I dont want to be devils advocate really as I really want the project to succeed. However I would not underestimate the pushback of companies to do a “one off” if the return is not clearly there.
Even if the actual implementation is just a bit of scripting, for an exchange that means:
Setting development ressources on the project
Testing
Documentation
Training to handle and maintain the integration
Support
…
This means its much higher costs than just a few clicks to add the 1001th ERC trading pair.
And this all for one new token with historically super low trading volume? I really think we will face high onboarding fee requests with the new token.
Exactly. This will be the work of the promotion team to work with the exchanges to firstly convince them of the worth and secondly provide technical assistance if needed.
I’d say testing is the biggest factor, the most work. But since there is no need to work with blockchain NODES and the challenges of that but instead having high level interface the code base should be a lot smaller to interface with their existing systems.
The interface using APIs or CLI is high level and very little processing power needed. None of this accessing a 100GB database that blockchains are, in order to just verify a balance and transaction is valid.
But all in all my estimation is that it will be a lot simpler than it was for them to implement an interface for ETH itself.
Don’t forget though they also will be charging fees for deposits and withdrawals. To cover their processing costs (compute and development) and make some profit on dealing with the token on your behalf.
I would have thought those who converted to eMaid did so in order to trade, not hold. Whereas holders like me are simply keeping the Omni version until network launch.
I agree with your statement. I never converted any Omni Maid to eMAID… but did acquire new eMAID and did sell a part off it… (short term buy/sell over many months). Don’t regret the decision…
But yeah, I will hold my omni maid for a really long time… (even after post network launch)… .
I converted, but am still hodling for the foreseeable future. I chose to do so for the flexibility. If the price suddenly skyrockets I can pivot my plans if I decide to. If I left it in Omni, I’m forced to hold.
There was a question yesterday on what would happen if the fiat price of a network token got very large, lets say GBP 1,000,000, would that stop the network functioning as a data storage network.
Well… last time I checked network tokens are divisible, wouldn’t that mean that if the population could only afford to buy fractions of coin the network itself would adjust and reduce the token price per chunk to meet the market storage resources needs and available network customer funds?
We have two markets… Fiat <> Coin, and Coin<>Storage and I think each market will meet the demands of the participators.
That was my question, and it was based on the fact that the network has a hard bottom price of 30. WP does not indicate what units those 30 are. Are they whole coins, millis, micros, nanos or what? @JimCollinson didn’t answer that question yesterday. (Turns out they are nanos, according to @neo )
Anyway, when we have a hard set lowest price, the further division does not change that. I think nanos are small enough to not have to worry.
But just to illustrate the reasoning of my question, imagine if they were whole tokens. In that case, one chunk, which is likely to be 0.5MB, would cost 30 tokens at minimum. At the current MAID price that would be about 15 USD. Now who would pay that, or more to store 0.5MB? But as long as the lowest price is low enough, no worries.
More about this here:
And on the other hand, if the lowest price wouldn’t have a cap, but it would be zero, then your reasoning about divisibility would hold.
Honestly if it was 1 million pounds per token, then the 10.5% (450 million MAID) converted to token would then be worth 455,000,000,000,000 pounds. Then of course there is the other 19.5% at genesis. That is then 1,288 Trillion Pounds
1288 Trillion Pounds is more than the world’s combined GDP. Do you really think it could come close before an upgrade would be done. And thats not considering the emissions that have occurred by that stage. So maybe 2000 or 3000 Trillion Pounds by then
But 30 nanos at 1 million pounds per token is then 3 pence per chunk. (30 pounds per GB) Yes too much but there is a lot of incentive for pricing to be updated long before then. Also an upgrade can increase the decimals for divisions and have picos
The point was that 1 million pounds per token is not feasible. Not that fiat could match it, but that the cost per token is not in a vacuum. People have to have the cash to buy the token or else the price HAS to drop. So 1 million pounds per token is unrealistic by a large margin.
fiat hyperinflation would only mean that the cost per token (or price per BTC) would massively increase too. The GDP of the world could not cover the equivalent of todays 1 million pounds
ANT holders to transact.
.