/biz/ - Business & Finance

I have full faith.

Paint a better picture for me anon, is the computing power coming from the stakers? Like - when you stake RLC you're giving away your computing power to others to use as cloud computing?

Cause if so, that sounds incredibly shitty

>>20309618
Nice thinly veiled FUD. If you think decentralizing cloud computing has no use you are in for a rude awakening.

>>20309480
All anons should be at least exposed to RLC with 1000. It's only $1000 right now but by EOM it will probably be $5000

>>20309308
do you have some more formal reading material?

>>20309696
What do you want me to talk about?

>>20309667
Don't get me wrong dude, I want to be sold on this. Really bad. I would love to see this project nail a great value prop and be all but guaranteed to be the biggest cloud computing network in like 2050.

But I think about the actual value proposition - using a decentralized network of (let's be honest, probably pretty shitty) computers to run your code? That seems really inefficient compared to the already well established services like Asure, AWS, and other data centers which rent out quality processors dedicated to running 24/7 on a large scale.

Does this network pay you proportionally to the computing power you provide?
How does it handle cases where someone currently providing their computing power wants to stop mid-execution because they need to use their PC?
Most software requires WAY more power and storage than a single PC can provide to run their software - will it plan to divide the work between different machines over the internet? Cause that really, really doesn't work unless the code is specifically designed to be able to do that.
Why would any existing company that provides these services switch to this decentralized system when they already have their payment processing set up?

I'm not saying this coin won't go up, especially in the short term. In fact, it probably will from all the hype. But I don't see the long-term real value of the project

>>20309858
We'll who's to say that these companies like AWS don't need something that iexec has developed? Remember we don't know everything yet. There definitely has to be a reason for all these companies to be surrounding iexec in the way they are.

>>20309895
Not impossible.

But can you imagine someone trying to get funding with a pitch like that?
Some dude and his brother walk onto Shark Tank and they're like "listen guys, I want a valuation of over 1 Billion dollars, and... umm... well like maybe Microsoft might use something we're inventing"

>>20309858
>using a decentralized network of (let's be honest, probably pretty shitty) computers to run your code?
A CPU is a CPU and a GPU is a GPU. If they perform the task and have a good reputation, it all works fine.
>Does this network pay you proportionally to the computing power you provide?
Of course
>How does it handle cases where someone currently providing their computing power wants to stop mid-execution because they need to use their PC?
That would be a bad actor. You should know that when you are in a market that doing your job is the most important thing. If you don't have redundancies set up that's your own downfall.
>Most software requires WAY more power and storage than a single PC can provide to run their software

MOST don't require WAY more power, it's the opposite. FEW do.

And yes, iExec can do Bag-of-tasks aka split processing.

>Why would any existing company that provides these services switch to this decentralized system when they already have their payment processing set up?

Because iExec offers technologies and security like no other. It's also basically free to attach your cloud to, you just need to set up the workers and stake a small amount of RLC. Not only that, but when, or if thousands or millions of people connect their own cloud processing units to the network they will be able to offer their services in a p2p manner at any price they want, creating competition for any major cloud provider.

Those cloud providers will want a piece of that action, as blockchain technology is seen as the next step for technology in general.

If you don't see the long term value you don't understand the power of being able to trustlessly trade computing power and data over the net.

>>20309308
useless piece of shit

Right now is pretty much the blockchain made decentralized super computer. Workers (you, me, Google's own cloud pool, anyone, its decentralized) stake tokens on their computer and dedicate computing power to a cloud, like any other existing cloud. Except for the fact that is the blockchain's own decentralized, massive computing power cloud that can also tie in other tech giants' clouds and allow them private data and power sharing. Here is where it gets interesting. Also I bought this at 82 cents. But anyways here is where it gets interesting.
Look at the partners is already currently has, especially in the cloud computing consortium. These are the players pushing it along. The biggest tech giants out there. All of them.
There is an announcement on July 20th at the Enterprise Ethereum Alliance of a new partner, a "tech giant"
And it was leaked on the website, if you clicked an old image of its partners, it updated to show Amazon.

>>20310031

>>20309308
bollocks.

