Initiative Q - Money from nowhere?
-
@groaner said in Money from nowhere?:
lets say 10 developers
Hmm, the goal is to build a payment processing system better than, and eventually replacing, VisaNet. Visa, Inc. employs 11300 people; I don't know how many of those are IT, but their value-add is data processing on a large scale.
Visa has operations across all continents worldwide with the exception of Antarctica. Nearly all Visa transactions worldwide are processed through VisaNet at one of two secure facilities:[dubious ] Operations Center East, located near Ashburn, Virginia; and Operations Center Central, located near Highlands Ranch, Colorado. Both data centers are heavily secured against natural disasters, crime, and terrorism; can operate independently of each other and from external utilities if necessary; and can handle up to 30,000 simultaneous transactions and up to 100 billion computations every second. Every transaction is checked past 500 variables including 100 fraud-detection parameters—such as the location and spending habits of the customer and the merchant's location – before being accepted.
I'm going to hazard a guess that 10% of their employees are IT; given how central data processing is to their business, that seems low, but it's a convenient number to work with. Round off; call it 1000 IT staff. Shirley not all of them are developers, but if only 10% of them are, that's still 10X your hypothetical 10 "top people." No matter how "top" the people are, the probability of such a small group successfully building a system that can begin to compete with, much less supplant, an entrenched system with >10X the staff and ∞X the revenue (>$18 billion vs. $0) seems miniscule.
-
@topspin said in Money from nowhere?:
But even if he says something completely unobjectionable he still has exactly 1 downvote
True, but that's a two-way street. I also see the (presumed) down-voter get exactly one down-vote for completely non-inflammatory posts.
-
@pie_flavor said in Money from nowhere?:
@initiativeq said in Money from nowhere?:
@pie_flavor said in Money from nowhere?:
@initiativeq said in Money from nowhere?:
@pie_flavor said in Money from nowhere?:
@initiativeq said in Money from nowhere?:
the signal to noise ratio is dropping rapidly
YMBNH
The objections raised so far:
- The big payment players don't have that problem. They already have critical mass.
They have critical mass for their existing network. To make a significant leap forward, they need to move everyone to new network and technologies. In that aspect they suffer the same problem as newcomers: everyone will wait for someone else to move first.
They do have the advantage of brand recognition and incentives they can give to existing members (and sometimes that works, which is why the market leaders are fairly constant in this space), but to truly make progress, it's not enough.
It's not just the new payment system you're offering, it's the new currency too. If Visa released a new payment system, and made it easy to access, places could easily incorporate it because it deals in good old USD and the only cost to them is that of setting it up. Once they receive payments through this new system, they have the payment in the currency they're using.
Already answered in the original post why VISA can't easily launch a new network
Yes. Something to the effect of 'everyone would wait for everyone else to start using it'. Which this was a response to. The salesman does not suddenly start supporting NFC, the manufacturer of his equipment does. Which Visa has a deal with, or can incentivize. And now Android/Apple/Samsung Pay is everywhere.
I'm not saying they can't innovate at all. They have many strong tools that startups don't have. And still, projects like 3D-Secure failed, and PayPal beat Citibank's c2it.
3D-Secure was a new security layer that nobody interacted with except for payment partners and banks, so it's completely irrelevant to the discussion and I have no idea why you'd bring it up except for padding for your ridiculous argument. And yes, the best technology in the field rises to the top - PayPal succeeded, and that's far more relevant than who they were better than.
And cards are used when people don't want to leave it up to their phone, and cash is used when people don't want to leave it up to technology at all (since, y'know, street vendors aren't the type to have payment systems). The QR code is no better than a card, the 'audible' code (whatever that means) is no better than NFC. So already cash transactions will be a thing of the past, leaving you totally dependent on technology.
When a better technology arrives, the old one doesn't become illegal. People could still use cash.
So the few people who support Q will have the bare minimum amount to make a few purchases. That's not really what you're going for when you're giving away tens of thousands of dollars' potential worth of the stuff.
If they find it more convenient, they would want to have enough Qs at any time, eventually becoming their main currency.
So you do hope to eclipse USD.
Do you realize the level of societal dysfunction when you have multiple currencies on the same damn streets? For no reason at all?- You talk about stores where you just scan barcodes and don't bother checking out, but that means that the store has to be tightly coupled to you. It's not just 'hey, we bought new card readers with that new system thing', it's a full integration down to the stock level. There are a lot of small businesses who would never go for that; it'd be almost like being a franchisee.
