/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>23577039
ETH itself isnt bad, it will live on on AVAX as Athereum.

SOL just dumped 85% in BTC value after their first token release, Avax going to have more tokens entering circulation, I firmly advice you to sell and buy back at sub 0.5-1$.

>>23577337
Most AVAX will be locked up to run a node or delegated to a node.

>>23577337
that's because Solana is shit

>>23577374
Most anons dont understand why AVAX is a big deal and their centralized shitcoin isnt.
The same way anons didnt understand why chainlink is a big deal and witnet isnt.

>>23577359
Wishful thinking and delusion from the highest degree, You can say this on literally every project. Fact is, More tokens in circulation that bought at much cheaper price+Bearish market move=Infinite dump.

>>23577374
Solana is vastly more adopted and tech ready than Avax so i wouldn't make that claim if i were you

>>23577526
>You can say this on literally every project.
Actually you CANT. Thats the big difference between AVAX and centralized shitcoins.

>>23577526
>claim: Solana is centralized
>Solana is vastly more adopted and tech ready than Avax so i wouldn't make that claim if i were you
??
Let's check:

>Solana: still needs KYC to become validator despite calling itself "permissionless"
>AVAX: already hundred validators, scales to millions more AS IT IS. No KYC required

Sometimes I don't know why I stay on thsi retarded place.

>>23577728
Nobody care. Adoption is literally the only thing that matters and Avax is among the most pathetic L1's at this, Maybe the tech fud is right and developers stay away from it like a plague.

>>23577790
>changing the goalposts
Cool. You think decentralization doesn't matter. Why didn't you say so I would have stopped arguing with a lost cause long ago.

rETHards

LINK/ETH brainlet here, why should i buy AVAX? pls explain

>>23577374
Solana is faster and has bigger adoption. Serum is built on Solana for a reason. Kin will move on Solana for a reason. Even tether...
Avax is an absolutely overpriced piece of shit and will dump just like Solana.
December And January will be a bloodbath for both of them

>>23577916
>decentralization matters
>500 validators staking 85% of the supply
and you call this decentralization?
whales owns the entire supply and will dump on you, this is for sure

>>23578369
AVAX is literally more decentralized than anything else in crypto

>>23578013
Its a new breakthrough in how Consensus is achieved. The Technology comes like Chainlink out of IC3 and Emin Gün Sirer is the Number 2 of IC3 (Juels is Number 1).

>>23578369
You are free to buy a stake in the net, anon. Anyone is. Just like with BTC, anyone is free to buy the gear. For AVAX you don't even need the gear, just 2k tokens and a decent VPS.
No KYC required. No bank license. No election or delegation required, no chance selection to actually validate. 2k tokens and you WILL validate the network.

And the current 500 isn't all that bad. Cosmos for example has a way bigger mcap in diluted form and has only about 100 real validators.

The only networks with actual decentralisation currently are BTC (1mil unique miners in 2018) and ETH (around 300,000 unique miners, see https://media.consensys.net/are-miners-centralized-a-look-into-mining-pools-b594425411dc))

AVAX can easily go up to those numbers and MAINTAIN its speed. Again, ALL OF THEM ACTUALLY VALIDATING. No dPOS equivalent shit. It's just a matter of time.

>>23578732
> The only networks with actual decentralisation currently are BTC (1mil unique miners in 2018) and ETH (around 300,000 unique miners
Actually they are very centralized, only a handful of pools control the entire thing.

>>23578787
exactly, because the pay-out happens by chance rather than proportionally
no such situation with AVAX. Everyone validating gets compensated.

>>23578787
And of course not everyone can run a profitable BTC/ETH miner. It depends a lot on the electricity prices in your region.
You also need to buy expensive miners. This further centralizes it.

With AVAX you dont have any of these problems.

>>23578732
Wrong. Cosmos is literally valued less than Avax currently despite having x1000 more adoption. Just to show how overvalued piece of shit it's.

>>23578834
Cosmos has no hard cap anon. Infinite inflation. By very definition its diluted mcap will always be higher.
And in terms of non-diluted AVAX is of course even smaller in comparison.

>>23578868
Nobody care about fully diluted, By existing tokens currently avax is valued more than Cosmos.

>>23578787
>ignores 50k+ full nodes validating every single tx
ok man...

>>23578932
lol, but that's absolutely wrong. Value of circulating supply is way smaller for AVAX.

>>23578966
Existing supply=Total supply. Avax is valued at near 2B at the moment despite having zero use cases, You've literally not a single justification for this.

>>23578964
the miners are owned by like 17 pools or so. thats centralized.

>>23579016
miners are not the only ones validating transactions and blocks, they are collecting fees for mining blocks and including well paying transactions into the block
there are 50k full validators

>>23579051
its still centralized because most of it is owned by chinese pools.

>>23579068
most of what?

>delegated proof of stake
no thanks

>>23577728
>needs KYC
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH
DROPPED THIS SHIT, NOT SURPRISED THAT NOBODY SHILLED THIS

I just want to see Solana forums after jan 2021 dump by ICO participants, lol

>>23579075
the miners are owned by a handful of chinese pools. that makes it centralized.

>>23579166
back to 25 cent

>>23578966
since those tokens are vested and will unlock gradually (50% of all vested tokens over 4 years) they are equivalent to inflation. From 24.5m circulating to 180m circulating in 4 years puts mcap in 4 years at about 730m at current AVAX price. (if you assume inflation happens at same rate it will be 1.4bil)

ATOM inflation rate is between 7 and 20% depending on how much is staked. In 4 years that means ATOM circulating supply will increase 31% in 4 years even in the best case scenario. That means mcap at current ATOM price will be 1.49 bil.

So no matter how you look at it, if current prices stay the same, ATOM, which is a centralized shitcoin, will STILL have a higher circulating supply value IN 4 YEARS TIME.

Now tell me again which is undervalued and which is overvalued.

>>23579290
meant to reply to >>23578998

>>23579290
>>23579313
what's more, all the tokens vested in public sale, private sale, seed sale etc. will already be unlocked in 1.5 years. After that only the team and foundation will have a slow unlock of vested tokens, and so that value will go into development of the Avalanche project itself, same as the LINK team currently still owning about 60% of supply (way more).

This was actually an interesting discussion, thanks anons

>>23577039
ETH can be replaced on a EVM compatible blockchain, just need a trustless bridge