It’s in no small part due to massive ICO events where spin-off coins with no utility and no actual value generate millions and millions of dollars in imaginary value through pump and dump schemes, because there’s no realistic way to short sell them and everyone involved has a vested interest in the price rising.
Yes. That's the entire point of having a futures market - generally, the producers of a commodity will be net short the futures contract in order to de-risk their productive investment. Buying a mining rig trades todays dollars for future BTC. Shorting a BTC futures trades future BTC for todays dollars.
These will be derivatives, not actual bitcoins. When you enter a contract you will only care about the price level of the Bitcoin Reference Rate, the contracts aren't holding any actual bitcoins, so there is nothing to hack and steal.
I'm not sure if that's accurate though. If a large quantity of coins disappeared, surely that would have ripple effects through to even the most convoluted derivatives?
I usually write down everything and then go back through and determine what's worthwhile. There's almost always gold that I never would have remembered had I not written it down.
Filecoin? Consider Bit Torrent seeding/bandwidth. It is too cheap to count for at least 10 years. Even tit-for-tat is no longer necessary since LEDBAT was rolled out (circa 2010).
The stuff they are going to count "on the blockchain" is too cheap to count! Well, and blockchain transactions are kind of expensive and slow.
See the problem?
the question was to name legitimate businesses doing ICOs. filecoin is certainly legitimate. You are talking about how their tech might fail and how their business might not work. that's great, and you could very well be correct, but that's not what we are discussing here
I am rather certain that guys consumed less-legal substances while drafting their whitepapers. That is my top reason not to consider their business "legitimate".
ok, to those who didn't get my point.
Everyone is certainly entitled to make up their own definition of "legitimate". However, as long as we are all speaking English, we can agree on what legitimate means. And it means the following:
le·git·i·mate
adjective
adjective: legitimate
ləˈjidəmət/
1.
conforming to the law or to rules.
"his claims to legitimate authority"
so, it's great to have a learned opinion on filecoin's tech, but its irrelevant to the discussion of whether filecoin is a legitimate business
I find it interesting that a self professed lawyer would create an account on a technology news website during an election year and regularly post against government regulation. How do you have so much time to argue against climate change and other "liberal" topics?
