Twitter | Search | |
Min
No central bank/company/blockchain project would(or should) claim that [insert action] would add value to its currency/shares/tokens.
Reply Retweet Like More
Student of the Game Nov 29
Replying to @minhokim
What about transactions on their network? This seems like a viable reason given the token economic structure of many coins, including ICON. In my opinion it’s the most sound and fundamental economic structure since a majority of these blockchains are networks for development.
Reply Retweet Like
Adam Palmkvist Nov 29
Replying to @RSCHR777 @minhokim
Transactions on the network generally doesn't have anything to do with the demand. It could always move sideways for many months even if the transactions are millions per day. Take a look at Bitcoin for example.
Reply Retweet Like
BittBurger Nov 29
Replying to @minhokim
Adhering to the roadmap, and meeting deadlines is how a block chain project sustains it’s token value. We should try it :)
Reply Retweet Like
Mert Nov 29
Replying to @minhokim
Reply Retweet Like
Min Nov 30
Replying to @RSCHR777
Yes I can have a discussion on the general token economics. I can even publicly talk token prices where I do not have any conflict of interests. My point is that all insiders cannot esp. for any particular action or event (e.g. How does this partnership add value for ICX?)
Reply Retweet Like
Emkik Nov 30
Replying to @minhokim
Exactly. The idiots that don’t understand this also think the market is controllable. Control the controlables. Keep up the the good work 👍🏽
Reply Retweet Like
Student of the Game Dec 1
I wasn’t talking bitcoin in particular, more so coins that are platforms for DAPPs. Studies have shown a 1:1 correlation between price and transactions
Reply Retweet Like
smartonosen Dec 3
Replying to @minhokim
Reply Retweet Like