If you have a large user base interested in it, many stores will be glad to improve their service and reduce costs. I agree that some won't.
You're doing that thing mason does where you read my post but you don't really internalize it. A store will not be so glad to improve their service and reduce costs if their stock and payment system is entirely managed by an external entity. People like independence. You are possibly marketing this in the wrong country.
Not sure why you think Q reduces independence, but it's not important - if a seller thinks they'll make more profit accepting Qs they will do it.
Well, I explained why I thought Q reduced independence. If people can scan barcodes and walk out with the product, then their entire payment system and stock will have to be managed by Q. And there's no reason to think they'd make more profit - more complicated payment systems mean more overhead in processing fees, and at the very best they'd be making the exact same profit as before. The reason systems like Android Pay work is that the seller doesn't have to do a damn thing, and the card reader is the only thing that handles it, which gets upgraded as part of the seller's existing contract.
- You have no payment network. It's all hypothetical.
That's exactly the idea. If you build the payment network AFTER you have critical mass, then you can bring the top talent in the field, and have them focus on functionality and efficiency, rather than being limited by "chicken and egg" concerns.
No. You can't bring the top talent because you have no money.
Yes. In case it wasn't obvious, of course the campaign is done first, because it requires less resources than building a new payment network.
That's not how campaigns work. You campaign for stuff that exists, or you campaign for funds for stuff that people want to exist.
Generally true, but this campaign is different. It's about gradually building global trust in a new system.
You can't build trust with no product. I would probably trust your magical currency that will eclipse USD more if you hadn't given me fifty thousand of it for free.
- People will register, but that doesn't mean they will use the payment product.
The idea is to use Q grants to incentivize the whole adoption process, not just the initial sign up. After tens of millions of users register, additional Qs will be granted for buyers installing an app, for sellers integrating it into their PoS or website, for making your first transaction, for making a deposit and so on.
Note that as the project progresses the perceived value of Q increases, and so does its ability to incentivize cooperation.
I signed up because it costs me $0 and about five seconds. Installing an app will get you far fewer takers because that's storage space and device privacy. Sellers integrating it into their PoS will cost money, especially since there wouldn't be any equipment for it in the beginning so they're paying not just the purchase price but the development price. And at some point, the things have to start being backed. USD is worth money because the US backs it. That's a pretty strong backing. Q will either, depending on how you look at it, be backed by a for-profit company, or be backed by nothing at all. All of the problems with cryptocurrency, with none of the decentralization.
Again, as the project progresses, the ability to incentivize actions using Qs increases.
This is chicken-and-egg logic. The project will progress because we incentivize them with Qs. Qs have value because the project progresses. You can't just build yourself up from literally nothing like that. At some point you have to add actual value into the equation.
Exactly. The value is in the coupling with superior payment technologies.
Which you plan to pay for in Qs, which will be able to be used for payment because of the value, which will be because the project progresses, which will be possible because you pay for it in Qs.
When someone says you're using chicken-and-egg logic, that means you're wrong. There is no way at all that you could be using chicken-and-egg logic and end up being right.In the short-term, Qs' value roughly represents the probability that the long-term goal will be achieved.
No. In the short term it has absolutely zero value until I can buy a cheeseburger with it.
I see zero value in crocodile skin boots, yet the market gives them high value.
You are not the only person in the world. There are many people out there, with different needs and appetites for risk. On average, the value of Q at any given time would be proportional to the perceived probability of reaching the wide adoption goal.They're expensive to obtain materials for and manufacture, and are currently stylish. If I had one, I could sell it for money and buy a cheeseburger with it. Q is worthless until I can buy a cheeseburger with it.
Sorry, but you're wrong. Q has value also if people think they could buy a burger with it in the future. If they believe the likelihood for that is low, then the value is lower, but still exists.
I don't give a shit whether it'll get me a cheeseburger in the future. Fat lot of good that does my hunger. Money that cannot buy me a cheeseburger does not have value.
b) Maintaining sufficient reserves in other currencies that provide confidence to Q holders they can convert if they want.
See above. And where the hell will you get it? VCs tend not to invest in companies whose purpose is to give away money.
As explained multiple times. Qs are sold to accredited investors and used to fund the project and maintain monetary reserves.
Investors don't buy worthless things. They fund startups so the startup can start making money. They don't fund startups so the startup can start giving away money.
Indeed investors will need to believe this could eventually become a major payment system and generate significant revenues. If not, they won't invest.
