|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Die Gründer wollen den Handel über die Plattform einer breiteren Öffentlichkeit zugänglich machen – ohne hohe Spreads. Die Community ist vielmehr finanziell beteiligt: 10 % des Gewinns aus Handelsgebühren, Abonnements und Benchmark-Dienstleistungen gehen an alle OTC-Token-Inhaber. Diese Ausschüttungen werden wöchentlich in ETH ausgezahlt. Das Team hat zudem auch ein umfassendes Bounty-Programm in Höhe von 2 Millionen US-Dollar, das OTC-Token an Content-Ersteller ausschüttet.
Schaut mal da, alle machen sich die Taschen voll ... und da glauben noch so viele, dass die Verbote kommen..es stecken ja schon jetzt alle mit drin!
Ich würde mich nicht wundern, wenn auch bei den etablierten Plattformen wie Binance Exchange schon die Anfragen von großen Investoren anstehen!
Ich glaub echt nixmehr..
...But since it is effectively fractional reserve lending, it would breach the "gold standard" principle of bitcoin. If gold is needed to settle payments, and you haven't got enough gold, you can't settle payments. That's how a gold standard works. It is also why it fails.
Lightning is still a work in progress, of course. But at present, it is hard to see how it can resolve bitcoin's three-pronged problem.
* The maximum amount you can pay in a certain route is determined by the guy with the LEAST amount of money in his channel
* Users can defraud each other in a channel, so they have to continually check if somebody is defrauding them.
* Unless you have a direct channel to your target, there is NO guarantee AT ALL that you can pay the person you want to pay.
* Users need to be online 24/7 if they want to be part of a payment route. If a user is offline, this particular route is not possible which of course has huge impact on the possible routes.
* Insane amounts of data are being sent because the network needs to be aware of EVERYBODY's payment channel's state (otherwise it can't discover a route)
* You still have huge fees if you want to wire money into/outside the channel.
* It's not feasible at all for bigger payments. Let's say you have to pay $1500 rent/month, are you going to open a payment channel and deposit 3 years rent in it ? Most people have difficulties enough coughing up the next month. But if you have to wire every payment into the channel, then you could just as well pay on-chain because you're paying that exact same on-chain fee.
* It's also not feasible for very small payments/channels. If you open a $30 channel with your coffeeshop to buy a few cups of coffee per week, then the price of your coffee doubles because of the huge fees to open/close the channel.
* Who is going to lock up his money in several channels anyway ? Liquidity, needed for routing money, is going to be a problem
* Very difficult to use and explain to users. No way your mother let alone grandmother is going to understand all this.
|
| Wertung | Antworten | Thema | Verfasser | letzter Verfasser | letzter Beitrag | |
| 197 | 225.771 | Bitcoins der nächste Monsterhype steht bevor! | Tony Ford | Motox1982 | 04:02 | |
| 66 | 10.882 | Altcoins - besser als Bitcoins? | Canis Aureus | minicooper | 01.01.26 13:23 | |
| 11 | 149 | Bitcoins Crash! Rette sich, wer kann! | Mr.Esram | olloallahommoh | 26.12.25 13:36 | |
| 6 | 955 | Auswahl Krypto-Zertifikate... | segwit2x | Highländer49 | 17.12.25 10:20 | |
| 2 | 18.947 | Bitcoin - mehr als eine Spekulationsblase? | Edible | Edible | 29.11.25 12:03 |