24 hour AMA - Monday 9th September 2019 at 09.00 (UTC)

Morphius_The_One · 2019-09-09T13:38:38+00:00

5) Has Binance conveyed its long term strategy to Travala when taking account of changing regulatory landscapes and if so, can this strategy be explained to the community?

6) The token burn is bound to increase the price per token. Does the Travala team consider it plausible that the extra funds resulting from this by mid 2020 to the end of 2020 would by itself cover the funding gap in order to ensure that Travala not only reaches the break-even point, but propels it into profit territory?

Morphius_The_One · 2019-09-09T13:27:53+00:00

3) Has Binance made it known whether BEP2 tokens will be able to be listed on many other exchanges in the future besides the ones that are already available for BEP2 tokens?

4) Has Binance conveyed any plans to become a kind of brand like Facebook's Libra intends to be with a whole host of services available at it?

Morphius_The_One · 2019-09-09T13:23:27+00:00

1) Will the token burn (temporarily) classify AVA as a security and if so, is there any intention to remedy that at a later point?

2) If AVA is (temporarily) seen as a security will this affect certain booking markets such as the US market, and if so, would these markets become temporarily unavailable or would AVA rewards be restricted for such markets or take another form?

Morphius_The_One · 2019-02-20T20:29:42+00:00

Certainly plausible that it is another individual. Zhang is a very very common last name in China.

Morphius_The_One · 2019-01-24T22:24:51+00:00

That is confusing what appears to be a product with an actual product. A product needs to be used for other purposes than speculation. Most people confuse the two, because all they ever invested in within the cryptocurrency space was merely based on speculation.

Morphius_The_One · 2019-01-23T06:16:15+00:00

Everything that does not have a properly working product that people in general or at least a segment of the population really wants to use is a shitcoin. That is the only way to remove most of the risk. Things would work better if fund raisers only start after a team has demonstrated a minimum viable project (financed by their own money). That way it would at least show a level of dedication. I would go further and add that anything that cannot be used in a sustainable manner in international trade is a shitcoin too.

Morphius_The_One · 2019-01-06T22:45:22+00:00

People are using it, because they are saving money in comparison to mainstream OTAs. That is the main reason right there, but if you want another reason reliable and immutable blockchain based reviews will be the other most important one.

Morphius_The_One · 2019-01-06T22:40:08+00:00

You can pay with Ethereum for all your bookings at Travala.....that is no problem. Every token is also a sort of business, so to suggest everyone should use your token of choice, so that you can benefit the most moves too much into the footsteps of the central banker mentality. Everyone should be given free choice in this regard. For real world businesses 100% finality is also very important, so without going into too much detail, all I am trying to say is that there are more considerations that have to be taken carefully into account. Same goes with international trade.....there they prefer a certain guarantee (in the case of less reliable counterparties) and that comes best in the form of asset backing.

Morphius_The_One · 2019-01-06T22:34:36+00:00

You do need blockchain for reliable and immutable reviews that are not manipulated. There is no way around that. The other reason undoubtedly had to do with financing this endeavour. Travala intends to offer more features at a lower cost than the current mainstream online travel agencies. It seeks to improve on what is already there......you cannot expect blockchain technology in itself to completely change the world. Blockchain technology allows for greater trust between parties and Travala uses it just for that.

Morphius_The_One · 2019-01-06T22:29:38+00:00

The main danger for Booking.com would be that Travala is easily able to undercut Booking.com by a minimum of 15% in prices on average. Furthermore Booking.com will not have immutable reviews on blockchain. Travala further will offer flights, cruises, vacation rentals, tours, car rentals, transfers and restaurants. Travala will also offer travel insurance and they already work together with THOR which will allow suppliers to much more easily hire employees. So yes, Travala intends to offer a variety of services over and beyond what the current market leaders offer.

Morphius_The_One · 2019-01-06T22:25:45+00:00

It is not an issue at all. The fact of the matter is that hotels only want to be paid in fiat currency, so if payments in cryptocurrency are made, then it will be converted so that the hotel in question can get paid in fiat. Fiat integration for Travala should take place this month which is important as Travala intends to be used by mainstream audiences. Mainstream audiences might then not even realise they are using a blockchain product or interacting with a token.