And they would have no reason to believe it, because you saddle it with the immense stupidity of an additional currency. Investors will invest in it because Q will have value because investors will invest in it...
c) Distributing Qs to incentivize activities that maintain trust and stability, such as investments, salary payments, purchase of Q with other currencies etc.
People will not do anything until they can exchange Q for USD.
Agree.
And yet you believe that people will be incentivized by them. Before they're worth USD. In order to make them worth USD.
Like I said. The economic equivalent of plugging a power strip into itself.In a sense you're right. Creating trust in new money is a bit like a perpetuum mobile, with the only difference it sometimes works.
Did I say trust? No. I don't believe I did. What I was drawing attention to was the fact that a currency with zero value is not an incentive for anything, meaning that you cannot use it as an incentive to increase its value, meaning it goes fucking nowhere. You cannot get money from nowhere and that is fucking final. And you can't respond to this with 'but investors' because the step of giving Qs value comes before getting investors, otherwise there is nothing to invest in.
And once they can, that's all they'll do with it. You've already said you don't want it to deflate, so there won't be any sense holding onto it except for using your superior payment network which doesn't exist.
As explained, Qs are released for trade only after the payment network already exists.
Where would the payment network's funding come from if you were planning on selling Qs to fund it but can only sell Qs after it exists?
Accredited investors can buy it before the system is live (at a significantly lower price). Public use is after launch.
They can. But they won't. Because without the payment network, there's nothing to invest in.
We're just going in circles. Maybe this approach will help clarify:
Every monetary system has two Nash equilibria: Everyone trusting it, and no one trusting it. I'm showing a way to bring a new currency and payment network to the first equilibrium. Your responses are all basically "But look, there's another equilibrium! this won't work!".
I'm not disagreeing that Q could fall in the second one, just saying there is some probability it could reach the first. For the first stage to succeed, we only need to show it's above 0.1%.
None of your arguments pointing that another equilibrium exists, demonstrate the probability is below 0.1%. And I don't think there's any way to show it's <0.1% in a forum discussion.
Here's some more objections you don't actually address here.
- You predicate your entire system on people having technology. Do you realize that tons of people don't have smartphones at all? How do I give a homeless man a dollar with this system that does not work without technology?
Again, being the best doesn't mean answering 100% of market need.
Bitcoin is used in two places: secure anonymous government-independent transactions, and rich retards having a day at the metaphorical races. People do not mind converting between currencies because the first one is rare and the second one makes them money. Q is marketed as a replacement for the dollar, not as something to be used where you can't use the dollar. People will mind converting between the two in such a system, because it will be an everyday occurrence and will cost them money.
Most people have multiple accounts holding money or other valuable assets. Each one offers them some advantages. Yes, adding a Q account to the mix should justify the overhead.
No. Each one may offer them advantages but they all use USD. I am not talking about the difficulty of a new account, I am talking about the difficulty of a new currency. Every time you bring up a positive, it's a positive of the payment network, and every time someone brings up a negative, you nullify it by comparing your payment network. We don't have any fucking problems with the payment network. We have problems with the CURRENCY.
- You actually address the fact that the technology that you're offering that people will actually use, already exists, but you give the dumb-ass argument that it's not widely adopted enough. I can use Android Pay in pretty much any supermarket anywhere. Widespread adoption takes time, you know. If your company just worked on the technology you have, you'd still fail, because people with more experience and more popularity with wider reach and greater means, are already doing it except better. Instead, you offer that plus the giant leap of faith in adopting a brand new currency.
I answered this question multiple times.
I don't believe you did.
Why do you think Apple Pay, Android Pay, and Samsung Pay are the only ones out there?
Because they're the ones that make the NFC devices. Other companies do the backend instead of the frontend, like PayPal.
- Your currency is completely centralized. You are the ultimate authority on who owns what and how much.
That is incorrect, as explained multiple times.
Either I didn't read it, or you didn't say it. You could at least reference the post, because I'm not scrolling up through five hundred of them.
Read the last section in the payment network page.
I'm reading it. There are a lot of things you could be referring to as 'the last section' and none of them reference the fact that all my money is a number in a database. Again, there's laws about banks, but there's no laws about you. If there end up being laws about you, the laws will be to tell you to pack your shit and leave.
Of course there are laws. By law, the company needs to abide by its terms of service.