>>20310031
>>20310057
Now THAT'S what I call BASED.
Gonna have to save that paragraph.

>>20310057

>>20310075

>>20310097
>>20310068
I sent this to my aunt. It's made for normies.

>>20309999
They aren't trying to get funding though.they don't even care about us for the moment. They are fucking nerds making something dank. The reason RLC isn't as big as it is has everYthing to do with the fact that they are devs who can't market. If their idea is half as good as it looks on paper it will literally sell itself.

>>20310111
Checked and kekked.
It should be really easy to shill that image to normies.

>"Hey susan, would you invest in a company with partnerships with these companies?"
>they see Intel, Microsoft, Amazon
>"Woah AMAZON? How do I buy this? Will it make us rich?"

>>20310111
Amazon is no longer a partner
It was a mistake
They updated the image

>>20310140
Dude RLC got funded extremely hard in the ICO, the company is very well off, not only that but the actual FRENCH GOVERNMENT gave them 2 million euros or some shit a while back.

>>20310169
No shit they updated the image. It wasn't supposed to be there.

>>20310266
Yeah it was clearly breadcrumbs left for us.
They showed it, we got wind of it, they tried to "hide it" for the reveal at the end of the month, and when they "reveal" the partner it will be back on the image

>>20310266
Because it was a mistake

ROCK BOTTOM AT 0.5
Will be the point i comfy buy just for the memes.
Even then i will only invest $100 like a true chad who actually treats Shitcoins the way it deserves

>>20310292
Yeah a "mistake"
Well, what a nice "mistake" for us to find so we can buy before the billions of dollars flood in

>>20310311
Mentally ill anon, not so based. It's pumping.

Do you not think if all these companies were in bed with IExec that all the wealthy employees and their friends, families who work at all those mega corps wouldn't have bought this shit up and it be $1000+ already? Give your had a fucking shake.

>>20310339
^head

Good discussion thread, quality. I'm still not convinced though. I just don't see it, feels like a siacoin. Sounds great on paper, but is it actually needed, competitive and useful?

>>20310313
I mean mistake as in misunderstanding. When the team member posted he said they only use AWS and it's not a partner so the graphic designer accidently added them

>>20310339
>80 million marketcap
>he thinks there aren't a few insiders
They aren't going to risk that much money, it could still dump. Nothing is guaranteed but some things are likely.

>>20310392
Do you really think a centralized cloud can compete with a decentralized market that offers the same or more/better/tech advanced services?

>>20310455
>When the team member posted
Lol. iExec does not post here, this is a dark corner of the internet that only retards come to. It's filled with absolute shitcoin spam, trannies, nigger spam, porn, scat, gore, etc.

Also why would they care if their coin is pumping on a rumor? Some of you don't have brains it seems.

>>20310482
Well he seemed really convincing

>>20310519
You must be new here...

>>20310519
He fucking named team member personally you dolt. Who would do that in real life? Publicly shame your coworker? Lol

>>20310558
Lmao these kids here have never worked at an actual job and don't understand professionalism

>>20310519
What are you going on about lmao
It's just larp fud dude.
"I'm on the team. Our team member, THIAGO ALVES, (look him up he's on the team) accidentally edited the image and put AWS on there. Dont know how or why!! Sorry!!"

You guys keep referencing that like it wasnt 100% larp. It was 4 am EST on /biz/ lmao. How is there any credibility whatsoever? If he was a legit he wouldve given proof or said nothing at all. Why would they reject publicity? Wow wow wow

>>20310470
Generally, centralized, professionally managed services are faster and more reliable than decentralized systems. The only thing decentralization gets you is robustness against unanticipated disasters. How does iExec scale faster and cheaper than the big cloud providers? If they saw fit to get into decentralized, tokenized cloud computing, why would they use iExec instead of rolling their own system so they capture all the surplus value?

>>20310635
>>20310519
>>20310455
Can't tell if some of these posters are legitimately retarded.

>>20310651
For large companies the robustness itself would be worth a lot. It would allow them to work in countries that are less stable and deliver a good to near great service. It's invaluable for a company of the scale and size of amazon or google.

