/Stacks/ t-minus 2 days

[Anonymous No.20125258]

Devs Hyped Edition

>What is Stacks?
An ERC-20 index fund along the lines of Statera and Stonks

>So it’s a clone?
No. Stacks is redesigned from the bottom up to provide a different approach to decentralized index funds. One of the things that sets Stacks apart is a brand new minting method we are calling Proof of Spread Liquidity. Spread liquidity is an injection fixed assets into the pool taken directly from profits of the upcoming public sale. No one has access to the liquidity funds but the people buying and selling Stacks.

>What does that mean?
It means that your index token is backed by the capital that minted it. It’s not just an index token, it’s an index token that gives you a share of permanent liquidity spread over an index fund like Statera. And it still functions exactly like an index fund. It’s an index fund with a large shot of decentralized capital backing the value of the token.

>So these are locked dev funds?
No! Devs own 0% of the token supply. This liquidity isn’t “locked” because it can’t be “unlocked”. It doesn’t belong to devs. It is a permanent source of value backing the index token, before a single person has even decided to pool.

>Where do I buy it?
As of now, you can’t. The token will be minted during a public sale during which the funds for the liquidity injection will be raised. ETH spent during public sale will back spread over the asset spread to back the token directly.

Website launched last week. Public sale starts in two days. Whitepaper already published and will be promptly ripped off by index funds to come.


stkstoken.com
https://twitter.com/StacksToken
discord: YfnUhcZ
contract @ 0x9dd19d747495e8148a535a179a5af1cf618bd0fa
https://pools.balancer.exchange/#/pool/0x78D7f361b99523D2510fE97ECccC38AE15cC5a31
https://medium.com/@stackstoken/the-stacks-model-backing-an-erc-20-index-token-by-means-of-a-crowd-sourced-initial-liquidity-965aacbdf78a

[Anonymous No.20125332]

I've been hyped since I saw the first post two weeks ago and was sad to see it delayed. Condolences to the developer.

[Anonymous No.20125379]

So it looks like we have already been contacted by a couple other devs working in similar projects in the defi space interested in collaboration. Extremely blessed sign, and more proof that Stacks is doing something different. Still not sold on the devs knowing their shit? Might as well check out Alan's Medium article on the Balancer hack while you're here:
https://medium.com/@stackstoken/burns-bailouts-and-the-balancer-hack-fd00ef857ae3

[Anonymous No.20125575]

where do I buy this?

[Anonymous No.20125612]

>>20125575
Public sale is just 2 days away

[Anonymous No.20125993]

>>20125258
So there is no deflation? So how is it any different than stonks?

[Anonymous No.20126084]

>>20125258
stonks is in the trash zero liquidty, this is way better if you missed stonks, this is versioin 2.0 finally

[Anonymous No.20126096]

>>20125993
Right now, the closest comparison is probably Stonks. First, this removed coin burn before the hack even happened, so it actually used that idea before Stonks did. Second, Stonks dev did lock up some liquidity, but it was A) a much smaller % than Stacks is injecting, and B) not a permanent lock. When it comes to a temporary lock like that, the token doesn't represent ownership over the locked funds, it represents a share in the rental of those funds. Stonks isn't renting dev funds, because the devs don't own the injection. The community does.

[Anonymous No.20126104]

>>20125258
This is now a KMW thread.

>Under-the-radar MimbleWimble project
>Year of active development
>First-ever Confidential Assets (CA) where your entire tx is hidden including asset type
>Kepler's CA is a ground-breaking first in any chain or project
>Just listed on ProBit
>Mainnet soon
>682,388,000 circulating @ $0.0007 = 400k marketcap (the lowest priced competitive MW coin behind Beam and Grin)
>GRIN marketcap 20 million
>BEAM marketcap 25 million
>You make it with 1,000,000 KMW

Target price: $0.10

Get in before normies!

https://medium.com/@keplernetwork

https://www.probit.com/app/exchange/KMW-USDT

https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/kepler-network

[Anonymous No.20126116]

>>20126096
yeah the stonk dev disappared a couple days ago, rug pulled rip

[Anonymous No.20126186]

>>20126084
I don't like stonks, and this is literally the same thing. The issue with stonks was never the liquidity, it was the non-deflationary aspect and the childish holders. Without deflation, this coin could be replaced with literally anything. Why not just buy DXD instead of this and leave this out of the pool?