This is not something people want. Again, if my life savings was in Q, and you shut down the servers and bid everyone farewell, there wouldn't be a damned thing I could do about it. There is no central authority on Bitcoin ownership. The decentralized blockchain system ensures that it doesn't disappear without its physical medium disappearing, and new ones don't come out of nowhere. There is no central authority on USD ownership. The government may back it, or demand that it be moved, but the ultimate authority on who owns the $1 is who is holding the green piece of paper.
notes are a fraction of the money in circulation.
I don't care. Banks might care. But every dollar in my account is a green piece of paper I have held, and can hold again.
Not if everyone asks for it at once.
Okay.
And?And your green paper is not worth much without the governance behind it.
- The big payment players don't have that problem. They already have critical mass.
-
-
@lorne-kates said in Money from nowhere?:
@initiativeq said in Money from nowhere?:
When a better technology arrives, the old one doesn't become illegal. People could still use cash.
So usd is still a currency. So there's no need to use Queefs except to convert into usd. Gotcha.
as has been explained multiple times
Hmm maybe that means you're either shit at explaining, or your explanations are shit.
I can think of a third option.
-
@groaner said in Money from nowhere?:
@initiativeq said in Money from nowhere?:
- You talk about stores where you just scan barcodes and don't bother checking out, but that means that the store has to be tightly coupled to you. It's not just 'hey, we bought new card readers with that new system thing', it's a full integration down to the stock level. There are a lot of small businesses who would never go for that; it'd be almost like being a franchisee.
If you have a large user base interested in it, many stores will be glad to improve their service and reduce costs. I agree that some won't.
You're doing that thing mason does where you read my post but you don't really internalize it. A store will not be so glad to improve their service and reduce costs if their stock and payment system is entirely managed by an external entity. People like independence. You are possibly marketing this in the wrong country.
Not sure why you think Q reduces independence, but it's not important - if a seller thinks they'll make more profit accepting Qs they will do it.
Moreover, integration with brick-and-mortar stores down to the UPC level puts you into the inventory and logistics business. There are companies in this space with decades of experience in that business domain. While you won't necessarily have to take on their workload, you will have to perhaps integrate with a dozen or so of the existing major systems and replicate enough of their thinking to be able to interop with them. To help develop this integration, you might be assigned one overworked person at each company as a point of contact, if you're lucky!
Do you not see how you are already up to your eyeballs in scope creep?
Why do you think Apple Pay, Android Pay, and Samsung Pay are the only ones out there?
Because the mobile world is a hellhole of walled garden bullshit?
Not if everyone asks for it at once.
Good thing there's an FDIC!
Thank you. Exactly the point I was trying to make. The green papers are nothing. It's all about the governance behind it.
Also - I can't help you with your campaign against SPA. Many leading companies believe it provides a better user experience. Write to them.
"We do it because other companies do it" is the lamest defense ever when in an industry saturated with fad-chasing idiots.
-
@topspin said in Money from nowhere?:
@groaner said in Money from nowhere?:
This was addressed upthread. The difference is that buttcoins brought a couple things of value to the world:
- Blockchain technology
As I also mentioned: monopoly money on a blockchain is still monopoly money. Yay, you can't double spend it! But it's still inherently worthless.
Right, all the interesting applications of blockchain have nothing to do with Bitcoin at this point.
-
@hardwaregeek said in Money from nowhere?:
@groaner said in Money from nowhere?:
lets say 10 developers
Hmm, the goal is to build a payment processing system better than, and eventually replacing, VisaNet. Visa, Inc. employs 11300 people; I don't know how many of those are IT, but their value-add is data processing on a large scale.
Visa has operations across all continents worldwide with the exception of Antarctica. Nearly all Visa transactions worldwide are processed through VisaNet at one of two secure facilities:[dubious ] Operations Center East, located near Ashburn, Virginia; and Operations Center Central, located near Highlands Ranch, Colorado. Both data centers are heavily secured against natural disasters, crime, and terrorism; can operate independently of each other and from external utilities if necessary; and can handle up to 30,000 simultaneous transactions and up to 100 billion computations every second. Every transaction is checked past 500 variables including 100 fraud-detection parameters—such as the location and spending habits of the customer and the merchant's location – before being accepted.
I'm going to hazard a guess that 10% of their employees are IT; given how central data processing is to their business, that seems low, but it's a convenient number to work with. Round off; call it 1000 IT staff. Shirley not all of them are developers, but if only 10% of them are, that's still 10X your hypothetical 10 "top people." No matter how "top" the people are, the probability of such a small group successfully building a system that can begin to compete with, much less supplant, an entrenched system with >10X the staff and ∞X the revenue (>$18 billion vs. $0) seems miniscule.