>>20310713
But that level of robustness is like, apocalypse-tier. It only comes into play if you expect Amazon or Google to go dark. Otherwise they'll beat your decentralized solution with well-managed, vertically integrated efficiency.

>>20310651
>Generally,
Hmm idk maybe because something like iExec has never existed before?
>faster
No. Same thing. iExec can work as fast as your ping to the computer.
>reliable
You do realize that Amazon has downtime, right? You realize that centralized shit crashes right? Here's just one example. https://www.vox.com/2017/3/2/14792636/amazon-aws-internet-outage-cause-human-error-incorrect-command

>How does iExec scale faster and cheaper than the big cloud providers?
You just asked me
>How does an open decentralized marketplace of single actors scale faster and cheaper than a giant centralized cloud that needs to hire people, build facilities, run wires, perform routine maintenance, etc.

>why would they use iExec instead of rolling their own system so they capture all the surplus value?

Why would a centralized cloud provider develop a decentralized competitor to their centralized business? You realize the answer is in your question right? That's like saying "why doesn't China make a new Bitcoin".

Where's aggroanon at?

>>20310750
I am him. Not in that mindset right now. Willing to ease eyes for the sake of real conversation.

>>20310739
To be honest, I believe there's a strong case for both which is going to be the most likely approach. Having Iexec as a conduit between huge tech companies will unlock some really amazing big data driven power that will be incredibly valuable for all members of the CCC. There's a lot of abstract use cases that I guess haven't even really been explored by the autistic shillers.

>>20310769
Keep up the good work man. Im on the look out for you

>>20310783
>Having Iexec as a conduit between huge tech companies will unlock some really amazing big data driven power that will be incredibly valuable for all members of the CCC.
This is what most anon's don't understand about iExec.

These giant tech companies can literally connect to eachother with NO MIDDLEMAN.

Can you imagine a world where the biggest tech companies exist on a "tool" that allows them to share data, processing power, machine learning, AI developments, etc?

And it goes even deeper.
What about when quantum computers can connect to the internet?
Surely we could connect one to iExec eventually if some of the systems end up being compatible.

iExec can eventually become the world superquantum computer.

>>20310748
So let's say I'm in IT at a midsize company, and need to present options to my boss for a cloud provider to host our new web app. I get price quotes from AWS, Google Cloud, Azure, and DigitalOcean. What does iExec look like in this situation? What do I tell my boss to convince him that the company should buy a bunch of crypto tokens and shove our app out to unknown hosts in unknown places instead of having a relationship with a known company, with legal recourse should something go wrong?

>>20310783
The neat thing is, we'll be getting more answers THIS month at the EEA.
For any sound investor, this time of clarity should come as a blessing. We're early to the party.
I will add this. iExec TEE mode at the end of the month is adding development support for ALL LANGUAGES I repeat ALL LANGUAGES at the end if of the month.
Guys it's serious.

>>20310869
>What does iExec look like in this situation?
iExec would have its own competitive pricing, if your new web app was built for iExec. You would initially look into the pricing of iExec and consider converting your app to run on iExec(which is extremely easy with a few lines of code and some little extra work).

>What do I tell my boss to convince him that the company should buy a bunch of crypto tokens and shove our app out to unknown hosts in unknown places instead of having a relationship with a known company, with legal recourse should something go wrong?

You tell him that iExec removes the middleman (amazon, google, etc) and saves you (insert price of iExec computations here). It's proven to work, completely safe, consistent, etc.

If he's not won over by the idea of saving anywhere from 50-99% on cost then he's a shit boss and doesn't understand how to make money.

>>20310918
This, Iexec is just as much a service for big tech as it is for small to medium enterprise users.

>>20310934
Underrated image.
Almost never see it posted here, but man the implications of this + the CCC + the EEA and whatever else I'm forgetting. iExec just has SO MUCH going for it that I lose track.

>>20310918
Which brings us back to the question of how this is supposed to be cheaper than a centralized, vertically integrated cloud provider, while also running the overhead of a trustless currency and decentralized coordination system.

>>20310956
>Privacy-preserving information processing
>Privacy-preserving information processing
>Privacy-preserving information processing
Read that again and again until it sticks in your head.
>Data economy
Now put 2 and 2 together.

