/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>12457719
YOU ARENT GOING TO FUCKING CONVINCE LINKIES TO SELL PART OF THEIR STACK TO GO INTO YOUR GENERIC SHITCOIN

>>12457730
Why are you angry?
Do you fear iExec?
No need linkie, LINK and RLC are bros, and solving very different problems.

I think link has another leg up to go in terms of price, but RLC is going to absolutely explode next bullrun. The marketcap is so low.

Cut the bullshit. What is it and what it does?

How much $ you think it'll hit.

What other projects are similar that we in the billions mktcap

>>12457919
>decentralizes centralized apps and monetizes them via iExec marketplace (https://dapps.iex.ec/))
>is a marketplace for dApps and cloud computing
>some call it "the airbnb of cloud computing"
>can control robots and AI
>Proof of contribution algorithm makes for trusted, verifiable, and secure computations to take place.
>blockchain agnostic
>one of the best technical teams in crypto
>working together with Intel, IBM, Ubisoft, Alibaba and more

It's one of the best buys next to link right now. It does a lot. I may have missed something.

>>12457937
I think it's a top 5 coin.
Value is irrelevant to me because I'm holding my stack for at least 3 years or until 400$.

>>12457946
How to store in a private wallet? It's erc 20?

>>12457957
Yes.
Also there are no coins doing what iExec is doing. Golem and SONM are not doing what iExec is doing, they're just rendercoins/"supercomputers"

>>12457937

Potentially 100$s in 3,4, 5 years.

AWS is worth more than 100$B.
Azure is worth billions.
TFCloud (partners with iExec) is worth $6.5B

Similar projects worth billions in crypto? None.

>>12457979
As a sidenote. If RLC was 100$, it's market cap would be around 8.5B, which isn't a lot considering ETH was at 133B at its ATH

You think 10,000 is enough?

>>12458006
10,000 is very respectable.
if you can get that higher, obviously go for it.
>>12457993
Yep. It's definitely possible that iExec sees an insane price increase in the near future. It's encroaching on a huge sector with a ginormous marketcap just waiting to be decentralized

>>12457979
those companies have that market cap because they have a product and are profitable, and have enough customers. until you can say the same for iexec it won't deserve a market cap in the billions , but it will probably get to hundreds of millions thanks to dumb crypto 'investors'.
I'm here for the ride, taking out my profits during the next bullrun.
99% of the shitcoins(alts) will die.

>>12457938
what are the tokenomics?

>>12458139
retarded

good project, shit tokenomics. not upping my 2k stack until they figure them out in a manner that makes more sense.

>>12458363
>shit tokenomics
why does iexec always get called out for this? what about 0x,bat,golem,augur,status? they never get shit on for their "tokenomics" when theyre less developed than iexecs...

>>12458484
What about LINK with over 66% of supply owned by that fatty

>>12457719
its this simple. i dont have money. im mostly all on link, it seems like safe enough considering how much i've "made" in the last few months. if link explodes before rlc i'll buy it, but i don't have money to make it with two different baskets

>>12458510
to be fair 35% of link is for node "rewards"
but ya that other 30% is questionable since they arent even calculated in the marketcap

but held tokens shouldnt be considered part of the tokenomics

>>12458363
Token economics are indeed lacking, but I wouldn't call them shit. Right now, RLC is only used to purchase computing power on the platform. Yet, the development is strong and they plan to release more information on the token economics in the coming months before the release of V3.

>>12458484
Good point

>>12458557
fair point, 'lacking' is a more neutral word and the devs know this. i feel this is one of the major current drawbacks of rlc and why there's no FOMO. if they had a catchy tokenomics proposition with their low supply and mcap, iexec would fly into the top 50-60

>>12458484
i held none of these. i like augur's concept but it's too undercooked for me to take a position in it.

bat tokenomics can gtfo, 0x has absolutely ZERO incentive for token holders. golem delayed so much of their roadmap before brass that i gave up on them long ago and yes, their tokenomics are shit. haven't seen status and i don't think i care about them anyways. so yes, i can call out all these projects too, doesn't make rlc's tokenomics look better. they need a better proposition

>>12458737
What's your opinion on better tokenomics for RLC?

