/biz/ - Business & Finance

this is actually very interesting. req will burn quite a bit until price goes up.

>>8643154
This update was insane. Buying more REQ when I get out of bed

My body is ready.

>>8643154
Wait, why are they burning tokens?
To artificially reduce supply and thus raise the price?

What the fuck?

>>8643398
Yup

>>8643398
Duh. What I wanna know is, what value does the actual REQ token itself have?

>>8643416
>>8643418
How is that not considered scammy?

Isn't the product supposed to speak for itself, without having to resort to an artificial reduction of supply?

>>8643426
Because the token is not the product. The product is the payment processing platform they're building. The token I guess is just a way to reward the investors that made/are making the project possible.

>>8643448
>Because the token is not the product.
Right, but shouldn't the price depend entirely on the product?

>>8643471
It does
The more the product is used the higher the token is gonna be worth :)
Actual price of the token is not relevant for cost of using the product. Only for us /biz/cunts to get free gibs thanks to others hard work

>>8643471
The token's sole purpose is to be bought by Kyber automatically to pay the fee for using Request, and then get burnt.

>>8643481
>The more the product is used the higher the token is gonna be worth :)
This is how I imagine it's supposed to work.

Which is why this token burning thing seems scammy to me.

>>8643471
Not really. The price per transaction in fiat won't be effected at all. The people who actually use it won't ever notice. The token price only effects the investors, whom REQ needs to incentivize to keep selling. If a whale was able to accumulate a huge amount of tokens and manipulated the market enough to get people to become frustrsted and stop trading then they wouldn't be able to buy any off kyber and the REQ network would grind to a halt.

>>8643526
>The price per transaction in fiat won't be effected at all.
I know, it's supposed to be a way of inflating the price per token by reducing the amount of tokens.

Why not just put out a limited amount of tokens in the first place?
Why manipulate the market cap after the fact?

>>8643486
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-08/ethereum-creator-wonders-whether-his-currency-should-be-scarcer

>“If the token is being burned, then you have an economic model that says the value of the token is the net present value of basically all future burnings,” he said. Otherwise, “it’s just a currency that goes up and down. It feels kind of like voodoo economics and the price of the token isn’t really backed by anything,” Buterin added. “That’s a very spooky thing.”

>>8643486
>>8643526
You fags realize this is how Binance/BNB works?

>>8643551
The economic model of an unburnt token is simply supply and demand.
There are X amount of tokens, and Y amount of people that want some.
The more people want some, the greater the value of the tokens.

>>8643526
It's a market buy. People will always sell when the price gets high enough.

>>8643426
its to accelerate adoption. that's it.

>>8643593
How does it accelerate adoption

anyone else buying the dip

>>8643601
Just bought 8k more REQ. Anybody who reads that update and doesn't buy REQ has mental issues

>>8643526
>The price per transaction in fiat won't be effected at all.

Affected. But that's something I'm unclear about. How is the REQ price in fiat calculated? Since it's an ERC20 token I assume Ether? Seems like a liability.

>>8643600
the bigger the price of the req token, more people will buy it and so more people will be able to use the platform. both supply and demand boost accordingly.
the tokens burn rate will also diminish quite a bit as the price goes up.

New Crypto currency Zilliqa is breaking records + 11% per day 111% per week 1111% per month
The federal reserve invisibly invests in Zilliqa this crypto currency
Very sharp growth of quotations Zilliqa instantly enriched investors, block Zilliqa
The central bank of China secretly invests in Zilliqa top inside
secretly


+9% +25% +49% - 81% +121%
+3% +13% +31% -57% +91%
+5% +17% +37% -65% +101%

>>8643486
No it's not scammy, it's very clever. This is the only way that a token's price actually represents network usage. Say there wouldn't be any burning, then the price of a token is solely based on the price gamblers/investors are willing to pay for it, wether the network is only used by some biz neet or by Chad, Stacy, and the entire fucking world. Add token burning, the more it is used, the more the token is worth.

>>8643663
>This is the only way that a token's price actually represents network usage.
Well that's just not true.
The greater the network usage, the greater the demand for the token, the greater the price of the token.

>>8643661
i've literally sold almost 30k zil these last few minutes to buy about 5k req

New Crypto currency Zilliqa is breaking records + 11% per day 111% per week 1111% per month The federal reserve invisibly invests in Zilliqa this crypto currency Very sharp growth of quotations Zilliqa instantly enriched investors, block Zilliqa The central bank of China secretly invests in Zilliqa top inside secretly

>>8643564
The problem would be the price being too low. If most people FOMO at the top of a pump and then dumps nobody will want to sell the bottom and the supply could dry up

>>8643654
>the bigger the price of the req token, more people will buy it and so more people will be able to use the platform.
I thought you didnt need REQ to use the platform?

