards have been distributed, that still puts about half of all *CIRCULATING* reef from the private sale.

(3+1.71)/(3+1.71+1.43+2.08+1.68)=47.58

That's assuming the protocol emission and liquidity reward has been distributed (which I see no evidence of). Note this is reduced to 35.83% in March. I don't think it's unreasonable to keep have these numbers in mind as there's little distribution until the demo is released.

We're talking short term price speculation here, what's really the point of purchasing Reef if its price is going to go down in the short term when you could have made gains on BTC or even ETH and brought more Reef?


> Ecosystem Development 12.40%
> Foundation 17.57%

It's not at all clear to me what kind of distribution we'll see on these. You'd expect from the DOT diagram that one of these should be sustained via payments, but there's currently (perhaps rightfully) no information about the tokenomimcs on the DOT parachain.

>>27883475
Look, this aint FUD, I'm spitting straight facts. The truth is there's very little to go on and until we see the demo you're speculating on the fundamentals. If you thought they were good then what's the problem?