It wouldn't surprise me if Visa had plenty of warm bodies to throw at the problem. I just think it would be ill-advised to assign hundreds of developers to a project when it is still very ill-defined. Communication becomes a challenge on that scale. With about ten people, communication is much easier.
-
@initiativeq said in Money from nowhere?:
Every monetary system has two Nash equilibria: Everyone trusting it, and no one trusting it. I'm showing a way to bring a new currency and payment network to the first equilibrium. Your responses are all basically "But look, there's another equilibrium! this won't work!".
I'm not disagreeing that Q could fall in the second one, just saying there is some probability it could reach the first. For the first stage to succeed, we only need to show it's above 0.1%.
None of your arguments pointing that another equilibrium exists, demonstrate the probability is below 0.1%. And I don't think there's any way to show it's <0.1% in a forum discussion.There's no currency and no monetary system. There's no equilibrium.
-
@groaner It would certainly be ill-advised to throw hundreds of developers at this project. My point, though, was that while 10 or so might be a reasonable team to start defining the project, it's going to be woefully inadequate to actually implement it, and a team big enough to implement it is going to result in a huge payroll before they can even dream of generating a penny of revenue. Basically, I'm agreeing with you, but even more than you estimated.
-
@initiativeq said in Money from nowhere?:
And your green paper is not worth much without the
governanceUnited States, its economy, its military, its force for good in the world, etc behind it.FTFY
You're going to need more nukes.
-
@hardwaregeek said in Money from nowhere?:
a team big enough to implement it is going to result in a huge payroll
I am going to wager that $10M/month won't touch what they are wanting to do. Just in developers. Top men don't come cheap.
-
@topspin said in Money from nowhere?:
As I also mentioned: monopoly money on a blockchain is still monopoly money. Yay, you can't double spend it! But it's still inherently worthless.
Much as I hate to argue this, mostly because it feeds into Q's delusions, the value of money lies in motivating other people. That's all value really is. So if you can "trick" people into accepting monopoly money for work, the monopoly money has value. Money is ultimately a promise of future work by others. That promise is what carries the value, not the medium of exchange itself.
Say you are in a deserted island, and there's a coconut up on a tree that you want. Now, if no one is around, it doesn't matter how rich in any kind of currency there is you are, you still have to climb the tree and get the coconut yourself. But say you are with another person, and you tell them, "I'm too lazy to go get the coconut but I really want it. So I promise to do you one favor in return if you go and get me that coconut. And I'll write it down on this piece of paper." The person may think it over, consider how tired they are now versus how tired they might be in the future, and accept it or not. If they accept it, and go get you a coconut, you just managed to create money from nothing. You exchanged a promise for a coconut. And maybe there are other people in the island as well, and this guys goes and trades your paper of a promise of one favor to someone else for some other thing they wanted done.
That single promise you made could change hands any number of times (provided people have faith that you will honor it and accept it in exchange) without anyone actually cashing in the favor themselves. It's not just holding value, it's generating value in the transactions people do for each other without your intervention. Now suppose some people eventually come to ask you to perform a favor, but you're still feeling kind of lazy, so you make them a deal: you can perform that favor now, sure, or you can give them another promise of a favor in the future. If they accept it, there are now two "future favors" in circulation, enabling twice the number of simultaneous transactions to be made, all without you actually having lifted a finger (in fact, you got a coconut out of the deal).
Now let's say this has been going on for a while, and there are now a fair number of these "favors" floating around. So many that you couldn't actually honor them all if you wanted, if they all came and "cashed them in" at once. And then you suddenly suffer an accident and die. Do you suppose all the people with the notes, that put in work to earn them from others, will just up and say "well, these are worthless now", or are they more likely to say "You know, I never actually cared about getting a favor from that guy, as long as everyone else keeps accepting them, I'll keep accepting them so I don't lose the value I have". And you suddenly go from a backed currency to a fiat currency.
So in a sense, it is true that the value of a currency is worth what you think you can get with it in the future from other people. However, it's also true that this is a contrived example that stretches credulity to make a point. Trying to actually make it happen on a global scale just out of sheer will is silly, because people don't generally decide to make simultaneous decisions. Especially since, even if they all did say "yeah, sure, I'll accept the Qs for services rendered," (a possibility I'd put at slightly less than the chance of the Earth spontaneously ceasing to exist due to quantum physics) you still don't have a way to get them to exchange the Qs because you don't have a payment system in place. And there's even less of a chance of one popping into existence just because a lot of people agree it would be neat to have one.