>Sell/rent data, private data, and use it in processing of sorts (machine learning)
>data is secure and the rentee understands that
>???
>big company can now do more efficient and accurate data processing.
>the world becomes a better place, with better research

>>20310967
You really think a centralized cloud provider can compete with millions of home PC's that perform the same job or better?

You do realize that the facilities they run cost an insane amount of money per day to run right? Did you know that youtube most likely doesn't make a profit?

Data facilities are EXTREMELY costly. There is ZERO chance that they could compete with an entire world of at-home PC's doing the same jobs or better.

RLC is getting HOT lads

>>20311055
>You really think a centralized cloud provider can compete with millions of home PC's that perform the same job or better?
Well, yeah. It's why cloud computing is a thing in the first place. And by analogy, we've seen what happens when distributed computing power gets tokenized. You get the Bitcoin mining situation where it's only profitable if you're in a low wage country next to a cheap hydro power plant. Cloud providers are already optimizing for cheap power.
I suppose if this network can prove total data privacy, then the advantage would be that you'd effectively be hosting your services and data in China at China prices, but if that's a possibility then that violates a shitload of laws for most use cases, regardless of how good the cryptography is.

I remember when I had a PS3, I would run Folding@home to better cancer research or whatever.

There is literally nothing stopping iExec from going to Sony and being like "hey we have the next evolution of Folding@home" and shill it to them. You know how many fucking PS4/5 users would run their consoles for money? Even if it's not a lot? They'll see it as an investment and to pay off the console.

iExec has many, many paths ahead.

so does this coin deal with scalability?
color me unconvinced that a company like amazon is going to buy into a shitcoin and having their cloud shit go through it
they're far more likely to create their own version if it was even remotely ready for the utopian vision people have for this

>>20311124
>It's why cloud computing is a thing in the first place
Uh, no it isn't. It's because something like iExec has never existed that allowed home PC's to do trustless confidential computing on an open marketplace that rivals cloud providers.

You don't seem to get the very basics of iExec. Even if it is only profitable in low cost electricity environments it quite literally does not matter because the cost of computations is NEVER THE SAME. It is based on what the jobs are.

>>20311148
On top of this, the token is not even needed!

>>20311148
I implore every anon looking into RLC to read this.

https://hackernoon.com/blockchains-need-iexec-the-market-just-hasnt-realized-it-yet-5597c743cd0a#:~:text=This%20allows%20the%20marketplace%20to,computational%20power%20in%20the%20marketplace.

>they're far more likely to create their own version if it was even remotely ready for the utopian vision people have for this


>A centralized company will make the decentralized competitor to compete against themselves
Right anon, just like China will make a new bitcoin.

>>20311187
Staking (mainly), liquidity mining, pooling

The token has many uses

>>20311197
China doesn't want a new Bitcoin. They don't even want the old Bitcoin. China wants to maintain control over capital flow into and out of RMB, and they can do this by force, being a totalitarian nation-state. China is a non-sequitur here.

>>20311231
Yeah, weird part is I bet these "fudders" hold LINK and they have really similar staking mechanisms.

>>20311236
You missed the point.

A centralized company would NEVER make an alternative that is decentralized.

There is literally zero point. What would they do to make money from it? Put a fucking 1% fee on transactions? Congrats, you get priced out by 1% by iExec's open market.

>>20311263
What they would do is use their brand awareness to take market share, while also leaning on their lobbying infrastructure to introduce legal friction if they couldn't compete on open ground. Even if they don't profit from it, it's critical to the big tech companies that they maintain control over any potential competing technology. In a competition between iExec and FAANGexec, with all other things being equal, the one with the big tech support wins.

>>20311323
>What they would do is use their brand awareness to take market share,
You are really just missing the point.
They would NEVER MAKE AN ALTERNATIVE TO THEIR MAIN SOURCE OF PROFIT THAT IS DECENTRALIZED WITH ZERO PROFITABILITY.

>while also leaning on their lobbying infrastructure to introduce legal friction if they couldn't compete on open ground.

>He thinks anything legal matters in the world of decentralization.
iExec exists and therefore cannot be stopped.

>the one with the big tech support wins.
You realize iExec has incredible backing by those big tech companies you're worried about right?