Tokenomics flow is:
-Worker buys RLC to stake for computations.
-Client buys RLC to spend on computations.
-Worker stakes RLC for task A.
-Client pays worker RLC for task A.
-Task is executed and validated by other workers (takes some time).
-Worker stake is freed and worker gets paid.

>>12458879
Add a worker stake just to be part of the worker pool and it'd be perfect

>>12459176
Worker already stakes for each task, so double stake?

How is this token so cheap? Supply is low + good tech

>>12457938
>erc20 token

Whenever you guys feel like growing up, Skycoin's Fiber platform gives you a peer chain as an actual coin, not a token. It's also feeless for transactions.

>>12460395
Another McAfee scam, no thanks

>>12460687
>implying McAfee has ever scammed
>implying McAfee spending his entire presidential campaign promoting Skycoin will be anything other than glorious.

RLC forming an ascending triangle / bull pennant on the 1H

>>12457719
I'm married to my LINK stack, but once that goes on its eternal moon mission im going to cash out some to get into RLC. hopefully RLC just stays super cheap until then

>research iexec after seeing it shilled for a week
>find an article about AI learning oracles running on iexec
>mfw the anon talking about iexecubots was right
https://medium.com/iex-ec/dapp-of-the-week-03-websensors-70dc9c333e83

Look at those wheels! Makes me wanna pump. Incoming in 3, 2, 1..

this shit is gonna go down again isnt it

>>12460395
It's erc20 but it's blockchain agnostic

>>12461635
It might go lower than 6k SATs but that's another huge buying opportunity.

Also, glad you guys are finally willing to discuss this coin in a rational sense. Yes, tokenomics are somewhat of a worry but due to the massive use cases of RLC and the fact that it uses staking makes me believe it has "okay" tokenomics on top of 10/10 technology.

It's still under ico. I call that a crime.

Price going down. Back to 5K sats.

>>12461920
BTC is moving lower possibly
could cause it to go back to 5.5k sats or so
either way, $ value is still under ICO. Unbelievable for a coin like this.

>>12457719
why the FUCK would I buy this instead of Golem?

>>12462198
>Golem
kek

>>12457938
>"the airbnb of cloud computing"
stopped reading here. fucking rakesh

Check Golem.network

>>12462217
LOL ok. Then BTFO with your stupid rendercoin

>>12462217
>have house
>rent house to strangers for money

>have computer
>rent computer power to strangers for money
not a hard concept

>>12462198
>>12462234
>golem
>comparing a rendercoin to a coin that does everything a rendercoin does and more while having the best algorithm to check work

>>12462234
>>12462210
Also, from their subreddit, absolute CRINGE.

>Is GNT a good investment/what will be the price in X/Y days?

>Look, we’re simple programmers. We work on the Golem technology, and this subreddit is about that. If you want to discuss prices, you should go to /r/GolemTrader, /r/ethtrader or some other place with active trading discussions. Please be aware that any discussions on trading and prices of GNT are going to be mercilessly removed from this subreddit. It’s not that we don’t love you guys, but we don’t want to get embroiled in that particular kind of passion right now.

>Look, we're simple programmers
>simple programmers

>>12462234
>>12462210
>>12462256
golem is clearly more than a year ahead of iexec. their mainnet was almost a year ago while iexec is still struggling to move past their testnet
ps golem is #62 on coinmarketcap and iexec is like on page 3 lol

Why the fuck would I buy this instead of GRC?

You are just a tunnel visioned anon who doesn't understand the true vision of Golem. DYOR or KYS fag.

>>12460881
chainlink makes this obsolete

>>12462316
Why are you still comparing golem to iExec?

>Golem, SONM and iExec have their own visions for the common goal for a new Internet enabled by the blockchain. However, their respective go-to-market strategies differ. Golem’s network aims to attract regular 3D rendering by supporting computations for Blender 3D rendering software. SONM aims to approach fog and edge computing from the beginning.
At iExec, we invision an ubiquitous decentralized cloud where developers deploy their legacy application on top of iExec using our SDK. With this, the possibilities are endless.