-
@hardwaregeek said in Money from nowhere?:
Basically, I'm agreeing with you, but even more than you estimated.
Fair enough. Carry on.
-
@kian said in Money from nowhere?:
@topspin said in Money from nowhere?:
As I also mentioned: monopoly money on a blockchain is still monopoly money. Yay, you can't double spend it! But it's still inherently worthless.
Much as I hate to argue this, mostly because it feeds into Q's delusions, the value of money lies in motivating other people. That's all value really is. So if you can "trick" people into accepting monopoly money for work, the monopoly money has value. Money is ultimately a promise of future work by others. That promise is what carries the value, not the medium of exchange itself.
Say you are in a deserted island, and there's a coconut up on a tree that you want. Now, if no one is around, it doesn't matter how rich in any kind of currency there is you are, you still have to climb the tree and get the coconut yourself. But say you are with another person, and you tell them, "I'm too lazy to go get the coconut but I really want it. So I promise to do you one favor in return if you go and get me that coconut. And I'll write it down on this piece of paper." The person may think it over, consider how tired they are now versus how tired they might be in the future, and accept it or not. If they accept it, and go get you a coconut, you just managed to create money from nothing. You exchanged a promise for a coconut. And maybe there are other people in the island as well, and this guys goes and trades your paper of a promise of one favor to someone else for some other thing they wanted done.
That single promise you made could change hands any number of times (provided people have faith that you will honor it and accept it in exchange) without anyone actually cashing in the favor themselves. It's not just holding value, it's generating value in the transactions people do for each other without your intervention. Now suppose some people eventually come to ask you to perform a favor, but you're still feeling kind of lazy, so you make them a deal: you can perform that favor now, sure, or you can give them another promise of a favor in the future. If they accept it, there are now two "future favors" in circulation, enabling twice the number of simultaneous transactions to be made, all without you actually having lifted a finger (in fact, you got a coconut out of the deal).
Now let's say this has been going on for a while, and there are now a fair number of these "favors" floating around. So many that you couldn't actually honor them all if you wanted, if they all came and "cashed them in" at once. And then you suddenly suffer an accident and die. Do you suppose all the people with the notes, that put in work to earn them from others, will just up and say "well, these are worthless now", or are they more likely to say "You know, I never actually cared about getting a favor from that guy, as long as everyone else keeps accepting them, I'll keep accepting them so I don't lose the value I have". And you suddenly go from a backed currency to a fiat currency.
So in a sense, it is true that the value of a currency is worth what you think you can get with it in the future from other people. However, it's also true that this is a contrived example that stretches credulity to make a point. Trying to actually make it happen on a global scale just out of sheer will is silly, because people don't generally decide to make simultaneous decisions. Especially since, even if they all did say "yeah, sure, I'll accept the Qs for services rendered," (a possibility I'd put at slightly less than the chance of the Earth spontaneously ceasing to exist due to quantum physics) you still don't have a way to get them to exchange the Qs because you don't have a payment system in place. And there's even less of a chance of one popping into existence just because a lot of people agree it would be neat to have one.
I love how every time some naïve innovator comes along with some naïve idea that will "revolutionize" finance, we have to trot out these long analogies involving coconuts and deserted islands to point out why the status quo is the status quo.
A few months ago on Mark Zuckerberg's hellspawnapp, there was some service that was crying about how evil money is, and offered a platform to exchange services for other services. Commenters immediately tore it apart. ("But what happens when one haircut doesn't equal one oil change? What if it's worth about 40% of an oil change? Maybe we need some other metric to measure the relative 'worth' of each of these services, or 'price' if you will. Then, we issue some token in these units in reasonable increments. How about we call it 'money?' Has a nice ring to it.")
-
@initiativeq said in Money from nowhere?:
We're just going in circles.
Yes, that's exactly what a chicken-and-egg problem is. You're at least starting to recognize that.
@initiativeq said in Money from nowhere?:
And your green paper is not worth much without the governance behind it.
Do you also call people's god's "imaginary sky friends"-- and refer to kids as "crotch spawn". ur so edgy.
-
@initiativeq said in Money from nowhere?:
@lorne-kates said in Money from nowhere?:
@initiativeq said in Money from nowhere?:
When a better technology arrives, the old one doesn't become illegal. People could still use cash.
