I actually made the mistake and didn’t hit ‘submit’ at first because the last 2 steps in the form are meant to be executed after (!) submitting the data (and then the instructions are gone…)
Edit:
Oh… Stupid me… That ofc was for the discord claim… Not the burn…
I can see the airdrop transactions on Arbiscan, but the ANT holdings won’t appear on MetaMask. I’ve already added Arbitrum One as network.
Did you add the ANT token in metamask?
Thank you, but it is not my case, since after completing all the data correctly in the form, send the form and was successfully confirmed.
I tried searching for it but couldn’t find anything. I then tried adding it manually with the contract address, but the balance was 0.
$307… would be nice!
ANT would need a market cap somewhere between XRP and ETH to achieve that (assuming circulating supply around 800m).
I certainly think Autonomi could bring more utility to more people than those, so it’s not impossible given time & development 
thanks for that detailed explanation. very good.
Revolut says it is available in MetaMask, but I guess not for me here in US, or just not yet.
#2-- as I first read this I just assumed the ETH would be Arbitrum One ETH and it would go straight to your chosen wallet.
#3-- why would you not just use Arb ETH to swap for ANT directly?
RE #5-- if you must include the USDC step, can’t you send the USDC to your ArbOne address straight away???
I feel like such a bonehead not being able to understand why the 3ring circus is necessary. If I can spend fiat to buy eth or usdc or usdt or other eth, ytf can’t i just buy the ANT!!!
I’m no expert with erc20 either, so don’t worry - it’s just what worked for me and there may he better ways.
To answer your questions:
#2, it is the gas to more the erc20 USDC, I believe
#3, I didn’t have any and Revolut doesn’t speak Arbitrum. So, I needed DEX to bridge from Ethereum to Arbitrum.
#4, see above.
You may get a simpler experienxe using an CEX (centralised exchange), but I had Revolut setup and wanted to try the fully DEX route.
I’m sure some of the big players with fiat onramps will eventually list ANT, but it probably won’t happen for some time due to low volume / being under the radar etc.
What are your thoughts on the incentives for running nodes that are being paid out now?
It seems to me that there is huge potential that this ends in tears.
There will be significant sell pressure from node ops sooner or later to counteract that we will need many buyers.
I don’t doubt that the buyers will come, I am hesitant that they will come at pace to keep up with the rewards that are going out per month.
Short term issue I hope.
Looking at node numbers, I think that incentive is clearly too high,
I don’t know what you’re trying to accomplish, but if you want to buy ANT the shortest way, you don’t have to buy it on DEX,then send USD to your Binance account (if you have an account, you may have to go through KYC there), in Binance convert USD to USDT (you can do a very favourable swap) and send USDT via the Binance BEP20 chain without fees to your Bitmart account, and buy ANT there. Then you can send ANT to MetaMask.
ANT has only just been launched and probably the costs of launching a Fiat → ANT exchange are too high for now, someday there will surely be such an exchange pair possible .
Isn’t this just something that will balance eventually? Node operators will scale up till a certain point of profitability. If you reduce the rewards, nodes will scale down and it will come just as profitable again. What I would expect is that the team thought of what network mass they would want at the early stages. This could be for whatever reason, partner data size required, network mass for less vulnerabilities etc.
If you compare it to other early phase crypto projects, the emission really isn’t even that big. Plus we need the liquidity in the market for buyers that want to upload & exchanges look at volume too to determine if they want to list or not.
I dont see the emission in general as a problem, but the lack of inflow of new people is. If that changes, I really don’t think price suppression
is something we have to worry about.
There are different angles to view it at for sure.
Dynamic node rewards are entirely irrelevant at this time.
The design is intended to increase rewards to nodes when space is needed, clearly space is far far far from needed, yet people are incentivised to pour nodes onto the network.
Idk, it doesn’t seems blanced and anything that is not balanced eventually falls over.
I agree, and honestly I think the team agrees too. What I expect happend is that they had something planned for after launch (bux mentioned an node update as early as last Thursday), but for some reason it didn’t happen yet. Could be the upload issue, I also saw a post where someone was able to upload without paying etc. so I’m expecting the team to be busy fixing fires left and right again, and really no time to review the reward schedule which is just really time consuming. It’s all just speculation of course, but if they would be working on adjusting the emission for the reasons you just mentioned I’d start to worry because that’s the moment they acknowledge that the time invesment is worth it because the state of the network is probably not changing anything soon.
I’ve said elsewhere that I run thousands (not tens of thousands) of nodes and don’t intend to sell even one ANT for several years. I haven’t gone into my strategy so I’ll summarize it.
My strategy has three phases; node ops, build, promote.
Three years from now, the initial value of ANT will finally be known to me, and I’ll consider selling some. Until then, it’s Bitcoin pizza.
Regarding payouts, they were much more lavish in the first 48 hours of the network being live when there were far fewer nodes. It appears to me that there’s a fixed amount being disbursed twice daily, evenly spread across the quantity of nodes. To have substantial infra onhand at the snap of fingers makes the payouts pretty reasonable, and pretty soon any ‘gold rush’ will be over. At that point of equilibrium, only shrewd node ops and casual home users will remain.
I don’t really know how to say this without it seeming like a jab. To be clear it is not, I run a stupid amount of nodes too.
But my feel is that any resistance to my argument of rewards are too high will come from large node ops who feel it is a make hay while the sun shines moment.
No that’s fine. So are you offering to come over and run all my infra for pennies? 
It’s not unfair though, large node ops are taking a substantial risk, its not a small investment.
So all good 
I feel they’re unnecessary & could be better used incentivising app devs etc… or put aside for that when that becomes possible.
I shared that on Discord and Bux said some more info next week may clarify the teams thinking on this, so we’ll see.
Maybe there’s a reason the team wants a massive network of empty nodes for testing purposes or something, but beta already showed big node numbers work.
We also know that nodes will join very rapidly when incentives are there, so there’s no need to worry about space running out when demand increases; the only concern should be ensuring there is demand for uploading data.
The biggest issue for me is that the unnecessary nodes mean the network is basically empty, which suppresses the store cost so nodes won’t get paid anything much from uploads (theoretically, as right now node ANT payments are broken, with uploads being free in ANT terms. (Edit: uploads are now working well at least for small files!).
For now, the only people who get paid when we upload to Autonomi is ETH / Arbitrum node operators. While it’s early days, having too many nodes will mean it takes longer before uploading actually pays nodes significantly.
Saying all this, TGE must have been a huge focus for the team, along with getting the launch network out there and working on top priority issues with the network’s performance (working on fixing uploads , payments etc), so tweaking the payments to nodes probably isn’t a huge priority, and I don’t think it’ll cause any lasting problems.
