@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
- Current payment technologies are good enough. There is no real need to improve them.
Read here many examples of how payments can improve: https://initiativeq.com/knowledge/payment-network
Ordinarily I'd agree with you on principle; 'if I had asked the people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.' But then I read it.
- You talk about cards and cash being outdated and NFC as the solution - Android Pay, Apple Pay, and Samsung Pay are already extremely popular.
They're growing nicely, but still very far from "extremely popular".
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.
- 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 talk about single sign on for online stores. I like my card number being completely decoupled from my personal information. I don't want to have to keep the same, for instance, email address across all services.
- 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.
- 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.
- Why would anyone trust Qs to have any value? How do you prevent people from dumping it in the market?
In the long-term, Qs have value because they're coupled to a superior payment technology, and you must have Qs to access it. This value is well established by the "equation of exchange".
The equation of exchange falls flat here because the velocity is completely tanked by the network effect. USD is used everywhere, even in other countries, and your only incentive for using Q is technology that already exists and technology that nobody will want to adopt.
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.
The tricky part is that the probability of success is correlated with the value of Q. The higher the value of Q, the more resources Initiative Q has to execute its plan, and vice versa.
Wait, you have more resources the higher the value is? That sounds like you're planning on making more Q to pay your employees and contractors with, in which case I would direct you to read the history of, say, Zimbabwe.
As explained multiple times. Qs are sold to accredited investors and used to fund the project and maintain monetary reserves.
The challenge is therefore to manage Q so it grows gradually in value as the project progresses, and avoid a short-term drop that could trigger a downward spiral (value drops -> lower probability of success -> value drops further).
This is Q's monetary policy, which is too complex to discuss in detail here, but a general overview is available at https://initiativeq.com/knowledge/economic-model (co-authored with Prof. Lawrence H. White, expert in Monetary Theory).
I read it. It's tripe no matter who wrote it. It's basically a parroting of the marketing blurbs peppered everywhere else on the website, coupled with the incorrect belief that cryptocurrency isn't easy to use.
You think cryptocurrency is currently an easy to use payment method?
But in a nutshell, the three main tools the monetary committee uses to maintain stability are:
a) Releasing Qs gradually, so the amount in circulation constantly matches the demand created by the economic activity.
Release how? Nobody's going to buy them. And if you give 'em out for free, and buy 'em back, you're losing money even if Q is worth anything.
Already explained in detail in the document.
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.
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 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.
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.
- 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.
- Your currency is completely centralized. You are the ultimate authority on who owns what and how much.
That is incorrect, as explained multiple times.
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 give a shit who the authority ends up being, I do not want a central authority on the ownership of my money.
Your money is being controlled by a central authority today. Holding a piece of paper means nothing if the authority decides to print 1000 times more of it, or simply decides it's no longer legal tender.
In the real world complex problems are solved through complex governance and checks and balances. We will follow the same principles.