Also, Comp was hacked from the balance pool, too, just using a different method.

[Anonymous No.20126246]

>>20126186
>Without deflation, this coin could be replaced with literally anything
Yes, for Stonks this is totally true. Look at the "Whirpool Problem" in the whitepaper for more on this. But Stacks is backed by an injection of liquidity, meaning teach token isn't just an index of the pool, it also represents ownership over a fixed portion of liquidity permanently injected in the pool (90% of the funds raised during public sale)

[Anonymous No.20126290]

>>20126246
no balancer tokens gives you ownership of the pool. ownig stonk just means you bought a coin thats value is based on people willing to pay. the meme stonk thing is bad for branding for serious investors.

[Anonymous No.20126300]

>>20126246
What is the difference between what you describe and someone just contributing to the pool directly? It sounds like the same thing, only forced.

[Anonymous No.20126464]

>>20126290
It gives you ownership by the sense you can sell your tokens into that liquidity. Most "exit scams" today happen because scammy devs pull liquidity. With Stacks, there is an initial injection of liquidity that can't be pulled. People call this Proof of Liquidity. Difference here is the proof of liquidity isn't being put into Uniswap (50% token, 50% ETH), it is instead spread over the asset pool that the token is an index for. The whitepaper explains this in detail and gives examples and everything.
https://medium.com/@stackstoken/the-stacks-model-backing-an-erc-20-index-token-by-means-of-a-crowd-sourced-initial-liquidity-965aacbdf78a
>>20126300
It means the index tokens are backed by liquidity before a single owner decides to pool. I don't know what you mean by forced because you don't have to buy tokens from the public sale if you don't want to

[Anonymous No.20126694]

>>20126464
>It means the index tokens are backed by liquidity before a single owner decides to pool
THAT is what I mean by forced. So people who buy in at the beginning are contributing liquidity whether they want to or not. I don't believe this is a scam, and never claimed that, my concern is moreso that it is identical to an existing project and very similar to another. You are just reinventing the wheel and there is no reason to choose yours over the other, already established projects

[Anonymous No.20127051]

>>20126694
>So people who buy in at the beginning are contributing liquidity whether they want to or not
Well, no not really. By "contributing liquidity", most people would mean that they are putting their token, paired with more assets, into the liquidity pool. In this case, they are just trading ETH for a token, just like every other trade they have ever done. It is the public sale funds (funds which most of the time end up lining dev pockets) which are used to actually contribute liquidity.

[Anonymous No.20127096]

>>20127051
So the public sale funds go to you and then you put them into the pool as the other coins?

[Anonymous No.20127273]

>>20127096
Yes exactly! Funds are spread like this. There is an arbitrary amount of Stacks minted which is used to inject the public sale funds which remain permanently, with the remainder of the liquidity tokens being burned.

[Anonymous No.20127322]

>>20127273
brilliant

[Anonymous No.20127426]

>>20127273
So you have control over the funds in the initial sale, and you will put them in the balance pool, where they will still be under your control, and the people that provided the funds get a non-deflationary erc20 token that is backed by funds that they provided but can no longer access?

[Anonymous No.20127481]

>>20127426
>So you have control over the funds in the initial sale,
>and you will put them in the balance pool, where they will still be under your control
No, they are locked permanently, no private access to the liquidity injection

[Anonymous No.20127563]

>>20127481
>they are locked permanently
How? I was not aware that the balance pool had the ability to be locked. And doesn't that mean that the value of the coin would be less because the money is in the pool rather than the token? So if you raise $20k and that goes into the pool, what is there left to drive up the value of the coin? I am not understanding what the purpose of all of this is.

