/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.53469636]

desu avax was heavily oversold

[Anonymous No.53471183]

Wait till they see it at 500$

[Anonymous No.53471200]

It's oversold until it becomes $68B marketcap coin in current market conditions (Top 3)

[Anonymous No.53472123]

whales won't stop accumulating till cramer talks about it, and everyone stars buzzing "avax? the next amazon or google?"
you see a stock x4 and buy in, ten years later it's x20. we got in before that first leg.

[Anonymous No.53473567]

>>53469636
it really is

[Anonymous No.53473627]

Idc I bought into it. Let's see where this goes

[Anonymous No.53473657]

avvy.domains
Gaming industry
You still have time

[Anonymous No.53473673]

>>53473627
good lad

[Anonymous No.53473743]

not selling my financial freedom until I see it on top 3 by market cap

[Anonymous No.53473849]

As an engineer it makes me so fucking bearish on the future of the blockchain industry when I see terrible technology like Avalanche get such a big market cap. All of these clueless fucking idiots on this board that praise it because it's like a religion to them. They have an emotional attachment to their shitcoin, so they'll defend it. These are the fucking idiots that are holding blockchain technology back.

[Anonymous No.53473859]

>>53473849
missed the dip huh?

[Anonymous No.53473881]

>>53473849
hello icy pisschizo

[Anonymous No.53473915]

>>53473849
I think I'm gonna buy more now

[Anonymous No.53474043]

>>53473859
No. I'd never buy garbage.

>>53473881
Wtf is that?

[Anonymous No.53474069]

>>53473849
Why is it so shite in your opinion?

[Anonymous No.53474075]

>>53473849
lol sallllt gonna buy some 500 more now thanks chud

[Anonymous No.53474202]

>>53474069
The whole idea of subnets is fucking retarded. That each validator of a subnet is also a validator of the primary network. The insane barrier to entry. Cosmos and Polkadot are better multi-chain architectures. Each chain being a distinct set of nodes. Polkadot also has a fairly high barrier to entry, making it less suitable for smaller applications. Once parathreads are implemented, the polkadot ecosystem will start to attract developers with less funding. Cosmos doesn't have this problem due to finality not being handled by a relay chain, which has other implications. Ceramic is another interesting one but it's very immature and doesn't even have an incentive layer yet. Avalanche will never be able to attract developers because the barrier to entry is so high and even if you do get the funding you're not going to be able to find other developers to hire because you need to be able to play around with it on your own to learn it. Polkadot will overcome this to some extent. Cosmos doesn't have this problem at all and neither will ceramic.

[Anonymous No.53474625]

>>53474202
>The insane barrier to entry
there are 1200+ validators. min validator stake is about 40k USD. This will later drop to 10k when on-chain governance is implemented, will continue to be lowered as the price of AVAX goes up.

>Polkadot also has a fairly high barrier to entry
DOT's minimum stake is 9 million USD. that is 250x higher than Avalanche's min. This is only going to grow in size as DOT validators compete over a limited number of slots in the active set (297). Avalanche's 'active set' is the entire set as there is no scalability issues until you get into the 1,000,000 validator range which might never happen. The min staking was chosen somewhat arbitrarily at 2000 and will be dynamic, subject to on-chain governance.

>devs can't afford subnets
this won't be a problem. the obvious play is to offer token incentives to validators for securing subnets, similar crypto-economic scheme that ETH and BTC use to secure their networks. it works just like any other chain where validators/miners are paid to secure with a token that has utility on the chain, whether that's a governance token, currency token, or utility token. Most validators are flush with computational power since the primary chain only needs the equivalent of a laptop to keep running. It's a minimal cost to them to run many many subnets, especially if they are already earning 9% on 40k+ staked, many 1M staked. A few extra dollars a month of computational expenses is not going to be a barrier at this scale.

>need to be able to play around with it on your own to learn it
Fuji testnet. I mean come on, do some fucking research first. practically every chain has a testnet for this reason. There are currently 1000+ subnets currently being tested on Fuji

[Anonymous No.53474637]

>>53474202
>Avalanche will never be able to attract developers
what are you talking about check out this chart
catching up to livepeer now

[Anonymous No.53474682]

>>53474625
>min validator stake is about 40k USD
I'm LMAOing at you. I'm not going to read the rest. I've heard all the cope before. Minimum required to stake on the cosmos hub is 0.05 ATOM and you don't even need to do that at all to have your own chain.

>>53474637
>pic
Yes thank you for proving my point.

[Anonymous No.53474802]

>>53474682
the minimum to stake (stake on someone else's node) is ~$500 which can be changed quite easily, but there is no reason to stake <$500 worth of assets anyway so nobody cares lmao.