>req bitcoin oracle delayed
So this basically confirms chainlink right? Last month they said they were talking to chainlink, hard to believe they're still faffing about, and not just waiting for chainlink to launch.

>>8643536
Are you really this dumb or have you never thought about simple economics before entering the crypto market? I'll sketch a situation how your system without burning would represent a 'real company's' situation. It would be like Apple selling iPhones at the exact same price as it costs to produce them (read: 1 token). Then how Apple would make money is people buying stocks at higher prices. The price of an apple stock would thus be entirely based on speculation. I hope your IQ is high enough to understand that this situation is undesirable (and also why 99% of the current crypto market will disappear). So what's the solution? By adding a margin on products, so there is not only revenue, but also PROFIT that drives the price of stocks. Since margins are naturally not possible when you use tokens, price burning is the only option to mimic margins on token usage.

> they think fundamentals mean anything
> they think you can break the bear by token burn
> they don't remember sub-ICO REQ

>>8643728
People always leave high sell prices. Fuck it, if no one wants to sell i'll leave sell orders up of 1 req=1000eth. Let this burn mechanism chip away at my lone req, i'll end up rich af and the network will continue working without a hiccup.

>>8643681
So how would that work? Think this through, where would the token go to? Why do users of network want higher token prices (I'll spell it out: they don't, because it will increase their costs).

this is my main problem with req. sure, price might rise a lot but thats no good if your coins get burned.

>>8643398
THIS IS WJY 4CHAM WAS SHILKING REQ FOR MONTHS YOU FUCKING IDIOT. DO YOU GET IT NOW. DO YOU GET WHY REQ WILL MAKE US MILLIONAIRES ANON. DO. YOU. GET. IT.

>>8643661
Get cancer pajeet.

>>8643486
Read this you faggot.

https://vitalik.ca/general/2017/10/17/moe.html

>>8643853

you just lost all your credibility there. If the token price is higher, less is burned. It's a percentage being burned, not a static amount.

>>8643154
Someone help please. I tried to use req and it locked my account. I also have less tokens? Did they burn them without my consent?

>>8644071
No it's adjusted to the amount of tokens left in circulation

>buying a token that has a negative amount of use

>>8644184
My bad, the rate is adjusted to both price and supply left, but that still doesn't matter regarding my posts

>>8644244
You're not alone. I don't really understand why the token price would go up either. They buy tokens off of exchanges to burn, which makes the tokens more scarce. Okay good, but why does it matter what the token costs or why would you hold it?

>>8644221
WHAT THE FUCK
LOOK AT HER BACK!

>>8643486
Are stock buybacks also scammy? Who let all these brainlets in?

>>8644277
looks fine to me

>>8644276
Supply and demand, reduce supply, price goes up, it's not rocket science.

>>8644299
But you have to have demand in that equation. Who demands the token other than Req buying tokens so they can burn them and speculators who think they will be valuable for some reason? Speculation is obviously not sustainable. If there's an explanation for this please share it so you don't have to type it out, searching for the answer hasn't turned up anything for me.

>>8643853
>So how would that work? Think this through, where would the token go to?
The network, wallets, exchanges.

>Why do users of network want higher token prices (I'll spell it out: they don't, because it will increase their costs).
This is completely irrelevant. The fiat amount they're spending remains the same.

>>8644396
People who want to use the REQ service have to buy tokens to do it. This all happens in the background with the help of kyber. A percentage of those req tokens is then burnt.

>>8644396
So if I'm buying something for $200 I click buy, it automatically has me purchase .001 req tokens that are then burnt. Why even have the fee at all if it just gets burnt?

>>8643782
So the token is the product?

That's scammy as fuck.

>>8644432
So the team and investors profit, this is not a charity.

>>8644596
Just a profit in terms of higher valued tokens that they can then sell?

>>8643154
Burning means that the REQ tokens will basically be handled like a mix between a hedge and a stock. The burning guarantees a decreasing supply and therefore an accelerate value growth while the price is still dependent on people actually holding the tokens and not dumping them on the market place which means you have to trust the network to grow or at least maintain a certain burn rate for the guaranteed growth.

REQ will rule the world. If you own 1k REQ now you will have made it in 20 years.

>>8644685
Yes, exactly.

The fucking brainlets in this thread
This is why it's dumping, the world is brainlets. If 4chan doesn't even get it reddit certainly does it. Time to buy before these idiots figure it out in a few months.