>>20311342
>They would NEVER MAKE AN ALTERNATIVE TO THEIR MAIN SOURCE OF PROFIT THAT IS DECENTRALIZED WITH ZERO PROFITABILITY.
>You realize iExec has incredible backing by those big tech companies you're worried about right?

Aren't these two statements in direct conflict?

>>20311361
No because those giant tech companies HAVE NO CHOICE but to support it.

Not only that but they can BENEFIT from using it since iExec is NOT A MIDDLEMAN it is an OPEN MARKETPLACE for them to CONNECT TO.

>>20311231
>>20311246
Ok lads what would cause iexec not to succeed?

>>20311411
If a meteor hit France, it may delay the moon by a couple years.

>>20311411
At this point i see far too many positive things for iExec to fail in any way.
From being a huge partner in the CCC to the EEA to writing the Trusted Compute Framework with Intel to being backed by the French government, to whatever.

It's basically on it's last legs of development and is going to be full steam ahead from here on out.

The coin distribution is really good, the team only holds 15% or so, the tokenomics are perfect, the system works perfectly, etc. It just needs adoption, and that's what 2020-2021 are about.

So you tell me, like this anon im talking to, what do you think would make it fail?

>>20311378
But if it's an alternative to their main source of revenue that is decentralized with zero profitability, why would they participate? It's not in their best interest as long as it's not gaining market share. They would be more likely to keep an eye on development, maybe send a dev to a conference to participate, and steadfastly refuse to actually connect with it, spreading FUD all the way, until forced to. So there's a chicken and egg problem where your marketplace needs to be so dominant that the big cloud providers truly do have no choice. Until then they do, and the rational choice is not to play, but to provide minimal participation in development as surveillance.

>>20311419
I like the enthusiasm anon

>>20309858
Nobody needs anything let's just stick with old stagnant thinking. It's soooo unneeded that everyone decided to collaborate and join same concorcium. Do you even read what you write? What's next "trust me I'm engineer"?

>>20311323
I'm not the smartest tool in the shed, but iExec in V5 is years of blockchain expertise and learning and development.
Maybe the gap between creating a project like that on the Blockchain is just the time and effort it takes? It's not too farfetched to believe that iExec is truly already years ahead in the game. And as funding continues, we can only expect that margin to increase. Especially since well, it's a fact that these companies are on board with iExec.
They are definitely in competition.
But that does lead me to a question.
Can a company like Google just outright buy iExec and integrate it? And if so, what happens to the value of RLC? Does it go to 0 or does it blow up

>>20311419
Kek.
>But if it's an alternative to their main source of revenue that is decentralized with zero profitability, why would they participate?
You are mixing my words.
They would profit by using iExec. They connect to it, set workers up, and perform jobs on the marketplace. It's just another additional MARKETPLACE for them to participate in. Just like companies that sell couches IRL can also sell couches on EBAY or on craigslist or whatever. It's just markets.

>>20311460
Definitely not* in competition I meant

>>20311442
Well aggroanon, from my novice understanding and playing devil's advocate I would think that the bigger companies would do employ their own version. But there wouldn't be a reason since iexec doesnt necessarily take anything away from them, right?

>>20311460
>Can a company like Google just outright buy iExec and integrate it?

What would they buy? The workers? Why would they abandon their passion project since 2001 when Gilles started working on it by himself?

Why would Google integrate a decentralized alternative to their main source of profit? They would much rather just participate in the decentralized marketplace since they lose zero by doing so. They are still offering their services.

Methanon for anon of the year award

>>20311518
To buy up the supply of the token and have control over it.

>>20311460
It's not about money for Gilles it's his life's work legacy

>>20311493
>I would think that the bigger companies would do employ their own version. But there wouldn't be a reason
You kinda answered your own question. There is zero reason for them to make a decentralized alternative to their main source of profit.

Envision iExec as basically an ethereal market in the sky. No one controls it. No fees. Nothing. Just pure connectivity and technology.

You think those big tech guys wouldn't connect to it? If they made their own, the outcome would be useless to them, a waste of time really.