The minimum to validate is around 40k, which is less than ETH.

[Anonymous No.53474812]

>>53474802
>stake on someone else's node
That doesn't make you a validator. That doesn't let you run your own subnet. LMAO

[Anonymous No.53474877]

>>53473849
>As an engineer
i'm an engineer at one of the biggest companies in the world

buy avax

[Anonymous No.53474899]

>>53474877
Civil engineer maybe. Fucking lmao.

[Anonymous No.53474937]

>>53474812
I don't think it's worth it for your sake to spend the emotional energy getting annoyed at something that can be easily tuned (like lowering the validator stake) upon community agreement, it's better to take issues with actual technical flaws.

[Anonymous No.53474952]

>>53474937
hey i got another dev interested
that'll make 30 active avax devs boss

[Anonymous No.53475009]

>>53473849
Nobody here actually holds avax. You can tell by how inorganic the threads are.

[Anonymous No.53475017]

>>53474812
you don't need to run your own validator to run a subnet. also what would be the point of a chain only secured by 0.05 ATOM of stake? there would be no security, especially if permissionless since even a single small validator could come in and 50% attack it.

this is why minimum staking amounts ultimately don't matter since any chain/subnet worth using is going to be secured by validators with actual 'skin in the game'.

[Anonymous No.53475043]

>>53473849
>They have an emotional attachment
buddy, 2.5 years of flawless performance, Jesus any actual programing engineer would note that.

[Anonymous No.53475045]

>>53473849
As a PhD in distributed systems, VC partner, SEC advisor, and senior executive at Google, I'm very bullish on Avalanche

[Anonymous No.53475046]

>>53475017
emin do we get paid today
is it okay to ask that here

[Anonymous No.53475077]

>>53469636
>oversold
overaccumulated
Time for scene 2 now

[Anonymous No.53475106]

>>53475046
here, have a pity (You)

[Anonymous No.53475129]

>>53475017
>you don't need to run your own validator to run a subnet
>"Yes, validators will validate both the Subnet and the Primary Network (X, P, and C-Chain)."
>"By definition, all Subnet validators must also validate the Avalanche Primary Network."

[Anonymous No.53475267]

>>53475129
yes, validators validate the primary network and have the option to validate any other number of subnets. You can start a subnet and offer validators incentives to validate it the same way miners are incentivized to mine and secure BTC through mining rewards.
You are an ""engineer"" so you should be able to understand this simple incentive structure, correct?

[Anonymous No.53475293]

>>53475267
Cyclical dependency detected.

[Anonymous No.53475469]

>>53474937
>I don't think it's worth it for your sake to spend the emotional energy getting annoyed at something that can be easily tuned (like lowering the validator stake) upon community agreement
sadly the avax community is dead compared to other chains

[Anonymous No.53476473]

>>53473849
do sth better then

[Anonymous No.53476495]

>>53471200
>>53471183
It's literally never going back to ath

[Anonymous No.53476572]

>>53476473
Something better already exists.

[Anonymous No.53476589]

>>53476572
Sure thing

[Anonymous No.53476621]

>>53476495
Likely. Roll ups on eth do the jobs, and the fees can be paid in eth

[Anonymous No.53476691]

>>53476589
Yeah, it is pretty sure. Several orders of magnitude. There are even single zones and parachains with more developer activity than avalanche.

[Anonymous No.53476700]

>>53476589
Oh no avax bros...

[Anonymous No.53476738]

I know I'm holding gods chosen coin when 8 jeets come in screeching throwing shit everywhere

[Anonymous No.53476753]

>>53476700
Only 14 projects using the avalanche SDK vs 4,8 thousand using Tendermint SDK. Not even I thought the disparity was this fucking huge. There are probably several individual developers churning out more than the entire avalanche ecosystem combined.

[Anonymous No.53477108]

>>53476753
You came into this thread with le concern troll "as a söyentist engineer yikes avax" then gradually revealed yourself as an actual pajeet shill for cosmos and whatever other shitcoin you're shilling. pathetic fud attempts nigger, I hold AVAX. just the past 2 days I made more than your yearly shill salary

[Anonymous No.53477295]

>>53474625
>on-chain governance
Did you hear Emin's and John Wu's recent talk on some podcast? Emin pretty much said that implementing on-chain governance was delayed indefinitely although he's willing to have a "discussion" about it. He said it has something to do with on-chain governance possibly jeopardizing Avax's status as a commodit and not a security.

[Anonymous No.53477513]

>>53474202
Dot dot dot.

[Anonymous No.53478215]

>>53469636
Top 3, $1000+ will happen.