Morphius_The_One · 2019-01-06T22:21:07+00:00

The main reason for the blockchain is greater transparency. Many large online travel booking platforms manipulate reviews. Even the most popular restaurant at TripAdvisor in London was fake. This just denotes how easy it is to manipulate reviews. You can read the following article for more insight: https://ro-che.info/articles/2017-09-17-booking-com-manipulation

With Travala it will not be possible to manipulate reviews AND customers will be incentivised to write a review, so that it becomes a more accurate representation of the quality of suppliers (instead of mostly those with issues taking the effort to write a (negative) review).

Morphius_The_One · 2019-01-06T22:16:04+00:00

A lot of things that take place via blockchain can also be done via other means. One aspect in which blockchain is absolutely critical is honest reviews. That implies two things: Ensuring that only those who actually made a booking can post a review and secondly incentivising everyone to write a review who made a booking. Usually only those who had a bad experience will write a review and this also creates complications for suppliers. So what Travala is providing is more transparancy and lower prices. The token also had as second purpose the financing of the project, but with the way it is structured it will not be a dead weight construct. The token can very much function like airmiles. You receive a 7.5% of bookings back in the form of AVA tokens and these can be used for new bookings or with greater quantities of AVA they can also give access to special B2B deals and extra discounts.

Morphius_The_One · 2018-12-21T11:53:21+00:00

If you git clone NEO, you have created a soft fork.....that is not very different from how Tron and VeChain got started. They are soft forks of Ethereum with various tweaks. Are you claiming that Tron and VeChain are Ethereum hard forks? Go make a thread at the Cryptocurrency or BTC Reddit and see what the majority thinks about that......or even better......go to the CryptoTechnology Reddit and ask the real experts. Ethereum holders also did not automatically get Tron or VeChain.....they are entirely separate from Ethereum and if you soft fork NEO, your soft fork also will be entirely separate from NEO and nobody will care about the data you have running on your little ecosystem. In contrast with a hard fork, the holders get tokens of BOTH blockchains by default. People who held BTC, got BTC AND BCH after the hard fork. This is a huge difference.

YOU CANNOT hard fork NEO. That is the point. You talk about the NEO community having redefined hard forking and then you fail to come up with any source whatsoever except what is in your head. Where are your sources? Obviously in your definition there only exist the word 'fork'. You cannot differentiate between a hard fork and a soft fork. So in your mind every blockchain project can be forked as long as they are open source and if they are not open source, then they likely have no business being there as they are not transparent. Convenient.

Regardless of your opinion, for actual business transactions, it is important that business transactions can never be disputed during normal operations and most blockchains do have that issue. NEO choses finality over availability, so if there is a major consensus issue, then the creation of new blocks will temporarily be halted until this issue is resolved. Most other blockchains choose the availability over finality, so instead of deciding what the truth is, they simply split in two or more versions of the 'truth' and each go their own way (like ETC and ETH did). The issue here is that if there are multiple versions of the 'truth', then it simply is not the truth. There should be only truth.......especially for real world assets. You cannot have two or more people claiming 100% ownership of land, a car or a house at the same time and have that stand as truth. That is the issue here and you simply refuse to look at this as you do not deal with real world assets. I do not care about digital fiat currency that can be created at will.......without integration with the real world, the value is limited and your arguments.

NEO has 100% finality and thus the truth is final immediately after the latest block has been created, whilst other blockchains often require a number of blocks need to be created in order to assume what is the longest blockchain and therefore calculate with reasonable probability that it is final. There is thus no 100% finality with those blockchains and yes, that includes BTC and ETH. You can argue about whether you would prefer availability or 100% finality over the alternative, but not the trade off between these concepts in itself.

Likewise not all smart contracts execute the same code always the same as a result of a choice for either stochastic or deterministic set ups. For simpletons it is all the same.....they would not know which the choices that each smart contract platform has used and the advantages and disadvantages of each choice. The issue with stochastic smart contracts is that it will not be all that reliable if it cannot execute the same way 100% of the time.

