/biz/ - Business & Finance

https://www.pwc.fr/fr/espace-presse/communiques-de-presse/2018/juillet/pwc-france-afrique-francophone-s-associe-a-la-fondation-request-network.html

I don’t know what any of those things they’re working on are. Can someone explain each of them in simple ways? I’m all in on REQ btw.

>>10199942
FRENCH REPORTING IN
1) PWC is shit
2) REQ is already dead, only delusional faggots still trade it
3) France won't be able to handle the crypto game, just like we were unable to do it with internet. Why? Because people who make the laws are +70 y/o boomers

>>10200154
nt pajeet

It only needs to go back to 1$ for me to break even. Only a matter of days.

>>10200190
nt delusional heavy bag holder

et va te faire enculer je suis pas un indien ;)

>>10200247
You are 100% pajeet if you really think that pwc is shit and req is dead.

>>10200154
You need to switch things up, I can tell who you are in each req thread

>>10200154
>FRENCH REPORTING IN
And that's relevant because...?
>PWC is shit
Says who and why
>REQ is already dead
What does dead mean, and who says it's dead
>only delusional faggots still trade it
Again, who says this and what's their argument?
>France won't be able to handle the crypto game, just like we were unable to do it with internet. Why? Because people who make the laws are +70 y/o boomers
Yeah I'm sure you're some kind of prophet anon

>>10200247

>>10199942
You posted this on reddit. No one cares about your shilling on here. Give me proof that PwC will actually benefit the value of the Req token directly, then I’ll care. The most likely scenario is that PwC borrows Req’s technology for its own private accounting blockchain. In a nutshell, PwC will have used the Req team and left them behind.

>>10199942
Great news! It might only drop 25% now!

>>10200995
>The most likely scenario is that PwC borrows Req’s technology for its own private accounting blockchain.
Dude you just went full retard

>>10200995
To explain further, it’s pretty obvious to me this is going to happen. It’s not like Req has a patent on its technology. What incentive is there for PwC to A) post accounting data on Req’s public ledger and B) commit any resources that would benefit the average Req token holder? It’s a pipe dream that PwC is going to help you, the average Req investor. It’s more likely to benefit the Req team members and/or PwC’s bottom line. Don’t be surprised if you get burnt.

>>10201027
And you don’t even have a detailed counter argument.

>>10201050
Good luck on having SECURE private blockchain.

btw this same ''private blockchain'' fud is always so retarded.

>>10201111
checked

>>10201050
You literally do not understand the blockchain

>>10199942
Oh please. Clearly you've never worked with someone from one of the Big 4 before because this reads like the most generic associate level bullshit article that someone could come up with. It literally has every fucking buzzword that these consultants are bred to use from day one and literally says nothing of substance. And a cursory glance at their other articles reveal the same fluff pieces that are also common place on Deloitte, Boston Consulting Group and McKinsey's websites. But sure this is FUD so you know buy 100k and shit you dumb niggers.

>>10200197
Will this piece of shit hit a dollar?

>>10199942
Req is trash and most of accounting work consists of business consulting which REQ could never replace. REQ will just be a better version of Quickbooks.

>>10201503
>better version of quick books
>everything done on REQ will burn tokens
You say that like it’s a bad thing

>>10201482
Easily. I can see even 50$ in long-term.

>>10201438
I know more than you do. Name a single big business that wants all of its transactions publicly available. There aren’t. And they sure as shit aren’t going to be posting their data on the Ethereum blockchain. I’m aware that a centralized private blockchain conflicts with the very advantages of a blockchain, which by definition should be decentralized, but that’s not how these enterprise companies like PwC approach it. I can guarantee you if—a big if—PwC has transactions on a blockchain it will be at least partially sequestered, and it certainly won’t be directly burning Req tokens.

>>10201571
Why don’t we hit 50 cents before this nonsense $50 talk. The Req community, which I am a part of, is too full of delusions and not intelligent enough to constructively criticize the project.

>>10201459
Exactly. If you read the last Req update, they state they haven’t even begun coding anything with PwC or for am accounting app. It’s all theoretical right now and in discussion. Req shillers, stfu until something concrete actually occurs. Otherwise you have a fucking $50 million dollar beta crowdfunding app and that’s it.