>https://dapps.iex.ec/
>https://iex.ec/faq/

>>12462327
You need to DYOR because you keep comparing golem to iexec

>>12462331
>he doesn't know

>>12462316
>ps golem is #62 on coinmarketcap and iexec is like on page 3 lol
Also, this shows me that you're a fucking normie brainlet that knows absolutely nothing about cryptocurrency or cloud computing platforms.

>he judges coins based on their cmc rank

>>12462373
>Golem’s network aims to attract regular 3D rendering by supporting computations for Blender 3D rendering software.
this is a lie golem will be an entire marketplace, blender was just the first product. Its clear iexec is copying golems work seeing how far behind they are
Brass Golem marketplace will make iexec obsolete

Oh yea, and also, iExec beat golem to blender rendering and now has a ton of dApps.

Pretty funny when I google "golem dapps" nothing comes up, but iexec does. :)

>>12461739
Yeah, a shitty erc20 token is just the gatekeeper for your "agnostic" platform.

>>12462445
see
>>12462457
get fucked LOL
fucking retard golemites

>>12462445
Also, if you're worried about iexec's tokenomics then you're in for a world of hurt when it comes to golem's. Golem has the worst tokenomics imaginable.

PoCo is the main reason why iExec shits on golem, but there are others.

>>12462550

I don't understand why the toekenomics are considered bad, like you are forced to use the RLC token to use the service so the more its used the more the token will cost over time.

personally I don't like the idea of being forced to buy a particular token to use a platform, it would be better if they all implemented a background buy/sell of the token on kyber network and let people pay to use the service however they want

>>12462615
>you are forced to use the RLC token to use the service so the more its used the more the token will cost over time.
BASED RETARD
read again what you wrote

>>12462615
Golem has no staking while RLC does.
Golem is just a commodity token.
Not only that, Golem is a "supercomputer" while RLC is a pay-per-task market with added security, trustfulness, and staking. They're two completely different projects doing different things.

RLC was the first to blender rendering.
RLC is the first to dApps and has a lot of them already.
RLC can also be used to perform Bitcoin RSK smart contracts.
RLC can also control robots and get floorplans from them.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUDO8BeeqBg
RLC has the interest of intel, ibm, alibaba, ubisoft, chinese cloud providers and many more.
RLC can do so much more than golem can and ever will.

>>12462653
>BASED RETARD
>read again what you wrote
FUCKINGG LOOOOOOOOOL
>your coin is shit!
>it's gonna cost more money in the future!
>why would I buy at 20 cents?!?!?!

HAHAHAHHAHAHA

>>12458879
You forgot
>Worker immediately sells the RLC back to clients, matching long-term RLC demand with supply, meaning that RLC value grows only when there's a net growth in iexec usage, and the value increase is only marginal, as most coins are sold immediately for cash, with only workers holding on to them long-term.

>>12462799
You can't say that worker is going to immediately sell because if they think that iExec is worth anything they are going to "invest" by storing away portions of RLC. Yes, some may sell instantly to turn a profit, but we don't know how the market is going to act yet.

Also, more workers, more RLC staked overall.
Then, there are investors that are buying it up to store it away.

A lot of reasons to buy it now, IMO.

>>12462847
are you from the team?

>>12462946
No. Just a neet that did a lot of research and brainstorming about RLC.
I just want you guys to realize before other people do. I figured the risk is so low now, maybe some people will listen to my shilling.

Don't listen to the bullshit about crypto. There will be diamonds in the rough, and I believe this is one of them.

>>12462969
I'm just a fag who's too scared to invest on anything other than BTC or ETH

Rate my folio plis

30 bsv
30 link
30 rlc
10 flo

>>12463064
Understandable.
I implore you to take a deeper look into iexec though.
I'm high risk high reward investing almost all in with RLC. The chart alone makes me salivate.

>>12463080
>bsv
dunno, seems pajeetish. I don't like to bet against BTC.

>link
yep
>flo
idk, seems pajeetish in the way it's shilled here. Very low quality shilling. I haven't looked into it because of that.

are there any upcoming events for rlc? as far as I see its just v3 in may no?