>>20311521
I think you mean OVERLORD aka RLCCHAD, Master of Gateway Process, Hemi-sync, Tibetan Buddhism and Dharmic Principles, and Spokesman for the Partician's Choice

>>20309308
I'm literally shaking right now

>>20311545
They can't. Most RLC is already in wallets. 75% of RLC is supposedly held already. The wallet distribution is too perfect for them to be able to, and if they did, I would only sell it to them for 11,490$ per RLC.

Also leads me to another question, since this isn't bitcoin, the idea of them controlling the entire supply doesn't matter since RLC is basically infinitely divisible like any other crypto.

What are they gonna do, buy everyone's RLC and pay for computations with it? Or run workers while staking? Sounds like adoption to me.

>>20311578
Based. I'm only slightly overclocked today. OVERLORD is just massively intense and can only do it every other day for health reasons. I don't even believe IQ is a thing when I am OVERLORD. I basically cease to exist.

>>20311601
>75%

For anyone wondering where I'm getting numbers from, CTRL+F "HOLDERS"

https://medium.com/iex-ec/rlc-token-economics-iexec-34757f4885c2#:~:text=Token%20Economics%20or%20'Tokenomics'%20differs,is%20not%20taken%20into%20account.

>>20311601
Ain't iexec have only under 7mil tokens and they are locked away?

>>20311620
The sun shines on us brightly today

>>20311638
The team has around 10-15M RLC I believe, could be wrong. I know Gilles has 1M, Haiwu He has 1M, and the team has some. For good reason. Gilles and Haiwu will be the richest men in the world someday.

>>20311649
It's 4am here. I fully expect an iExec tweet today and a 30% pump.

>>20311581
stop the shakin', commence the staking. i'm not even baiting, money is waiting, AWS is partaking. ignore the hating, check RLC's rating, and forget about dating - move straight to mating, because when this coin takes off there's no more masturbating.

>>20311657
Not sure our lord Sergey should be bigger money blob

>>20311649

Also <3 for saving that pic, it's based and making it got me through the dark days of holding RLC thinking of all of the better days to come. Not too much longer, hopefully this whale gets BTFO soon.

iExec shits are absolutely delusional
maybe the most delusional out of all shitcoins

>>20311678
Lmao fucking based rapperanon

>>20311678
based

>>20311678

>>20311712
A post of utmost substance

>>20311712
Is this the best FUD biz can muster for RLC in the year 2020?

>>20311780
Unironically, yes.
Or that the larp team member fud post was at all legit
The absolute state

>>20311808
Kek
>"I'm on the team your amazon breadcrumbs are fake!@11!!"

>>20311164
Hey meth anon... i just realized with the Intel collab.... intel/amd/nvidia could foreseeably streamline the process of renting compute via their processors, chipsets, gpus.

Fucking amazing

>>20311839
Yep.... It goes even deeper than that too. They can all share between eachother, and share machine learning data or even the apps themselves.

It may even go deeper.

>>20311839
Behold, the world's first emerging enterprise decentralized supercomputer.
It's name?
<I
EXEC</X>

>>20311865
Because I did some digging back in ‘18 when they were laying out roadmaps, especially with the Intel collab, Gilles and co did mention that companies could definitely implement/streamline the marketplace IU per computer. I.e. Intel releases say next gen chipset/cpu and integrates IEXEC tech for compute rental space when computers are idle. Again depends on how crypto is mainstream but I can imagine Intel definitely shilling that to customers.

Also bye bye, vampire energy drain. Just leave computer idle, let it do compute. Boom

>>20311780
it's all we need
you're literally praying a shitcoin called iExec run by some frenchies cucks companies like amazon and microsoft and takes over the world of cloud computing when blockchain hasn't even proven itself at a fraction of the scale with something simple like payment
absolutely delusional lmfao

>>20311895
It just sounds so fucking right.

>>20311936
see
>>20310075
>>20310111
>>20310057
>>20309480
>>20310934
>>20310956

>>20311917
Holy shit I didnt think about that but it makes 100% sense.
>>20311936
Low quality effort

>>20311917
>>20311865
On top of that, its another way for Intel to sell cpus.

>>20311917
>>20312004
Mmmmmmmmmm.....tasty.
Bros....
I feel we are the illuminati...