[Anonymous No.20127734]

>>20127563
>I was not aware that the balance pool had the ability to be locked
You don't lock the balancer pool, you send the funds through a smart contract which doesn't allow them to be withdrawn
>And doesn't that mean that the value of the coin would be less because the money is in the pool rather than the token? So if you raise $20k and that goes into the pool, what is there left to drive up the value of the coin?
It has the same value proposition as every other index token out there, except in this case, rather than the index token itself deriving value from a half functional burning mechanism, it derives value from the 20k of fixed liquidity in the pool. It still works like a regular index fund, people can pool themselves if they want, in fact it is more tempting knowing they have a cushion of liquidity underneath them that can't be pulled. Plus, you know how the index fund game works, if the assets go up (cough cough bull run) it buys huge amounts of Stacks at market value to keep the price even.
>I am not understanding what the purpose of all of this is.
It's okay anon I'm sure other people are getting shilled on just by me talking about it

[Anonymous No.20127852]

>>20127734
What you described is literally stonks. The only difference is that the money goes to the pool instead of uniswap (the way stonks did it). Statera had a pool that was seeded by the devs, and it is deflationary. There is zero reason for this to exist.

[Anonymous No.20127961]

>>20127852
Stonks was probably the largest contribution to the codebase, the smart contract credits them actually. Ironically, if you look at when Stacks was published vs. the new Stonks contract, it was Stonks that was rapidly becoming more like Stacks lmao

[Anonymous No.20128028]

>>20127961
The only thing that changed with stonks was the deflation was removed, and that is because they fucked up and jumped the gun after the hack and created a shitty non-deflationary coin. The deflation was an extremely critical part and they got rid of it, and have been suffering ever since. You token is self-admittedly identical to theirs, non-deflationary and all. so why should anyone choose yours over stonks or statera?

[Anonymous No.20128096]

>>20128028
I don't want to sound glib, but there are thousands of words already written on the differences between these projects. The recent article on the hack goes into detail into why the idea of deflation as a source of value isn't actually economically sound.

https://medium.com/@stackstoken/the-stacks-model-backing-an-erc-20-index-token-by-means-of-a-crowd-sourced-initial-liquidity-965aacbdf78a

https://medium.com/@stackstoken/burns-bailouts-and-the-balancer-hack-fd00ef857ae3

[Anonymous No.20128133]

>>20128028
GTFO stonk bag holders get out. yoru coin is dead. lol so original. go away or buy. this is easy 100x

[Anonymous No.20128172]

>>20128096
So an article written by you is proof that deflationary isn't important? If you look at stonks price right now, you will see why it IS important. Even with the playing field leveled, stonks has only half the value of statera.

>>20128133
I don't own stonks. If you read what I wrote, you would see that I have said nothing good about them, which is why I view this coin as a bad investment, since it is just stonks with a different name.

[Anonymous No.20128365]

>>20128172
Okay, let me give you a really simple example. You know how people say price is determined by "supply and demand"? Even that 5th grade interpretation of exchange value is more complex than saying exchange value is determined by "supply" lmao. Look if you can't engage with the economics that's okay, or maybe you genuinely don't see the value in an ERC-20 index fund whose very index is minted based on proof of liquidity in the asset pool. I, and some other people, think this is a pretty novel way of solving some of the more obvious problems with ERC-20 index funds. It's okay if you don't anon, just don't buy it.

[Anonymous No.20128403]

>>20128365
>solving some of the more obvious problems with ERC-20 index funds
Like what? There is only two erc20 index funds and your solution is to a problem that never existed.

[Anonymous No.20128432]

>>20128403
I don't want to copy and paste the whole whitepaper anon, this seems like a poor use of our time