/biz/ - Business & Finance

what is a liqui?

>>11202895
He means liquid, that REQ is not so liquid lately, as trading has decreased.

>>11202881
Boy-o-boy did I get fucking scammed !

>>11202881
this is some shit tier fud considering trashqui is delisting waves too when it was just listed on bithumb with 100x their volume

Aren't BAT and Waves decent projects with decent volume?

>>11202920
Decent Crypto

>>11202881
>liqui still hasn't exit scammed?

>>11202881
Bullish, OP doesen't realize that because he is an npc.

i wrote this a while ago. none of it has been effectively refutted. even by the faggot reddit mods. GET To it boys

ps req is a shitcoin going to absolute 0

all of them low volume no-user tokens, just pure speculator toys and all the speculators have flee'd in the bear market.

>>11203042
I'm amazed too. Glad I took everything off there last year.

>>11204099
unrefutable. now you can stop posting in req threads, let them die naturally, and move on with your life.

>>11204099
>>11204133
>let them die naturally
no thanks, other crypto companies have class action lawsuits for the same fuckups REQ did. i'll happily "fud" until 0.01 cents / class actions

also let me break this down for reqlets.

if there are no apps, then no one uses the token, therefore no burning happens. didn't the team just lose another partnership?

shit is going to 0 unironically.

>>11204147
if that's what makes you feel valuable in life go for it champ

>>11204175
:( sorry your bags are so heavy fren

friendly reminder REQ token doesn't work on mobile devices. 80% of commerce is done on mobile globally. really the "future" of commerce

>>11204187
don't be. my average buy in is like 4 cents.
bought a ton at 3 cents after 5.
but if you don't even own req you're better off shilling something else aren't you? you don't make money by drawing attention to it

>>11204213
my personal revenge on the REQ team. without people like me a majority of bagholders would still think the project is doing ok. the project went straight downhill after mainnet release and its been a disaster ever since.

they defrauded investors extensively though. would like to see the team face a class action

>>11204227
did you buy in at a dollar?
i seriously doubt you had much impact on the price, if any, but anyway thanks for the chance ot buy in so low if you did

>>11204247
i bought in at 20 cents

doesn't matter though because this is going to less than a cent. you should see some profits before then

>>11204247
also i'm genuinely curious why you see value in the tokens in the short to long term

no adoption will happen therefore no burn. and no hype will happen so no new suckers coming in.

whats your angle? just delusional?

>>11204273
just buy some more and pawn it off at 30 cents in january dude.
>>11204291
because this shit is like crack for whoever is buying crypto.
i barely know what it does but the arguments against it are so mind numbingly bad that it's got a decent shot given some time to actually finish the product.

if i learned anything in the last year of crypto, is that hte way to make it is to be in before anyone else.
buying a rank 10 coin and getting 10% a year later is shit. it's not why i'm here
req is like rank 200 with some actual corporate backing.

they've got enough money to keep people hired for several years
so the chances of this spiking at least once in the next year for a 2x-3x gain is very high. just need to be patient and wait for a spike of normies to flood in again.

who the fuck cares about liqui

>>11204325
It was the IDEX of last year.

>>11204323
Yeah but these slacker devs have a history of bailing when shit gets tough (see moneytis). This thing could implode without warning like tether.

>>11204323
hey i can't argue with your logic. this has a good chance of being carried back up during another normie bullrun (if that happens)

also 100% right about there funds, enough to keep afloat for a while. seeing how cheap they are being in terms of marketing/hires etc it will last a while.

from a development standpoint, this is garbage tech that wont see adoption. also the team is fucking lazy and demonstrated this over a year. if they get the right hires things could change.

>>11204374
also this. remember there vesting period is almost up, they still have millions in that wallet to split up so they don't give a fuck about short term price or goals.

>>11204374
i don't buy it. moneytis wasn't very successful, but it did what it was supposed to.
and they found themselves in a spot where they could be the first in the crypto space for accounting, which allegedly is the "holy grail" of accounting?
why keep pushing on moneytis when there's not much demand for it?

as for lazy hires i wouldn't know, but people thought that LINK was going to have a main net in Q1 and no one seriously calls them lazy. software development is not fast, and certaintly not quality dev

>>11204418
LINK didn't lie about the mainnet release date though. unless i'm wrong. also the amount of code and development link has put out is not even comparable to request, look yourself.

moneytis doesn't work kek and no one uses it. try to send $10k internationally yourself. crypto is not the "holy grail" of accounting. its a small niche that no one even uses right now.

>quality software dev isn't fast
why did it take them over 9 months to put out unusable garbage?