>>12463215
v3, which is the enterprise edition, which is a pretty big deal potentially.

If you're looking for pumps and gambling, you might find some gains in RLC, but it's more of a medium-long term hold until v4.

>>12463215
They always surprise you with something every 2 weeks. Stay tuned

>>12462847
>if they think that iExec is worth anything they are going to "invest" by storing away portions of RLC
That's just the same market speculation right now, which shouldn't really happen if iexec enters mainstream use.
Demand (and therefore price) of RLC will be limited, because only workers' stakes and investments will be RLC will be cached out of the market. The rest of it, the vast majority, will be cash temporarily converted to RLC for use on iexec. If there's no fixed RLC cost in the system, there will be little upward pressure in RLC value from increased iexec use.
In other words, ask yourself, would iexec still be functional at current RLC price? Seems so to me, based on my understanding.

>>12463294
>That's just the same market speculation right now, which shouldn't really happen if iexec enters mainstream use.
There will always be speculators/investors. Eventually, iExec will find a price and volatility will go down once crypto as a whole becomes adopted. (bigger boat theory)
If iexec enters mainstream use owning a piece of RLC becomes like owning a stock in iexec itself, as well as having multiple use cases.

>Demand (and therefore price) of RLC will be limited, because only workers' stakes and investments will be RLC will be cached out of the market.
Workers stakes and investments could potentially be a lot. Not to mention, you have to imagine the other possibilities that iExec enables, who knows if some sort of dApp comes along that makes iExec worth holding.

>The rest of it, the vast majority, will be cash temporarily converted to RLC for use on iexec. If there's no fixed RLC cost in the system, there will be little upward pressure in RLC value from increased iexec use.

I think this is where the bigger boat theory comes in. The bigger/more used RLC gets, the lower the volatility. No fixed cost is needed because eventually 1 entity will not be able to control the price enough to matter.

The iExec marketplace will ultimately decide what 1 RLC is worth.

I think what's going to happen is workers will buy up portions of RLC for future use/investment purposes, and then also be forced to stake a bunch as well to provide services. Once they provide a service, they store away a portion of their RLC for future staking purposes or simple investment reasons. Then they take the rest of the earned RLC and sell to recoup cost/gain profit.

Over time, workers will gain bigger stores of RLC. What they decide to do with that RLC is their choice, but once the network gets large enough, it won't matter because if they sell, that RLC will be eaten up by the market and given to whoever.

Buyers buy RLC to use for both investment and computing tasks.

>>12463294
Here's an example.
Worker owns 1 rlc long-term for staking.
Worker charges 5 rlc (~$1) for task.
Client pays 5 rlc for task.
Worker sells 5 rlc to client.
Now, imagine this cycle happening 10 times. 100 times. A thousand times. Does that put upward pressure on RLC value? No.
Only when new workers enter the market, they take some RLC out of circulation, making it more scarce. Also, when multiple clients are competing for earlier service on limited supply, that might drive RLC value up a bit.

>>12463429
Here's the realistic example.

>worker owns 1 RLC long term for staking
>worker charges 5 RLC for task
>client buys 5 RLC from market/portal
>client uses 5 RLC for task
>worker gains 5 RLC
>worker sells 3.5 RLC to make a profit
>worker stores 1 RLC for future additional worker staking
>worker stores 0.5 RLC for personal investment reasons

Now imagine this cycle happening 10 times. 100 times. A thousand times. Does that put upward pressure on RLC value? Yes.
New workers will always be entering the market for a variety of imaginable uses iExec allows. They take a lot of RLC out of circulation through time, making it extremely scarce 20 years from now. Competition will make the market. The amount of work that iExec enables means that there will be a lot of potential users overall. That increases value.

>>12463424
>Over time, workers will gain bigger stores of RLC. What they decide to do with that RLC is their choice, but once the network gets large enough, it won't matter because if they sell, that RLC will be eaten up by the market and given to whoever
That's what I mean by long-term RLC demand matching RLC supply. As long as there is no "burning" of RLC, all payments to the worker are returned to the market unless they're lost. And why would workers accumulate and sit on massive stacks of RLC without selling them? If their services are competitively priced, then most can't afford to delay in cashing out to maintain their service.

