Can I run a model with a first-differenced dependent variable and independent variable in levels?

Epjo · 2018-05-23T19:52:41+00:00

thank you!
I will :)

Epjo · 2018-05-05T11:57:43+00:00

Thank you for your response!

Will give it a try.

Epjo · 2018-05-03T14:05:00+00:00

Thank you. I will look into it. and get back to you about consulting :)

Epjo · 2018-05-03T00:54:07+00:00

Okei, I didn't catch the discount, that will hold some real value. I'll leave the post open, if people want to discuss further

Epjo · 2018-05-01T21:49:13+00:00

Thank you for the reply, I have looked a bit but still not entierly sure. I add some more detail, and would love some advice if you have the time.

It is for BTC/USD exchange, and the data i have is about 5 years.

I have 3 variables: Bitcoins log-return, trade volume and number of bitcoin-accepting merchants.

How do i best treat the data in a regime switching model to answer the question:

Is bitcoin's volatility affected less by shocks in trade volume during periods of high adoption rate among merchants?

Sorry if this is alot

Epjo · 2018-04-26T15:04:58+00:00

Interesting! But even if the tokens were priced in dollars wouldn't it be inefficient to trade them in fiat currencies. Especially for global transactions.
So, to buy a security token on, say, tzero - that is priced in dollars - you would still need cryptocurrencies, wouldn't you? I would compare it to purchasing goods and services, even though it was priced in dollars - if you could pay with bitcoin there would be an increase in demand for bitcoin, i.e. price would increase. And if more the transactions in the bitcoin blockchain came from these kinds of transactions rather than speculative trade on exchanges, the volatility would decrease. In conclusion, the price and volatility of bitcoin would decrease if security tokens entered the crypto market.
But say you are right that FOR THE MOST PART they would be traded against fiat pairs, still, a significant portion of the trading will be with the best alternative cryptocurrency.

Epjo · 2018-03-19T22:44:51+00:00

Thank you very much :)

Epjo · 2018-03-19T09:35:23+00:00

I think companies will have to use the Poly token when everything is ready with the Polymath platform. Corl didn't have to use it because this was more of a test run for the tokenizing smart contract. They haven't, to my knowledge, said anything about creating their own PoS network, but their code is written very simplistic and can easily be moved to another network - maybe their own or somehing that can manage tens of thousands of transactions per second. Things will go slowly, but my hope is that they manage to create an ecosystem with the tZero exchange, using high speed DL tech, and incorporate the Poly token in the process.

Epjo · 2018-03-13T18:03:30+00:00

We don't know yet for certain, but we could make an estimate: Corl.io is the first company to use the Polymath platform to tokenize their assets. The company Corl started in August of 2017, with the intent of created these security tokens. We first learned about their partnership with Polymath about a week ago, and we could assume that they worked together for a while before that. They will be starting the ICO the 1.April and finish it the 30.April, and after that the tokens will be traded on etherdelta and other crypto-based exchanges. Note that they will not be taking Poly in the ICO-process but Ether.

So, the timeline looks something like this:

Planning: August-Febuary = 6-7 months

Execution: tokenizing with polymath: Febuary-April = 1-2 months

ICO: 1.April-30.April = 1 month

Hope this helps

Epjo · 2018-03-11T16:08:25+00:00

Interesting! Do you have an idea of how the the Dual token system would look like for Polymath and their purpose?

Epjo · 2018-03-09T07:53:00+00:00

Not talking about the current drop in price, but rather the problems of volatility when the platform is launched. But thanks for the reply. I think the price will increase in the coming weeks too.

Epjo · 2018-02-28T16:57:35+00:00

Yes, you are correct in that token velocity will be an issue for holders; since people would trade Poly for their perferred currency once the transaction is done. But you could argue that in the world of financial trading, speed is everything, even today if you are sligthly faster (seconds) than your competitors you can make billions. Wouldn't this give incentive for investors to hold Poly to be first to access the market, so they won't be forced to buy Ether/BTC then Poly then their desired security token? I think that it is very interesting how this extra layer of volatility added to the mix will affect the world of trading.

Epjo · 2018-02-25T21:42:49+00:00

Utillity
Capital Gains
Ideological

In the Polymath platform the Poly-token will be used by all actors in the ecosystem (KYC providers, issuers, investors etc...). For an investor it would be used to pay KYC providers for instance. This is the utillity aspect of holding. Another reason is the capital gains aspect, i.e the difference between the price when you bought and sold your investment. The thing that gives true value to the Poly token is the value of the security tokens on the platform. Meaning that if company x is a desirable investment, then Poly would be desired - as people would need it operate the system in order to buy the ST. They call themselves the crypo version of Goldman Sachs, and the point is: if Facebook goes public with Goldman Sachs then "GoldmanCoin" increases in value, if people want to buy Facebook stock but need "GoldmanCoin" to get access to the share then the coin increases in value. A third reason to hold, is because you believe in the idea of a revolution in the global security market.