>>20312059
We are the trailblazers

>>20312091
That's a nice word for secret money.

>>20309858
I work in IT, applications today are already serverless and pay as you go.
With Docker companies can move from deploying their apps on AWS to deploy it on Azure or GCP in an afternoon max.
These services are still quite costly and tech giant make a lot of profit in large part because of their marketing.

If tomorrow there was a decentralized marketplace where server farm owners from all around the planet could compete, the price of computing would become significantly cheaper because suddenly AWS would have to deal with concurrent Europe and Asia other than Microsoft and Google from lesser known companies but not necessarily worse and often quite cheaper.

As for the incentive Dapps will need offchain computing power to scale, it's not a guess but an unavoidable fact.
A decentralized Uber will need iexec at various stage, so a decentralized youtube or a decentralized search engine.

Finally a dataset marketplace is pretty neat, right now private datas are monetized only by big companies and sold to other big companies.
One example is how Renaissance Technology works (the biggest Quant Fund on the planet), they're paying billions every year to get datasets, from the numbers of people on Walmart parkings every week to the numbers of passengers boarding American Airlines, United, etc...
There is still no marketplace to do that, you have to go do deals with providers.

>>20312254
Nice insight anon. You clearly know your shit.
I highly enjoyed that.
Please stick around, you deserve to make it.

>>20312383
>falling for meme rhetorics
hahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahaha
0.5 rlc EOW. see you there :^)

>>20312254
We're gonna make it arent we

>>20312460
Kek, my friend, you can still start buying now. DCA like a real investor, or go all in and join the crusade of getting iExec in the top 5 with LINK.
>>20312543
We really are. 1 RLC is very likely to reach minimum 100$, and I'm being extremely conservative

>>20309308
read the tokenecomics, then you'll know.

https://medium.com/iex-ec/rlc-token-economics-iexec-34757f4885c2

>>20312599
The tokenomics don't even do it justice really. The pure breadcrumbs mixed with speculation really get me going. The whole "world computer" thing really makes me want to cum every morning.

Gilles will bring back ourgirl and she will live on iexec network

just looked through their website, team and white paper. looks impressive AF. this is not some fly-by-night blockchain project with a few coding dweebs. lots of experienced ppl who left good jobs to work for iExec. a sizable group of engineers. an international marketing dept. good use case. looks quite legit. i just invested 1 BTC.

>>20312835
Based anon of the day award goes to you.
Just don't short-sell yourself at the end of the month. The team will surely pull a fast one on the market and release big news in the days after the Amazon announcement

>>20312871
it will be cb listing

>>20312876
If it's CB this shit will blow the fuck up as hard or harder than LINK because of the supply and speculation is insane with iExec

OVERLORD ANON, WHERE ARE YOU???

>>20312876
Fact is they dont want to pay for listing

>0.5

0.5 buy limit chad reporting here. see you EOW.

IT'S NOT TOO LATE TO SELL

>>20312579
But I don't hate myself.

>>20312923
Hes the main poster in this thread lol

>>20312959
>hai white dog, eastern pajeeet chad here, sell nou i need get back in, sold early

>>20312943
Which is pretty fucking BASED when you think about it.
>Yea my product fucking speaks for itself you will BEG me to list my product
>>20312959
>>20312978
Ok 50poster your loss I guess
>>20312923
IT's me.
Soon I will not be here late at night though, sleep schedule is going back to normal

>>20313018
OKAY ANONS I AM LEAVING YOU WITH THIS AS I DEPART FROM MY COMPUTER TO DREAM.

>>20313212
HERES HOW I MAKE MEMES(KINDA FAST
)
>FIND IMAGE OR IDEA
>COPY FROM GOOGLE INTO PAINT3D
>INSERT IEXEC BARREL
>DO RANDOM SHIT TIL IT LOOKS GOOD
???????
USE THE MAGIC SELECT TOO IT'S AMAZING

>>20312254
OCEAN PROTOCOL is working on the decentralized data marketplace with no middlemen. 45m, going 20x this year. Daimler will use their coin, as stated by the news recently. Many other companies like Accenture, BMW or Roche on board!