>>8644721
It's scammy, is what it is.
Instead of letting the product speak for itself, you're artificially inflating the price by artificially reducing the supply.

This seems to be the equivalent of printing money, but in reverse.

>>8644810
>artificially inflating the price by artificially reducing the supply.
DURR
People legitimately buying and using tokens isn't artificial brainlet.

>>8644826
I'm talking about the burning.

>>8643154
NONONONONO MY REQIES GOT BURNT NONONONO

>>8644830
this is what they call 'incentives'

>>8644293
He is just supa-jely that you got hoes

so what happens if all req are burnt?
project over, platform dead?

>>8644914
pretty much

>>8644914
Amount burnt is tied to USD, not REQ so presumably it would take a very long time for all of them to get burnt, if ever.

>>8645003
>>8644914
From what I understand the system buys the tokens for burning using the currency people use at regular intervals, so if there's no REQ to buy it just sits there in the wallet.

>>8644962
>>8645003
thats just ultra retarded
why not introduce a staking mechanic like neo and burn gas or something
this is just dumb
glad i didnt invest

>>8644914
>>8644962
Its going to take decades to happen,
until that happens they will probably come up with a work around or we all will be too dead to care...

>>8644914
It would take thousands of years... the amount of REQ burnt decreases in tandem with the supply so if for example the fee today is 0.5 the fee in 10 years will be 0.00005 as the supply has changed but the price will still be the same.

>>8644830
don't forget, this is a new economic model. It's a decentralized model, in which one company doesn't hold all the profits that they can get by selling a particular product. It's now about protocols in which the value of tokens is how the community makes money for their initial investments. The token is not the product, the protocol is, but the token is an indicator of how much the protocol is being used.

>>8643398
>>8643426
its not the devs burning it all at once, its a fee to use the network. thats typical in many coins.

>>8645056
i like whole numbers, i dont like coins with a supply of 4219283
I like for example 1000000000
pretty autistic but i think im not the only one

>>8643631
>update and doesn't buy REQ has mental issues
you see how many brainlets here didnt even know what PwC was? thats what we are dealing with. you cant help them.

>>8645053
It doesn't matter. The system would probably still work, it would just pile up buy orders with the money it received on an exchange, waiting forever for someone to sell to it.

>>8645066
it just doesn't make any sense. If the fee doesn't actually pay for anything but lining the pockets of the developers by pumping their bags, there's really no point.

Something else that simplifies the sending and recieving of crypto and tokenized fiat will win in the end. Interledger, for example "Triple entry" accounting has nothing to do with the token price and will be put into production by the big four or smaller firms, and even if they work with req the whole system that uses the token is dumb because that's some superfluous add on that serves no purpose.

Req was always a good hold because to redditors its an easy sell "paypal for crypto" but it has no long-term future.

>>8645051
because staking is not the same mechanic as a transaction fee processing. plus staking rewards may be considered dividends and securities and taxed as such. the token burn is in ton of coins and is comparable to stock buybacks. not scummy at all.

>>8645139
If they're a non for profit organisation, how are the developers expected to get paid?
30m of, I assume the ICO money has been used as grants for Dapps

>>8645139
>If the fee doesn't actually pay for anything but lining the pockets of the developers by pumping their bags, there's really no point.
I guess every transaction fee is pointless and makes no sense then.

>>8643601
Yeah, I'm going to need a sauce on that image

>>8645139
you might be genuinely retarded

>>8645139
>yeah man these devs should, like, work for free man!

>>8645192
It would be developed in the exact same way all the existing companies in the open source world make money and continue to be developed. Companies see the benefits and have their own developers develop on the platform, they offer consulting and support services, offering customized integration and updates, etc. Open source isn't new you dumb faggot. If it works well, it'll just be forked and supported by the companies who will save money from it and people who see an opportunity to make money supporting it.

Then they'll have a free system that doesn't involve pointlessly paying for tokens that are largely held by one company and burned for no reason so they can profit disproportionately

>>8645268
>hurr everything should be free
commie detected

>>8645268
So you are against all ERC20 tokens? They only exist for crowdfunding purposes after all.

>>8645201
The transaction fee is actually literally pointless in reqs case, other than in the extremely roundabout and contrived way of allegedly increasing the token price so Req can dump tokens on the dumb retail buyers.

>>8645303
Not at all.

>>8645290
Hardly communism, 67 percent of the web servers are linux, but you can bet your ass the companies using them don't consider them "free" and don't devote resource contributing to development or paying for customized services.

>>8645305
I have a coin just for you, it's called Nano. All the transactions are free and it's instant. Of course that means there's no incentive to run a node and people can overload the system by sending tons of free transactions.