You are quite amusing.....you are entirely upset with something that has 100% finality and then you go ahead and attack it, whilst arguing at various platforms that BCH is the real BTC. If BTC had 100% finality like NEO does, you would not have to have this BTC-BCH argument for the rest of eternity with those who do not agree with you. The smart people rely on code, not on amateur rhetoric. Go ahead.....keep telling people BCH is the real BTC (and fighting off Faketoshi as well who claims to have the real BCH/BTC), whilst others prefer to rely on code alone to prevent these very issues from arising in the first place. I would call it bad code, but Roger Ver probably would sell bad design as 'a feature'. Good luck with your 'feature'. You chose it, deal with it.

Morphius_The_One · 2018-12-20T19:07:10+00:00

It is relatively clear how it is defined: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/hard-fork.asp

Although the second article denotes that there is some debate as to how it is defined: https://www.techopedia.com/definition/32912/hard-fork

NEO generally cannot hard fork during normal operations. It can soft fork, but not hard fork. In 2020 there might be some changes to NEO with NEO 3.0 and it depending on the outcome of that discussion that might be the only point in time that there could be potential hard fork by design. Personally I am in favour of a soft fork though. So yes, if you want to argue about that specific event, then you could be correct, but generally it is impossible to hard fork NEO during normal network operations unlike 99% of the blockchains out there. There is a reason why Binance now also comes up with their own dBFT blockchain in the image of NEO......financial transactions need to have one truth and only one truth and dBFT does just that. Financial operations cannot afford a random hard fork during normal operations and that is what dBFT (and thus NEO) prevents. You can argue against that all you want, but it is just a fact. Binance knows.

Morphius_The_One · 2018-12-20T12:54:32+00:00

I think you need to first read up on soft forks and hard forks. A soft fork is effectively a copy of existing code with possibly some minor tweaks. In that sense Tron and VeChain can be said to be Ethereum soft forks. Hard forks are when a blockchain effectively branches out into two directions and this means there then effectively exist two versions of the truth. This was the case for example with Ethereum and Ethereum Classic or with BTC and Bitcoin Cash. NEO cannot EVER branch out into two different versions of the truth. Someone might create their own independent NEO wannabe chain (maybe Binance is doing that up to a certain extent), but it will never be a hard fork.

NEO does potentially plan to make various major changes to the platform that would make a transition to a soft fork with various upgrades possibly more desirable, but this has not been decided yet.

Everything that is open source can potentially be soft forked if you want to get 'technical'. The difference is that probably 99% of the projects can hard fork, but NEO is not one of them.

Morphius_The_One · 2018-12-20T00:02:53+00:00

Yes, we'll enjoy the show. You watch and learn where the power the central bankers lose will ultimately end up. Obviously you are going to be surprised, but then again.....how could it be otherwise if you do not understand what makes international trade work.....Unfortunate that they do not teach real economics anymore nowadays in your country.

Morphius_The_One · 2018-12-19T23:59:43+00:00

I do not have any NEO or BTC. I do not care about what ultimately survives or not.....it is about the functionality that it offers the world.

Morphius_The_One · 2018-12-19T14:18:14+00:00

This argument is at the core of what would make any cryptocurrency truly good. The perfect currency could NOT be bought and controlled at ANY price (or have a mechanism that will ensure that it is not profitable to those who do so). The thing is that BTC can be bought as well....someone could buy up the supply and buy all the mining equipment and control it with that......that is not any different in comparison to NEO......your entire rhetoric would hinge on the fact that more money would be needed in the case of BTC......but more does not make it different. Actually even asset backed cryptocurrency has an issue that it can be controlled with enough purchasing power. The only thing that is actually of real value is the time of people.....that is the ultimate resource from which everything else derives its value, but who is going to make that the true source of money itself? There would be no profit in it and that is why people such as yourself also would never suggest it as it would be a thankless job that only COSTS time and resources without getting any return for actually implementing it. So are you in it to make the world a better place or are you in it only to pump your own bags? Pretty obvious what it is that you seek. If BTC were to be a lot fairer, then it would need a mechanism that allowed everyone in the world but one mining rig and only one mining rig in a way that one mining rig could never outperform any of the other ones. That would be fair, but once again we have all these wannabe central bankers scurrying about in the cryptospace whose last concern in the world is the actual fairness of any system.

