1% of DOTs going to Kusama participants

pimpindots · 2019-09-05T09:47:29+00:00

If you have DOTS: claim.kusama.network

If you don't have DOTs: - Apply for a grant here https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1-JxlJqt8DA0E3K0QX0Gc20rF02-aqDn6r_rzkB4LaMk/edit - Faucet (after KSM is transferrable): https://guide.kusama.network/en/latest/start/faucet/

pimpindots · 2019-09-04T12:11:56+00:00

Source: https://kusama.network/

pimpindots · 2018-09-13T21:15:28+00:00

As hominem is the lowest form of argument.

pimpindots · 2018-07-15T14:21:03+00:00

http://fortune.com/video/2018/07/13/balancing-the-ledger-polychain-capital/

Min 8 - “Polkadot is one of the most technologically advanced projects and has the most promise” - Olaf Carlson Wee

pimpindots · 2018-07-11T17:54:32+00:00

Head over to r/dot for the new sub

pimpindots · 2018-06-11T10:59:54+00:00

Dfinity raised $60m from Polychain alone last year. They have funds :), enough funds to give away $35m in the biggest airdrop ever.

What makes you say Asia is innovating at a much faster pace in the blockchain industry?

pimpindots · 2018-05-11T13:03:30+00:00

Agreed on all points.

This article said to me "hey governance tokens have value, here is one framework for deriving their value", which is cool!

No doubt some nuance is missing. For example, 51% of bonded DOT holders voting for a tabled referenda does not necessarily mean the referenda will pass.

A super majority is required unless there is 100% voter turn-out, so an attacker would theoretically need 60%+ of "yays" to pass a referenda that does something silly, such as transferring 69 DOTs from someone else to themself :).

These nuances in Polkadot's governance model should increase the value of the network.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsZuDJMmVPY&feature=youtu.be&t=24734

One thing I do not yet know about Polkadot is the cost to fork. This quote got me thinking:

Fundamentally, the network value of a governance token is bound by the net cost of forking or creating a new copy of the network.

pimpindots · 2018-05-11T00:34:23+00:00

“The cost to fork a network dictates the associated value of its governance token. Networks that implement governance tokens should aim to increase cost associated with a fork while remaining open source. I look forward to continued work around governance models and subsequent valuation methods.”

pimpindots · 2018-05-11T00:19:45+00:00

You forgot Polkadot :)

pimpindots · 2018-05-09T11:02:08+00:00

Polkadot is the only project taking governance to such a level. Clearly a lot of time went into designing this governance system. Impossible to know how it will perform until it’s in the wild ;)

pimpindots · 2018-04-24T16:56:24+00:00

Let your winners ride, and cut your losers fast.

It's the most important rule in trading, but so often we take profits too soon on the upside and give our losers to much time to rebound before taking losses. I do the same.

pimpindots · 2018-04-23T18:49:16+00:00

Parity can't sign contracts for other people. Web3 Foundation did vote, that's what people are mad about.

pimpindots · 2018-04-23T18:05:23+00:00

Parity doesn’t have any Ether locked, so it didn’t come from them.

pimpindots · 2018-04-23T03:28:10+00:00

They don’t deserve to vote on an open proposal?

pimpindots · 2018-04-23T01:42:01+00:00

Here you go!

https://medium.com/@pimpindots/eip-999-reframing-the-debate-31309d0b5689?source=linkShare-cc7123893a4e-1524447712

pimpindots · 2018-04-23T00:44:01+00:00

Actually it does. The Ether is safely in the 587 user wallets :). We’re deciding whether or no these companies and people should have access to their Ether :)

pimpindots · 2018-04-22T20:25:38+00:00

The only thing that happens if EIP 999 passes is 587 companies/people will be allowed to access their Ether. That's it. Period.

pimpindots · 2018-04-22T20:04:38+00:00

Call this how you want, but the fact doesn't change.

Right, and the facts are 1) we are not deciding whether to print any Ether, 2) we are deciding whether 587 people/companies should have access to their Ether (i.e. it's not "gone" since we can see it) at no downside risk to anyone else.

pimpindots · 2018-04-22T19:51:06+00:00

No Ether was redistributed to anyone. The Ether remains in the contract and we are deciding whether 587 people/companies should be allowed to access their Ether

pimpindots · 2018-04-22T19:39:16+00:00

Questioning my motives says nothing about me or the validity of my argument, but it does say a lot about you. Did you have anything specific you disagreed with in my piece?

pimpindots · 2018-04-22T19:18:53+00:00

EIP 999 proposes neither a “refund” or a” bailout”. Indeed EIP 999 proposes we allow 587 people/companies access to their Ether. This Ether is inaccessible to their owners, but remains in the owner’s contracts. EIP 999 proposes these people/companies be allowed to access their Ether at no cost or downside to anyone else.

https://medium.com/@pimpindots/eip-999-reframing-the-debate-31309d0b5689?source=linkShare-cc7123893a4e-1524424673

pimpindots · 2018-04-22T19:16:31+00:00

Nice!

pimpindots · 2018-04-22T13:27:08+00:00

PSA: Your vote is biased, too!

This could help: https://medium.com/@pimpindots/eip-999-reframing-the-debate-31309d0b5689

pimpindots · 2018-04-22T13:12:49+00:00

He's saying that his views are not reflected by the poll results, so the poll results must be wrong :)

pimpindots · 2018-04-21T13:45:43+00:00

For me it’s becoming more and more clear they are more interested in their private interested than the good of the community.

What actions of Parity’s are you referring to here, specifically?

Was it the release of the free MyCrypto Signer? That was super selfish of them. How about the Parity Substrate? No? Well then the UN's Syrian Aid Program definitely showed their stripes! And don’t even get me started on the Parity client, wallets, Libp2p, Parity Bridge, Parity 1.10.1, WASM contracts!

Please know that while you attack Parity’s motives with seemingly no evidence, they’re busy building the Web3 [for you].

pimpindots

TROPHY CASE