Who else 100% all in?

[Anonymous No.12112509]

[Anonymous No.12112776]

>look mom i posted the lambo again!

[Anonymous No.12113187]

60%

[Anonymous No.12113193]

5%

[Anonymous No.12113202]

just bought 1 ETH worth

how many lambos in 2020 sirs?

[Anonymous No.12113210]

I'm 100% all in not in this gay shitcoin but 100% in LINK.

[Anonymous No.12113232]

Risky bro
The token doesn't even do anything (could just pay with eth)

put it all in link for a safer investment

[Anonymous No.12113405]

>>12112509
I am. I started buying in at 12000 sats and bought down to 7350 besides the small amount I got at 5000 yesterday or whatever

[Anonymous No.12113527]

>>12113232
>thinks you can do what RLC does with ETH

L O L

[Anonymous No.12113541]

Working on getting that 50k stack. This coin can break $20 without a sweat and 50k puts you at that sweet 7 digit club

[Anonymous No.12113549]

>>12113232
"The token doesn't even do anything (could just pay with eth)"
This is why you'll never make it, because like most people in crypto you don't know wtf you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.12113814]

>>12113527
>>12113549
not an argument

[Anonymous No.12113821]

>>12113814
it's definitely an argument if you do two seconds of research on iexec

[Anonymous No.12113931]

Only 5300, but I'll try and accumalte 10k or, if possible, 20k over the next year.

[Anonymous No.12114063]

>>12113549
He's one of the few mongoloids on this board that can see the absurdity of utility tokens. There's no real reason for the token to exist. You absolutely could just make the platform to accept ETH instead of making a new token. Utility tokens are nothing more than kickstarter bux and do nothing but add friction to whatever it is that your software is trying to accomplish.

[Anonymous No.12114196]

>>12114063
>absurdity of utility tokens
Oh how wrong you're going to be in about ~2 years.
>There's no real reason for the token to exist
Proof of Contribution algorithm says otherwise. Intel says otherwise. IBM says otherwise. Billionaire chinese cloud providers say otherwise. Clearly you don't know anything about the future of crypto.

>You absolutely could just make the platform to accept ETH instead of making a new token
Wrong again. The funny part about how wrong this is, is that RLC could be a sidechain for ETH to fix a lot of its bottlenecking issues. Oh, plus RLC enables BTC smart contracts. Oh, plus RLC is blockchain agnostic. So it could literally work with any shitcoin of choice. You literally don't understand RLC so stop talking.

[Anonymous No.12114313]

Creator of iExec lambo here, seems /biz/ really likes that one. If we ever get to 5$ again, I'll make a fucking full animation of a iExec branded Falcon Heavy rocket, rendered on the network.

But before that we need to clear up a few things.

>>12114063
Theoretically people could fork iExec and accept ETH instead of RLC, no biggie. But the thing why utility tokens are useful is: They create a community of supporters and a incentivised network effect. Holders of the token are incentivised to push adoption of the network and act in its best interest. Also it lets the value of the network develop independent from the value of ETH, so for investors who like to actually calculate if a asset is overvalued or undervalued, tokens are much easier than purely gambling on eth.


Many anons have pointed out that RLC is not inherently valuable because of its high token velocity. They're right, the current "staking" mechanisms in PoCo don't actually lock up tokens for any longer than the computation takes.

.. The thing is, that changing token economics is pretty easy. Just introduce a token lockup for a longer time for computation nodes, and network value accrues to actual token value. The team stated that the token-economics is under research, so its not like the current one is set in stone. And the team holds an substantial amount of RLC too, so they would be interested in creating an actually valuable token. But at the moment, the much harder part before thinking about large-scale token-economics is actually getting the platform into a state in which it is economical to use, preserves privacy, scales, etc. And then once that is there, getting enough users from traditional clouds to use the decentralized network.

[Anonymous No.12114340]

>>12112509
No. They haven't sold me on their business side. but I have some because great tech team and they actually have something in the cloud computing space.

I know dApps are the main use case atm but i'm still not sure on what it'll actually be used for outside of dApps apart from rendering (it's not made for general processing like amazon ec2).

[Anonymous No.12114341]

>>12112509
33%

[Anonymous No.12114511]

This shit is going to zero.

[Anonymous No.12114534]

>>12114511
I love this meme thank you for your service

[Anonymous No.12115113]

>>12114313
So what would drive the price up depending on network usage? Increasing the staking lockup would just drive it to a certain price, but I don't think it corelates network usage to token price. What iExec need to make is a formula that the more the network is used, the less tokens are on the markets

[Anonymous No.12115925]

>>12112509
bump

[Anonymous No.12116071]

>>12115113
More computation usage = more computation nodes = More tokens in lockup = less tokens that are quickly sold off = less tokens on the market.

Sounds like there's a pretty good correlation to me.

[Anonymous No.12116246]

>>12116071
Yeah but executions can last milliseconds, thus RLC being released inmediately

[Anonymous No.12116254]

>>12112509
Better buy link bros

[Anonymous No.12116289]

>>12116254
I've got both and going all in is pretty retarded

[Anonymous No.12116302]

>>12116246
read >>12114313

[Anonymous No.12116546]

>>12116302
That doesn't explain anything. He's basically saying the team doesn't know what to do with tokenomics, and it's not a priority right now. Well, it's a priority for investors. iExec is finding other ways to be a successful company without the need of token price, so we don't know if they'll screw us over.

[Anonymous No.12116781]

Users aren't going to want to spend $100 on a computation and then a few months down the road have to pay $300 for the same computation. This is the part that I haven't been able to wrap my head around

[Anonymous No.12116928]

>>12116781
No, that's pretty retarded. Workers will adjust the RLC price to compete with other workers. And price will depend on USD. So if 1$ = 1RLC, say X task costs 1 RLC, three months later 2$ = 1RLC, same task will cost 0.5 RLC.