>>8645139
>>8645268
the only person that makes sense itt
forced shittokens like REQ LINK or whatever DAPP that forces users to buy their shittoken to use the APP will never make it its just too fucking annoying.
No normie will buy ETH for $ and then REQ for ETH, sign up for atleast 3 websites with 2 fac auth and register his fucking bak account.
This shit will never work.

>>8645359
It's kind of comical that you think this is a good point, because this is literally not at all what the discussion is about.

>>8645427
Don't be disingenuous. You know damn well that happens behind the scenes and the users have nothing to do with buying the tokens.

>>8645449
I ahve yet to see any crypto platform that is easy to use.
Like something my mother could use.
It just doesnt exist and REQ wont be it.

>>8645427
No one is forced to buy req

>>8645435
If you are not larping you are probably the dumbest person on this board I've seen all day. How old are you exactly?

>>8645359
>>8645435
and just to head off "you can't refute my point so you just name call," even though this is so dumb it doesn't merit a response:

The req fee doesn't pay for securing the network like a transaction fee on the regular network, so comparing the two is like apples to oranges. It's good req doesn't use a dag, because I agree you need an incentive, but even that may come into question if you can get enough corporate users to benefit from it (and cucks who will do it for free, as evidenced by the number of nano node operators) that you don't need to have regular joes getting paid to run nodes to have a secure decentralized network deemed secure enough by the companies that will use it.

Funny thing just like my name REQ will grow from this small seed that has been planted today to a megalith in crypto bringing crypto to FULL adoption with records.... cap this .... blade out

>>8645500
no one is forced to use crypto, but why is it used anon?

>>8645511
I think you're the dumb one. No need to strawman you dumb nigger, all we have is a disagreement about whether request networks business model makes sense and whether or not it will be superseded by a free version like Linux distributions are today. You can disagree with that but I have yet to see a convincing argument against it.

>>8645567
An obvious ponzi with no real world uses.
I'll be back to reply in more detail soon, I need to buy more Facebook stock before I am able to use the platform

>>8645530
You talked about no transaction fee. I brought up Nano and the potential problems with no transaction fee. I said that might be the coin for you since you seem to think transaction fees shouldn't exist.
>hurr it's not related durr.

Still too fucking brainlet to see any connection?

>>8645612
omegalul

>>8645577

and to clarify for brainlets, this is not a rehashing of the "companies will make their own" argument, because we are not talking about companies forking their own decentralized network. This everyone agrees with is a stupid talking point because by definition that would no longer be decentralized and trustless. By forking or making their own req also on ethereum or another platform, all that would be happening would the cutting out a pointless fee that increases the price of a token held by a company that controls most of the tokens. Open source software does flourish without this in the present and it directly proves the "hur dur who will pay for development" argument is baseless. It's an entirely new model that doesn't add anything good or meaningful to the old open source development model, but does add a direct fee for each transaction.

>>8645616
Do you understand the difference between the req fee and a transaction fee paid to miners/nodes secure a blockchain? It sounds like you have a fundamental misunderstanding of both since you keep comparing them.

>>8643398
Too complicated for you?
>artificially reduce supply
Well no shit is artificial, unless you suggest people must regularly lose REQ tokens.

>>8645654
fuck off nigger
stop trying to act smart

>>8645679
Seriously how old are you?

All these try hard shills, yet the price didn't even move a little

Fuck off pajeet

>>8645712
explain how it works for a brainlet and why the fuck its good as it is

its not btw

Genuine question about the value of the token.

Shares have value because they give voting rights in a company & right at a part of the profits generated by the compant.

REQ burns the fees to get a lower supply and therefore try to rise the price to rewards investors.

However the REQ fees can get really low in decimals, so if the supply gets low it won't impact the transactions fee at all.

Their is no incentive desu to hold this token. If the price gets too high, they will just go lower in decimals so it doesn't affect people using it.

Someone please explain me what value the token has...

PS I hold 7,8k of them from 4c because I believe in the project, but why would anyone wanne buy my tokens? It has no incentive. Vechain generates thor, link gives value for reputation...

>>8645730
Honestly post you eth address and in 5 years when I'm a REQ millionaire I'll send you $10k.

>>8645730
I'll get more money if you buy in next year, after you finally figure it out.

>>8645730
>explain shit to a brainlet
Lmao no stay poor

Are you guys just pretending not to understand the burning mechanism? If not just read the fucking whitepaper.

>>8645679
You are so fucking dumb holy shit. Like 7 fuckers trying to spoon feed you and you are just REEEEEing.