>>12463546
>And why would workers accumulate and sit on massive stacks of RLC without selling them?
because of inflation on fiat money making the rlc coins worth more than the dollarinos?

>>12463546
>That's what I mean by long-term RLC demand matching RLC supply. As long as there is no "burning" of RLC, all payments to the worker are returned to the market unless they're lost
Essentially.

There's no "burning", but it's basically done by people using it as a "store of technological value". dApps might potentially be the golden reason to hold onto RLC.

Why would workers accumulate?
1) to stake for more workers in the future (expanding their business)
2) to prevent having to spend more money in the future to stake/increase their stores if RLC happens to become more expensive to buy
3)A hedge against the iexec market's competition/pricing

>If their services are competitively priced, then most can't afford to delay in cashing out to maintain their service.
If demand is high enough the pricing will be a lot more liquid, allowing for more choices for workers instead of being forced to sell. I believe demand will eventually be extremely high in the future when dApps become mainstream.

>>12463504
>>worker stores 0.5 RLC for personal investment reasons
This is the part I don't buy. You're including market speculation in the equation when you shouldn't be. People aren't going to accumulate forever. At some point, as many are going to sell their stacks as those who buy.
And, as I've said above, competition is going to make it so that the worker who caches away portions of the payment is going to be beaten in price by the worker who doesn't (in your example, this worker would charge just the 3.5 RLC to sell immediately).

>>12457938
>the air bnb of cloud computing
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
airbnb is dead too, you can replace it with a smart contract + link

>>12463574
They're millions of options for hedging against inflation, and probably most are superior to RLC.
People here act like they're the only ones in the world who know about inflation, and imagine that businesses and rich people just keep their cash in a vault.

>>12463751
*There're

>>12463689
>You're including market speculation in the equation when you shouldn't be.
You should always think about every variable.
It's not too farfetched to think that some owners of the miners will have personal beliefs that RLC is worth holding long term.

>People aren't going to accumulate forever.
For sure, but you're oversimplifying it.
> At some point, as many are going to sell their stacks as those who buy.
Not necessarily. That's counting that every miner will instantly sell their RLC. They'd be betting against themselves using RLC as a platform.

>competition is going to make it so that the worker who caches away portions of the payment is going to be beaten in price by the worker who doesn't
Not true. Reason being, the worker who invests in their business (which is the business of using RLC), will be able to make more calculated moves.

Imagine this scenario.
RLC is 1$
Worker 1 has 100 RLC stored away.
Worker 2 has 0 RLC stored away.
RLC goes to 2$
Worker 1 wants to increase their amount of workers. They can simply use their stored RLC instead of reaching into their pockets and paying twice as much.

Worker 2 now has to reach into their pockets and pay twice as much. If they invested in the platform they were using instead of instantly selling and betting AGAINST iexec, they would be up on profit. Betting against the platform you're using is a stupid move.

>>12463692
airbnb is most definitely not dead. You might be able to replace it with a smart contract+link but that isn't going to happen for a long time if at all.

If you're implying that link can replace iexec, you don't understand iexec.

>>12463751
yeah so why waste the excesses of RLC you don'nt need to sell for money for computing power if you can sell them later for a higher price ? or if you can use the RLC to pay for your own needs? soon, holding anything that's useful globally will be worth more than goverment fiats. its just how it is. all the succesful cones and tokens will have better value.


I don't hold a big stack of RLC but I see the potential. Also look at Ripple, you don't even need any XRP to do transactions on the network and still people mass bought the xrp token.

>>12463782
You get it.
There's value in the utility of RLC.
That makes it worth keeping, we don't know what world-changing technologies RLC will eventually enable.

>>12463689
What if client A needs task AB to be executed constantly by worker B? I think that's what will happen with most of tasks, clients requesting tens, hundreds or thousands of times per minute.