>>10201027

That's not even an argument. He makes a great point.

>>10201822

>>10201571
>I can see even 50$ in long-term.

lel, get fucked bagholder.

If the team delivers, REQ $10k EO2019 is a fact.

>tfw staking and burning these tokens means i will sell just ONE of my thousands of tokens for hundreds of dollars in 2 years

LMFAOOO GET FUCKED REQ FUDDERS

>>10201867
Again, you have no detailed response. Instead, just memes. Typical immature investor with no understanding of what you’ve thrown your money at. Thx for showing me a portrait of your face.

>>10201945
Screenshotted

>>10202348
do you not disagree a private blockchain is far less secure than a public one due to being 100% centralized and thus prone to an attack?

>>10201977
Nice dubs

Last time i heard of PWC working with a crypto it was with vechain.

decided to be a risky cunt and throw my conservatively diverse portfolio into like a significant amount of REQ - when it was like roughly 80c

it's now 8c, one fucking TENTH the price and i hate myself for the decision

i'm just holding for eternity because all my money is just profits from getting lucky on the BTC hype, but fuck my life still

>>10199942
lol aren't these the same guys that lost a fucking partnership with wikipedia? how weird and creepy do you have to be to lose that lol?
im a girl and his req stuff makes me feel uncomfortable, anon. why do you care that the price went up by 3 cents? isn't bitcoin worth 9000? buy that instead

>>10200669
>>FRENCH REPORTING IN
Opinion discarded.

>>10199942
Bump for justice
$7 eoy ! Per token not mcap.
Eo2018.

>>10201988
Does REQ have staking?

>>10203539
no staking, just burning. don't forget to lock your tokens on your ledger to avoid the burning contract

>>10203539
It's most likely moving to it's own tendermint sidechain. It will have staking if it does this.

>>10201863
>hurr durr private blockchains
Reminds me of dotcom when people thought most shit wouldn't be put on the public internet.

>>10203539
No, not yet. But it will have. There will be staking, burning (already working) and some kind of voting system to allow for the token to appreciate in value considerably.

>>10203016
Why so bitter?
In a few months to a year you'll have 10x of what you invested in REQ.
So be patient and wait out the bear market you fuck

Bump

>>10199942
most common a deluded REQ holder in the marketing team

>REQ

>>10203600
>most shit wouldn't be put on the public internet

You don't actually think most shit is on the 'public' internet do you?

>>10204078
Well yeah pretty much everything goes through the public internet infrastructure. Only things that it makes sense to not have on the public internet are government agencies like the NSA/pentagon/white house where these agencies would have their own specific cabling running between them. Everything else goes through the same public wires. Just like everything will go through the same public blockchains. Doesn't mean you will see it, but it will be there.

What is this on the Request Network subreddit?

If you’re interested in invoicing, my team is building a full featured crypto invoicing tool powered by REQ. Our private beta starts this week. We also have a free invoicing tool available now which does not provide any kind of payment processing. Feel free to give it a try (and signup for the beta if you like) at https://gilded.finance

>>10205438
On their website it seems as though they have two daaps that they are currently developing:

Crypto Invoicing
Send an invoice priced in fiat or crypto
Accept payment in BTC, ETH, LTC, or NANO
Use your existing wallets
100% free. Go for it!

Accounting for Crypto Businesses
Track payments to employees and vendors
Automaticly convert currencies
Monitor and categorize wallet transactions
Easy export for tax reporting

Is REQ going to be able to accept BTC, ETH, LTC, or NANO pretty soon? How is that Gilded team going to do that if their daaps are powered by REQ which does not accept BTC, LTC, or Nano? Did groups from those communities approach REQ and agree to create oracles for those currencies?

Req $100 eoy

>>10205438
>>10205450
>>10205477

Interesting to see people developing on top of Request.

There might be something to this shitcoin...

>>10201027
>>10200995

>People here STILL dont understand that a private blockchain is useless fundamentally and it would be cheaper for PWC to use REQ than develop it themselves.

Dont fall for the FUD rats spouting vitriol, yallz

>>10204035
I think you meant to say "likely"

>>10205438

What are your honest feelings about the platform now that you've had a chance to develop on it?