>>8645750
>>8645761
>>8645768
payed shills or desperate bagholders
in both cases they have no idea what the fuck they are shilling
wow im surprised!
>haha stay poor

>>8645792
How can you even call others pajeets when you can't spell paid. Just fuck off.

>>8645825
got me

>>8645744
>Vechain generates thor, link gives value for reputation...
Fee in USD value won't change because of the decimals but the value of each REQ can continue to increase right? Someone else should answer you that seems to make sense to me.

>>8645861
No I'm sorry I was out of line. I'll sell my 100k req.

>>8645792
>platform for payment apps
>42 teams, each one developing their own apps
>Each transaction done in those apps will burn REQ tokens
>The supply diminishes, and the value increases
>Holders get rewarded this way, because you know, more money
>The more the value increases, the les REQ gets burned per transaction. This way it doesn't get more expensive to use the network
>A fucking payment platform working with 0 profit, and making money
Is this simple enough or should I speak like a literal retard.

>>8645877
I'm selling low now and buying high next month too anon

>>8645654
Nobody is going to fork Jack shit without charging extra transaction fees otherwise there is literally no incentive to make any apps or do ANYTHING. What does it matter if the background fee, that you have nothing to do with, is charged in REQ or in ETH if it all boils down to the same costs for the end user
Having a token also helps with being blockchain agnostic

Your little brain can't understand that this is a new business model and nobody is going to do anything for free. Ycombinator clearly think it's a good business model but you know better about business than them eh?

>>8645744
You misunderstand how it works. The transaction fee isn't in REQ. The transaction fee is in the currency used. Not gonna explain it in too much detail in case that other brainlet figures it out.

>>8645970
Y combinator owns equity in the company, not meme tokens.

In any case, 67% of web servers are linux, you missed refuting the last part of my post.

>>8646066
>owns equity in the company
Hahahahaha you are truly clueless
The 'company' is a non profit lmao. No revenue, no profits, no sales, no worth
Welcome to decentralisation

>>8645792
top kek

did Raja Koduri ever shill any crypto? that's the only one I haven't seen here before

Where to store req tokens? Just bought 100k need to get them off exchange

>>8646005

Still don't get it, the fee is indeed in the currency used, however they use kyber to buy REQ (fee amount) and burn it after. I still don't see how that should give any value to me as an investor besides lowering the supply.

I get it that lower supply should mean a higher price, but there is no incentive to hold it. Why would there be demand for REQ tokens? besides for using it as fee.

>>8646441
Because there is a bot that market buys them at regular intervals
That's your demand

>>8645550
No I won’t cap it

>>8646441
So you understand there's literally a bot buying it on an exchange and never selling it again.
>how should that give value to me?
hmm idk bro lol

>>8644114
I was told from req that they stole your tokens because of your queer as fuck face. Looks like your screwed street shitter.

>>8643743
You don't. Don't know what this dude is talking about

https://youtu.be/vzrDpj6M1ig

So does the whole REQ network get its processing work done by ETH miners? I'm a little fuzzy on who does the actual work

Greetings! Few questions before I decide to invest:

1. REQ has a .5% to .005% fee for a transaction, but does this include pet fee for using Kyber and then Eth Gas? So isn’t that number a bit misleading when the user will have to pay the Kyber and Gas fee?

2. Now that they’ve ditched the quarterly roadmap, isn’t that a bit misleading towards investors? Fiat integration was supposed to be Q2, now it might be next year?

3. According to etherscan, twelve tokens have been burnt. Now, pardon my laungaueg, but 1 token per hour is pretty fucking bad, no?

>>8647888
1.it doesnt include the kyber/eth
2.who cares? most developers dont even stick to their roadmap
3.its fine stop being a fag

>>8647888
>3. According to etherscan, twelve tokens have been burnt. Now, pardon my laungaueg, but 1 token per hour is pretty fucking bad, no?

You fucking nigger, there are not even any dApps developed yet! Give it time, you FUDing fuck!

>>8646005
Why the fuck would i want to use re1uest if i have to pay

1) request token burnt
2) ethereum fee
3) currency conversion fee

What the fuck. No thanks you fucking brainlets, sticking with 0.0001% fee on binance

>>8648270
Holy shit, you’re an ape! I hope you die soon, so your stupidity has no chance to spread any further in this world!

>>8648379
You fucking retard dont come with "its muh decentralized apps of the future" if there is LITERALLY NO FUCKING REASON TO USE IT AND IT WILL ALWAYS BE MORE EXPENSIVE THAN CURRENT EXCHANGES

>>8648164
>but 1 token per hour is pretty fucking bad, no?
yes. its pretty bad when its your token. this burning shit has to stop!!!!