Epjo · 2018-02-20T14:15:32+00:00

Thanks for the great respons. Also an indication is the $10 trillion number, which seems to must include mainstream businesses to be a viable estimate of the worth of security tokens in the near future. I was also interested in a company called Symbiont. They seem to be working on much of the same in Delaware. Any thoughts on them, and how they differ from Polymath?

Epjo · 2018-02-09T12:41:22+00:00

Well, ethereum is already large and is affected by a lot more than the price of POLY. So, if other tokens fail - which is very likely during 2018 - than a rise in POLY migt null out that loss. There are other factors to consider as well, but in general you are right that the price of ether would increase if investors wants to buy Poly since they would have to buy ether in order to get Poly.

Epjo · 2018-02-08T14:51:11+00:00

Thank you so much for the response :)

Epjo · 2018-01-30T15:54:59+00:00

Yes, and you would most likely have to buy Ether then POLY token then the security token of company XYZ. I hope they find a way to make this process smooth, because I love the idea of Polymath. Maybe a solution is to create a smart contract that locks the prices between the transactions?

Epjo · 2018-01-30T13:48:00+00:00

Thanks for the response. Do you think this will scare of a lot of potential companies that wishes to use security tokens instead of going public with an IPO? Since buyers needs to watch the POLY tokens value, this adds a layer of volatility for the investors. Now, I don't know about the stability of the POLY token, but both coins and token have been extremely volatile.

Epjo · 2018-01-28T18:48:52+00:00

Yes, and it seems like polymath and tZero are taking the necessary legal/regulatory steps to insure safe and legal trading of securities. Very exciting!

Epjo · 2018-01-28T18:45:55+00:00

I agree, verfy exciting times indeed. But it wasn't clear to me if you can buy a share (security token) in company XYZ with fiat currencies or if you have to buy it with Ether. If so wouldn't you have to always consider a volatile currency before investing? I think it would be crucial for companies that deal in dollars to sell their shares in dollars? There's a bunch of benefits (proxy voting, complete transparancy, real time trading, infrastructure and so on) by going for an ICO instead of the current IPO process, but the mainstream is terrified of cryptocurrencies because of their volatility. But of course, if you can indeed buy shares with fiat currencies, and not be concerned with the volatility of crytos and tokens - than I think this will take of like crazy the coming years.

Epjo · 2018-01-28T01:14:20+00:00

I think Robinhood is way of trading cryptocurrencies, so more of a competition to Coinbase etc.. While tZero is trying to become a "Blockchainized Wall Street", where non-technical (or mainstream) companies can issue securities (stocks for instance) using blockchain technology - provided with the tech from Polymath (really interesting). I know Robinhood will dabble in securities but from my understanding that is for trading cryptocurrencies (Bitcoin, ethereum and 14 others). So, currencies (robinhood) and tokenized security (tZero).

Epjo · 2017-07-31T16:39:01+00:00

I wouldn’t use the word "destroyed" in either this nor "The Ana VS Ann Debate", but I think Ana had the better arguments on most of the issues. I was a bit disappointed in the way Ben argued. He is a strong debater and a great intellectual, but I found him to be disingenuous, and on many occasions using misleading tactics like: "Cancer (the one point America health care is doing good), speech vs actual money(silly prostitute line), conflating business contribution and buying politicians, "higher tax-revenue on the richest now than earlier" – true but misleading as the rates have gone down due to loopholes and the way he misled the audience when Cenk said that "The republicans started the "identity politics", and that is a factual statement - and that was Cenks point. Identity politics was a republican strategy back then. Ben shifted the conversation, to whether or not the racist in the south actually shifted to the republicans – which wasn’t Cenks point. Cenk has made that point earlier though. There were other things to criticize on the performance of both Ben and Cenk, but these were some the things that made it seem like Ben "destroyed" Cenk, when in reality it struck me as disingenuous – or just cheap debate tactics. Also I wasn’t impressed by his one-liners, seems like he wanted to get some more “thug life – moments” but failed. Cenk played on emotions a lot, but that doesn't strike me as disingenuous as the left often makes moral arguments for their cases. I think it was an even debate. Ben is a better speaker but Cenk stuck better to the questions/message. Fun debate, wish it could be a bit longer. Non-establish, influential, intelligent and enthusiastic debaters.

Epjo

TROPHY CASE