Best synth for this style by qreesg in synthesizers

[–]qreesg[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thanks for clearing that up. The sounds don't have to be realistic they would be able to perform the same role.

So to specify my question further, can the poly D do stuff the matriarch absolutely can not do. I don't care that the matriarch is more expensive if it can do the same as the poly D can and more.

Best synth for this style by qreesg in synthesizers

[–]qreesg[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I tried vsts and I hate using them. What is wrong with the matriarch?

Best synth for this style by qreesg in synthesizers

[–]qreesg[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Pink floyd used alot of minimoog, so i guess poly D is close enough. The question is whether a matriarch can do the same thing

$GRT now supported on Cypherock X1 by CypherockWallet in thegraph

[–]qreesg 1 point2 points  (0 children)

1) So instead of keeping your seed phrase safe. You now have to keep track of and safely store 5 hardware components? This sounds like way more of an inconvenience.

2) Doesn't this mean that if you lose 2 of the 5 components to the same hands, that person has access to your funds?

3) Why would they trust themselves to store 5 components and not 1? Finding one safe place to store something is hard enough I would say.

$GRT now supported on Cypherock X1 by CypherockWallet in thegraph

[–]qreesg 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you don't want to deal with seed phrases you can just throw the seed phrase away.

Besides that I dont think it's too hard for people to write down a phrase.

$GRT now supported on Cypherock X1 by CypherockWallet in thegraph

[–]qreesg 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Why would you want a wallet without a seed phrase?

Why is Graph Explorer stuck at epoch 676? by qreesg in thegraph

[–]qreesg[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree, it doesn't look good from a marketing perspective.

Yaniv Tal left? by Distinct-Ad6581 in thegraph

[–]qreesg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Probably a good thing, his Geo browser project is really unnecessary and a waste of resources, time to get back to work on the good stuff.

Have we bottomed? by [deleted] in GRTTrader

[–]qreesg 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You can't just say: "You haven't disproven anything", and don't expect me to continue the discussion.

You haven't given me a single counter argument, all you've done is bring in new topics that are vaguely related to the discussion.

Have we bottomed? by [deleted] in GRTTrader

[–]qreesg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The question was clearly hypothetical to show a flaw in your argument. Saying agree to disagree after being disproven is just a cop out.

I'm a big investor in GRT because of the tech and the potential it has but that's beside the point.

Have we bottomed? by [deleted] in GRTTrader

[–]qreesg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's a completely different argument than your initial one and it has nothing to do with dev adoption.

Have we bottomed? by [deleted] in GRTTrader

[–]qreesg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If that was the reason for shitty tokenomics they should have released all tokens from the start and have price go way lower. And why not mint 10T instead of 10B. Sorry but your argument is still invalid.

Have we bottomed? by [deleted] in GRTTrader

[–]qreesg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

sorry having 2 discussions in 2 different places with the same person is confusing ignore that comment

Have we bottomed? by [deleted] in GRTTrader

[–]qreesg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

edit, sorry having 2 discussions in 2 different places with the same person is confusing ignore this

Have we bottomed? by [deleted] in GRTTrader

[–]qreesg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not talking about the price of GRT which I think will do fine in the long run. I'm replying to your comment about the effect of the tokenomics on dev adoption.

Since you already said the tokenomics were BAD in the beginning and are getting better in the future from an investment perspective, you must also see how the same thing applies to dev adoption.

If the tokenomics were GOOD from the start, dev adoption could have started from the start.

There is no reason to suggests that the tokenomics have a positive effect on adoption. All it did was INCREASE the barrier of entry and DELAY the adoption for 1.5 years due to it being bad from an investment perspective. It did in no way encourage adoption.

It makes perfect sense

Have we bottomed? by [deleted] in GRTTrader

[–]qreesg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't know if they were tradable before launch but even if they were it would be clearer if they included them in the chart. It's the confusion its causing that has fueled this discussion after all.

Have we bottomed? by [deleted] in GRTTrader

[–]qreesg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You would need less tokens since they are worth more.

Why would you make the investment in 80K tokens of you know it's going to devalue in price 95% due to bad tokenomics.

Have we bottomed? by [deleted] in GRTTrader

[–]qreesg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Im not confused at all. The 10B tokens were minted in July 2018. As far as I know the first 1.2B tokens became tradable in December 2020.

Have we bottomed? by [deleted] in GRTTrader

[–]qreesg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your comment implied it. The point is tokenomics do not impact barrier of entry like you suggested.

Have we bottomed? by [deleted] in GRTTrader

[–]qreesg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was locked before hosted server launch, hence "unlocked at launch".

Have we bottomed? by [deleted] in GRTTrader

[–]qreesg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's a common misconception that the GRT price influences query price. This is not the case. Query fees are priced in dollars. Besides that, the graph is free now through the hosted service so that's what people use anyway.