So usd is still a currency. So there's no need to use Queefs except to convert into usd. Gotcha.
as has been explained multiple times
Hmm maybe that means you're either shit at explaining, or your explanations are shit.
I can think of a third option.
No, I literally don't believe that you can.
-
@initiativeq said in Money from nowhere?:
The green papers are nothing.
uhg, the parental units are SO, like, annoying
-
@lorne-kates No, he was quoting me there.
-
@pie_flavor said in Money from nowhere?:
@lorne-kates No, he was quoting me there.
He's used that, and other, terms all the time
-
Ok guys. Seems like we covered everything.
So just wanted to thank you for trying to poke holes in the model. Despite the swearing and heated emotions, it was really helpful.
To those who registered - hope one day you'll be very happy you stumbled upon Q in its early days.
Now I need to prepare for the official launch...
-
@initiativeq if by "covered" you mean "ignored", then absolutely.
-
@initiativeq said in Money from nowhere?:
Seems like we covered everything.
Until Q is the leading currency for the world and ubiquitous throughout, no, I don't think we've "covered everything"
-
@tsaukpaetra said in Money from nowhere?:
@initiativeq said in Money from nowhere?:
Seems like we covered everything.
Until Q is the leading currency for the world and ubiquitous throughout, no, I don't think we've "covered everything"
Someone just wants to say thank you, and you still look for an angle to attack? Relax, not everything on the Internet requires a witty answer.
-
@initiativeq said in Money from nowhere?:
@tsaukpaetra said in Money from nowhere?:
@initiativeq said in Money from nowhere?:
Seems like we covered everything.
Until Q is the leading currency for the world and ubiquitous throughout, no, I don't think we've "covered everything"
Someone just wants to say thank you, and you still look for an angle to attack? Relax, not everything on the Internet requires a witty answer.
Welcome to TDWTF, where snark, sarcasm, and criticism are the official currency.
-
@initiativeq Of note, an ad I saw last night:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9E20hiTDcs
It seems that Visa, at least, don't think there are any insuperable barriers in the way of them creating a more advanced payment network.
-
@initiativeq said in Money from nowhere?:
an angle to attack
Ha, if that's what you consider an attack...
-
@e4tmyl33t said in Money from nowhere?:
Welcome to TDWTF, where snark, sarcasm, and criticism are the official currency.
Can I sell that at $60,000?
-
@blakeyrat Well, Yahtzee seems to get paid for it, so theoretically you could too.
-
-
@initiativeq said in Money from nowhere?:
Ok guys. Seems like we covered everything.
So just wanted to thank you for trying to poke holes in the model.The very fact that you said "trying" means you are still as clueless and stupid as when you first posted. At this point you have to be either willfully ignorant or literally brain damaged to not see the already existing giant gaping holes in "the model". in fact, all "the model" is is a hole. There's literally nothing there.
@initiativeq said in Money from nowhere?:
Despite the swearing and heated emotions, it was really helpful.
You are a very stupid person.
@initiativeq said in Money from nowhere?:
Now I need to prepare for the official launch...
Wait wait wait
- this was a pre-launch? Which means you know it's incomplete, that you've done zero market or feasibility research. Which might be okay for a pre-launch, if you take feedback, but you aren't you're ignoring it and worse
- You think "the model" is in a state of "ready to launch"?
....
you are a very stupid person.
https://i.imgur.com/ectowFJ.png
"It's okay, guys. We've got a rocket in here somewhere. We'll just throw it all off a cliff, and hire THE BEST AND BRIGHTEST engineers to assemble it before it hits the ground!"
-
@initiativeq said in Money from nowhere?:
Someone just wants to say thank you, and you still look for an angle to attack?
{smashes self in head with a hammer} THis is a good iDea to bRush my hair. I will have beEautiful hair
Stop doing that, you idiot. You're just smashing up your own face! This is the wrong tools, the wrong method, and no clear path to actually having good hair.
{wobbles around} tHank yoU all for trYing to find something wrONG with whAt I'm doing. tiMe for beauUUitful ahir {smashes self in head again}
You are a very stupid person and have learned nothing!
woa wats with alLL the attacks? i saId thank u so EverytTHHHHing is okay. my problem iS sonlved.
-
@initiativeq said in Money from nowhere?:
Ok guys. Seems like we covered everything.
