/biz/ - Business & Finance

Blowing half the ICO funds at Gordon Ramsay's restaurant

>>13892874
You forgot:
>Intel SGX support:
>Link: No
>Req: yes

>>13892907
rack 'em

Shitcoin:
>Link: maybe
>REQ: yes

Performs a slow exit scam:
>link: no
>req: yes

>>13892874
This would have to be the biggest and worst cope I have ever seen

>>13892874

>15 person staff at REQ

Wrong. Mostly the personal friends and acquaintances of the developers. Basically the REQ ICO was to allow these guys to stay together and party after leaving university. Their COO, the guy who is supposed to be leading and delegating, is one of the founding devs frat buddies.

>YC support

Long ago withdrawn. Moneytis had YC support (and it was a dud), the Request Network money grab did NOT.

>50 cents EoY

lel

>Active development

REQ has had no development since March 2018

>Institutional Partnerships

REQ has none. Apart from destroying their links with Wikimedia because they couldn't even bother responding to emails, PwC France did a pilot with them and determined that there is no feasibly use for any Blockchain related vaporware.

Furthermore, to this day REQ does not even do BTC payments.

A colossal waste of time and money. Fuck the French.

>>13892939
Pointing out that REQ has more institutional backing, staff experience, blockchain acumen, and a working mainnet is cope?
I'm reading the wiki article on psychological coping right now and having a hard time understanding what you mean by this - could you clarify?

>>13893176

How are you even bag holding this garbage at this stage?

How much did you actually buy at or near the ATH?

This has to be one of the most shittiest Fuds ever created. Even the
>link is shit
Fud was better. But then again this might be some reverse shill, but it's so obvious so it's actually a reverse reverse fud. This is all so tiresome.

>>13893172
>Wrong. Mostly the personal friends and acquaintances of the developers
It's not uncommon for early-stage startups to be staffed by people who knew each other in university. I would suggest reading some of Paul Graham's essays on this topic - many people attend unis like Stanford _specifically_ to scout out co-founders. Also please have a look at https://www.linkedin.com/company/request-network, or if you're a developer yourself see https://request.network/en/career/ (REQ is now hiring).

>Long ago withdrawn.
YC support is not "withdrawn" - do you have any idea how the program works? I notice you're mentioning Moneytis and not, e.g., 0x or Coinbase - any particular reason?

>REQ has had no development since March 2018
I'll help you out here: https://github.com/RequestNetwork and that's just the public repos. Was March 2018 "9 days ago"?

>>13893192
Why is this any of your business?

>>13893282
>Why is this any of your business?

Because your motive is obvious.

You're trying to find greater fools to help you break back even and dump your extremely heavy bags.

Must be exhausting.

I bought REQ at 5 cents and it was my biggest loss. I can't imagine what you Mongoloids who bought above 30 cents feel like.

Bought 71k at 22 cents, dumped at 400 sats. This shit is depressing. I could have sold it all for 11k link in October. I'm all in btt since 14 sats so I'm hoping to regain sat/fiat value and solidify my stinky position for golden bull cum. Seriously, fuck these guys, it had so much potential

>>13893293
My motive is creating a tokenomics comparison of REQ vs LINK. I didn't even say whether I held any of either.
If what I wrote is correct, REQ seems like the better buy for now. But you are entitled to disagree.

>>13893282
stfu abstract you fat fuck. quit trying to resurrect this dead scam

>>13893441

I think you're a bag holder, and your "comparison" twists the truth in your favour.

I'm not convinced.I used to have 400K REQ, I will not be buying back.

>>13893172
i hope the bagholders file a class action lawsuit, because what they did and keep doing is technically fraud

>>13893441
Where did you get a .50 price target for req?

>>13893282
they overpromised with the first road map, changed to a more modest one and are AGAIN late.
first roadmap fiat integration: Q2 2018 (1 YEAR AGO)
second road map V2 launch: Q1 2019 (STILL HALF WAY BUILDING TESTNET)
i do check their dynamic roadmap from time to time and it doesnt fucking change. they either work 1 day a week or they are a scam. you got mozzarella'd. cope

>>13892911
cringe

>>13893929
butthurt RLCfag detected.

>>13893814

The bagholders have no money to hire legal counsel, lmao, they got REQt.

US investors are actually eligible to have the fed or state SEC investigate REQ for fraud and embezzlement.

>>13892874
My biggest regret in life is buying REQ ICO and not Link. It was a 50/50 decition at the time. REQ even went to $1 at EOY2017

>>13893815
This is an (admittedly not conservative) estimate based on a sustained compounded day-over-day continuation of the growth curve (+1.2-1.5%) since the momentum prompted by the redesign. Things change, and REQ could be valued less tomorrow, but 0.50c EOY seems like a reasonable estimate barring a market-wide downturn or some other unforeseen event.

>>13893782
>I'm not convinced.I used to have 400K REQ, I will not be buying back.
The most conservative assumption of REQ's growth over the next year would be a 0.5% DOD avg, in which case 400K REQ would =~ $30500. Not "making it" numbers, but way better yield than most altcoins.
The best time to plant a tree is 30 years ago. The second best time is now.

>>13892874
> Leveraged as tx fee with burn rate
> Token utility

>>13894063
That doesn't dispute anything in the OP.

>>13894028
but nobody uses req, and nobody of note ever will. they can barely retain shitcoin partnerships, what makes you think they’ll convince big players to use this piece of shit?

>>13893172
>Fuck the French.
This one million times over.
B A G U E T T E D

>>13894515
This is like asking why anyone would use BTC for digital payments in 2013.

>>13894028
>The best time to plant a tree is 30 years ago. The second best time is now.

That's only valid for real investments in real businesses with real products and real cash flows.

I'm sick of your stupidity, fuckface.

>>13894028
So req will grow in the future because it grew in the past? My man that is not the most cunning of investment theses.

Here’s one: use/demand of req will drive tokenomics via the burn mechanism. X, y, and z will lead to logarithmic growth in use/demand. Then you’d lay out how the team will achieve x, y, and z.

ANS didn’t moon because of the rebrand, it mooned because the blockchain worked

>>13892874
can you add an autism column for things like Sergey's shirt?
Also obligatory fuck french people would never do business with them after my own experience with a firm in the US.