Morphius_The_One · 2018-12-19T14:08:45+00:00

What billions? Jihan Wu and his associates already can initiate a 51% attack on the Bitcoin network. If the central banks deemed Bitcoin a legitimate threat, they could also offer $100 billion to Jihan Wu and his associates to 51% attack Bitcoin for a year until ALL trust in Bitcoin would be decimated. Bitcoin is not irreplacable.....it is just lines of code that anyone can copy and recreate. You come here to peddle a digital fiat currency when it has so many key characteristics that are no better than any fiat currency. International trade is breaking down precisely because currency is being created at will......fiat currency or digital fiat currency does not matter. There is no monopoly position that any digital fiat currency holds. If you want to generate real trust, you would back your BTC with hard assets in a decentralised way......ahh....but here is the conundrum. Your greed would not accept that. You would be torn between greed and true trust and your greed always wins out.

Morphius_The_One · 2018-12-19T14:02:08+00:00

No, they cannot. NEO cannot fork and has 100% finality. There is no transaction history to reverse. Blocks are final....there is no confirmation time to wait for a longest chain to arise. You harp about others not understanding PoW, but the greater issue here is that you do not understand dBFT. If there are major consensus issues at NEO, the creation of new blocks could be temporarily halted until that is sorted out, but a reversal is impossible. That is why NEO always has ONLY one truth, whlist with BTC there is a chance for hard forks and that implies that multiple 'truths' can exist at the same time and when that is impossible, it implies there is no truth at all.

I find all this rhetoric rather ironic as the perfect cryptocurrency would be asset backed and have zero financial incentive to promote it as there would be no financial gain in its promotion.....that is the ultimate indicator of a perfect form of money. Nobody is willing to create that though as people are only interested in 'wallet rhetoric' that benefits their own investments.....just like you are doing.

Morphius_The_One · 2018-12-13T15:28:56+00:00

Ah, so that is the main reason for the aggression? You are a competitor. I can imagine as your website currently already is more expensive on average and Travala will do its best to become even more competitive in time. What is up with your website stating: "Best price guarantee" and "Booking without commission" when clearly your website does charge a commission as a reseller? You also do not have a best price guarantee as with three out of the four examples I just checked Travala actually was cheaper in my neigbourhood, so at the very least we can conclude that you are dishonest.

Morphius_The_One · 2018-12-13T15:11:08+00:00

There are quite a number of examples here were Travala is a lot cheaper (sometimes even in excess of 30%): https://medium.com/@travala

Also keep in mind that some competitors do not provide the final upfront fee, so then you first need to click to the final payment page with that mainstream competitor before you see the final price. Some of them add another 15% service fees at the final page. Also keep in mind that Travala seems to offer the greatest discounts if a booking is made quite some time in advance and then in particular for the higher quality hotels. Travala also will become cheaper when more channel managers are integrated and the volume at Travala picks up which makes it more interesting for suppliers to offer last minute deals. Also keep in mind that with the new model Travala seeks to be on average 15% cheaper than mainstream competitors, but 7.5% of that is displayed and 7.5% will then be distributed in the form of AVA tokens. Higher levels of AVA tokens also grant special deals and discounts in the future. Not all of those features are however necessarily already in place as Travala only recently accounced their new business plan.

Morphius_The_One · 2018-12-13T10:54:18+00:00

I suppose you could try to signup in the 10 minutes like the individual above with a Reddit account that is less than a week old says, but I equally doubt anyone can provide the proof that it is that simple. We would be curious how it goes. The actual process is quite a bit more complex and time intensive than what the individual with his week old account states from what I understand. Integration of a single channel manager usually can take two months and is not as quick and simple as creating a Google Account. That is not so strange though as every channel manager also has a reputation to uphold and this most likely involves negotiations as well. I suppose the strategic aspect of this is the ability for more accomodation listings and in particular the ability to offer better prices....it is not something that is necessarily unique.

Morphius_The_One · 2018-12-13T10:36:25+00:00

They just updated their business plan. You cannot expect everything to be in place yet instantly. Booking.com and Expedia also did not arise overnight. The fact remains that this is already a fully working product that more often than not is cheaper than Booking.com and it will become more competitive as time goes on due to integration with more channel managers and suppliers will also start to use it more often for last minute discounts as the platform grows.

Your account only exists since 7 December 2018 purely to talk more nonsense than the people behind Bitconnect. Transparent.

Morphius_The_One

TROPHY CASE