Translated from Social Media Manager-speak:
"A higher-up smarter than me realized it's going to look bad if a VC finds this in a precursory Google search; they told me to drop it and hope it fades away to page 2+."
-
@heterodox said in Money from nowhere?:
finds this in a precursory Google search;
Tough rocks, Google adores WTDWTF....
The only reason it's not the second result at the moment is because @e4tmyl33t decided to title the thread "Money from nowhere?" and not "Initiative Q? Money from nowhere?"
-
@tsaukpaetra Fixed. We'll see how that affects it. :D
-
@polygeekery said in Initiative Q - Money from nowhere?:
@initiativeq said in Money from nowhere?:
And your green paper is not worth much without the
governanceUnited States, its economy, its military, its force forgoodeconomical and political powerin the world, etc behind it.FTFY
You're going to need more nukes.
FTF What Matters.
-
@lorne-kates said in Initiative Q - Money from nowhere?:
Do you also call people's god's "imaginary sky friends"
I do. I tend to be pretty frank.
and refer to kids as "crotch spawn". ur so edgy.
Not yet. Still have lots to learn from you.
-
@initiativeq Off topic again: The downvote on that was uncalled for, guys.
-
@initiativeq said in Initiative Q - Money from nowhere?:
Every monetary system has two Nash equilibria: Everyone trusting it, and no one trusting it. I'm showing a way to bring a new currency and payment network to the first equilibrium. Your responses are all basically "But look, there's another equilibrium! this won't work!".
I'm not disagreeing that Q could fall in the second one, just saying there is some probability it could reach the first. For the first stage to succeed, we only need to show it's above 0.1%.
None of your arguments pointing that another equilibrium exists, demonstrate the probability is below 0.1%. And I don't think there's any way to show it's <0.1% in a forum discussion.Interesting position. But, speaking in physics terms again, there's no continuous path to go from the second to the first equilibrium. And even if there was, it'd be all uphill, so forget about any form of gradient descent to get there.
This would be just like quantum tunneling all the way from here to Mars.
-
@tsaukpaetra said in Initiative Q - Money from nowhere?:
Here’s my invite link: https://initiativeq.com/invite/BbALBJIWX
I click that shit and get:
Do you know what makes this large reward possible?
Yes. How do I get invited?
-
@e4tmyl33t said in Initiative Q - Money from nowhere?:
@initiativeq said in Money from nowhere?:
@tsaukpaetra said in Money from nowhere?:
@initiativeq said in Money from nowhere?:
Seems like we covered everything.
Until Q is the leading currency for the world and ubiquitous throughout, no, I don't think we've "covered everything"
Someone just wants to say thank you, and you still look for an angle to attack? Relax, not everything on the Internet requires a witty answer.
Welcome to TDWTF, where snark, sarcasm, and criticism are the official currency.
...and I have a serious spending problem.
-
-
@topspin The invite links have an expiration time. Someone's first link is good for 72 hours or 5 invites, then the second one is good for 96 hours and 10 invites.
This one's still good for 27 hours if you're still curious: https://initiativeq.com/invite/rgJhaRH-m
-
@heterodox said in Initiative Q - Money from nowhere?:
@initiativeq said in Money from nowhere?:
Ok guys. Seems like we covered everything.
Translated from Social Media Manager-speak:
"A higher-up smarter than me realized it's going to look bad if a VC finds this in a precursory Google search; they told me to drop it and hope it fades away to page 2+."
Is that why we added "Initiative Q" to the title? Nice.
-
@e4tmyl33t said in Initiative Q - Money from nowhere?:
@tsaukpaetra Fixed. We'll see how that affects it. :D
You rock.
-
@e4tmyl33t I have your real name (dude, really?!) and you've got my reminder.
And well, depending on if they show you my email address, you've technically also got my Q pointzzz.
-
@topspin said in Initiative Q - Money from nowhere?:
Off topic again: The downvote on that was uncalled for, guys.
Does, like, your pet get kicked every time there's a downvote? Who gives a shit.
@topspin said in Initiative Q - Money from nowhere?:
I click that shit and get:
Do you know what makes this large reward possible?
Yes. How do I get invited?I heard from a good source that people aren't getting lied to about getting money, and this method of finding users makes them trust you without fail.
-
@topspin Eh, I don't really care about people having my name.
-
@e4tmyl33t I forwarded the link to my (totally real) friend John Q Smith. He tells me he signed up for the lulz, and needs you to approve him.
-
@kian I totally approved your totally real friend John Q Smith