That example "locks" the RLC cycle between A and B + the stake of B, neither of them are going to sell RLC if they need instantly for another task, reducing the total free supply. If client C or worker D enters the network for the first time, they'll need to buy RLC from a smaller supply than A and B. Have the network fully working (no speculators) and RLC will be a scarce supply.

>>12463866
See, I never even considered that.
This is why they need to do a comprehensive tokenomics report, which I believe they are releasing soon?

Either way, RLC is extremely undervalued for what it is. I don't think people understand what it is yet, and are like "wtf is an iexec is that an apple product"?
The name works in favor for investors while the technology improves it will explode in value at some point.

>>12457744
>next bullrun

Reminder that any coin that is relying on the next btc bullrun to move up in price is a shitcoin with no value of its own. If there is a next bull run it will be based on usage not speculation.

>>12463971
It's not relying on a BTC bullrun. I'm saying the next crypto bullrun when more money enters the space.

The next bullrun won't be on usage. Usage is an ever-increasing metric, not explosion based.
Speculation will ALWAYS be a thing.

>>12460702
Why would mcafee use his presidential campaign to shill a random shitcoin normies have never heard of? He would not win any votes that way.

>>12461779
How exactly do you know the tech is 10/10 when no one is using it and it doesn’t have a mainnet

>>12464027
Because I understand what iExec is?

>doesn't have a mainnet
until it does.
weak fud 1/10

just a reminder...
https://twitter.com/PalmVeniceBeach/status/1085078394788896773

call targets are $.33, $.55, $.70 in fiat
this is going to pump for a while

>>12463771
You're assuming increasing investment as a certainty. Speculation can drive price downwards as well. You're just assuming best case scenario. By your logic, all public companies' stocks have upward pressure from speculation. And yes, companies sometimes buy their own stocks if they believe in themselves, but that can go badly. It's upwards or downwards, depending on many factors. You don't get to count on speculation as a mechanism for RLC value increase. I'm not denying that speculation might increase RLC value. But I wasn't talking about how iexec price might change in the future. I was just discussing the upward pressure in the mechanisms of how RLC is used.
>>12463782
As I've said, there are millions of better hedges than RLC. And many other investment options. You can't just assume that everyone will invest in RLC because you want them to. Businesses (workers in iexec) would likely cash out excess RLC to buy assets and otherwise expand their business. Standard stuff. And that's a much better use of RLC than sitting on excess and hoping that its value goes up and not down.
>>12463866
I sort of acknowledged that in an above post where I mention limited service compared to demand.

>>12464417
>You're assuming increasing investment as a certainty
It's certainly a variable in the equation though. You can't just think that every worker will sell.

I'm not assuming best case I'm simply saying there are other variables to recognize that may further increase the reason to hold onto RLC.

>By your logic, all public companies' stocks have upward pressure from speculation. And yes, companies sometimes buy their own stocks if they believe in themselves, but that can go badly
But it can also go really good. Also, crypto acts differently from stocks because it also has multiple utility use cases.

>>12464201
It'll probably pump again really hard soon.
It's like TRX pre-pump all over again.
The ones that see the potential are getting in heavy right now, and then the herd follows.

JUST MARKET BOUGHT 30K LMAO YOLO!!!!!

>>12464595
Congrats, welcome to top 1000 holders of RLC.
Enjoy the ride

>>12464627
PUMP IT AGAIN YOU FUCKS!!!!!!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

>>12464799
no worry fren, it will eventually

>>12463771
i like

>>12465570
Thanks. I'm interested in seeing the tokenomics report from the team because I doubt they're going to be able to figure out every possible variable. Either way I'm not worried, faggots that solely worry about tokenomics don't understand value.

LOL! Just Accumulated my 10K BAG from fudding AT BIZ. SELLING AT $1500 PER RLC!

Accumulate at least 3K RLC bag to join the RLC Whale Club ;)

>>12465679

I'm a part of the slack but I don't popin every week. Do you know when the iexec team plans to release something about tokenomics?

>>12466664
I don't know when, but I remember seeing something somewhere I forget where it was. It should be relatively soon, before summer i think?

also, buy at 5500 sats or lower.