Chris, that link is verging on spam 🙂. If someone follows it and signs up you benefit directly (40% Q for 5 signups). Maybe a generic, uninvited, link for information?
How about a giant disclosure text instead?
I mean, given that nothing is being sold, the Q in question has no value, and I'm straight up asking for criticism, an all caps disclosure should be adequate, yes?
To spur the conversation from a critical perspective, here's one of the exchanges from the same post on Facebook:
"I think having a monetary committee for price stability is very important. Not having a limited supply will allow better management. I think they may have some lawsuits over reversibility and they claim that they can provide user data analysis that will lead to less bombardment from advertisers. This could possibly lead to better targeting and more effective ads. I think they have an uphill battle. I'm not a crypto expert but I like that they have a PhD in monetary theory and they plan to manage it like a central bank. Bold claims though- they mentioned the market for lemons, although they didnt call it that. Basically buyers are hesitant to buy used things because the seller has more information and they don't trust each other so this is the reason used cars sell at below market value. I dont think reversibility will change this significantly. I also think new laws may be created to deal with international money flows in this currency.
What is to stop a credit card company from doing the same thing? Just call each dollar of credit, x, and call it a currency? They already have a network, it's a small innovation. It would be easier for PayPal, Mastercard, Visa, to tweak their business model a little. If successful, they will face competition. I dont understand how they plan to profit? This is a company? They dont want rapid and eradic changes in the price of the q. So where is the incentive? Banks charge interest, the federal reserve charges interest, are they planning on charging interest? It's not clear. They want zero percent inflation but they indicated an unlimited supply of q and the need to issue more q as the network grows. Issuing more q will lead to inflation. As the economy and population grows we need inflation, otherwise we will have deflation (at least on a per capita basis) which can be far worse than inflation."
"All reasonable points. One of the things I think is particularly interesting is that the current spread of awareness via this "giving Q away for free" phase acts as a market measure which tests audience interest in the concept, something that can be measured and used by all of the existing companies you mentioned. There would be zero repercussions to the founders of the Q team if the whole thing disappeared tomorrow except for the stack of users who expressed interest."
Snooped around on the site, and well, not entirely convinced by their story. If I understood correctly, what they propose is them basically being a central bank for a currency they made up out of thin air. Currency that is not backed by a technical solution (like cryptocurrencies), nor backed by any country or a similar entity with actual power. Power which is necessary to enforce a 'this is actual money" contract that is inherent in a currency being, well, a currency.
Instead, they intend to distribute a bunch of 'Qs' which is supposed to entice holders to believe that it is actually worth something, and ta-dah!, new currency. Sure, it could work (after all, monetary value is belief-based) - but I don't think it will.
It's beyond wildly speculative. There was a great convo about why it could work, though:
Some problems. There's a belief that you can completely disrupt the current payment industry. I don't see it. Banks issue cards with rewards, airline miles and their customers eat it up. Merchants accept them worldwide. Biggest issue is processing time, cards process instantaneously where some crypto takes days to get an approval. (Square and PayPal take crypto). Long processing times at POS is a huge block for this tech today. As far as their model to engage consumers to solve the chicken or the egg, there is just no model that can tell you whether standard economic models apply to crypto in a digital market.
Currencies values used to derived from some asset, most recently gold. The dollar essentially replaced gold when it became the world reserve currency. Te dollar holds its value because it is the world reserve currency artificially increasing demand. Ie. Central banks of other countries hold it to either to ensure convertibility from one currency to another, to peg their currency, or to hedge currency risk. The euro hoped it could replace the dollar but economic problems in Europe made that less feasible. Currencies now are valued essentially from the demand for that currency (exports from that country plus demand for the currency itself). Digital currency us no different. Demand will determine value, but if people know the company will begin to issue more and more currency to stabilize the price, a needed benefit for widespread adoption. Investors will be less inclined to buy the chrrency in my opinion because this is dilution of wealth, or it's essentially the same as a company issuing new shares. Existing shareholders wealth is diluted, just like inflation dilutes the value of the dollar. If supply rises at the same rate demand rises (basically their goal to achieve price stability) there will be no capital gains. Thus is probably why they are giving it away vs trying to sell it.
This is why I defer to you on economic models Mike Barnard.
Mike Barnard - if being the world reserve currency props up the value of the dollar, what do you see as the potential of one or more cryptos gaining massive traction (XRP in banking, for example) as reserve currency - and would that necessarily destroy the value of the dollar.
Fran Snyder currencies move I relation to each other. If the dollar was used to buy trillions of "q" at one time, yes you could see a decline the value if the dollar commensurate with the rise in the value of the q. There are, however, many other variables dynamics in play here. I dont see a digital currency replacing the dollar any time soon. An actual currency. Like the euro, or the pound, would have a better chance in the near term, which still is not likely to happen. Tge biggest threat to the dollars value is the want it need of central banks around the world to hold currencies other than the dollar in mass quantities so that they are more diversified or less affected by fluctuations in the us dollar
thanks Mike, a bit tough to decipher there at the end. Ripple is going very hard at offering an alternative to NOSTRO/VOSTRO accounts, and it seems like a no-brainer. Holding (maybe 10%) of one digital currency as reserve instead of the massive bundle of national currencies... e.g. we're not just talking about USD going down in relation to other fiats, but ALL of them being devalued as crypto is quicker and cheaper, and in some ways even safer. (Wanna hold some Venezuelan/Argentinian cash in your accounts?)
Also, a run down of the negatives with why we don't care from Jason Nunnely:
Initiative Q bashing, I brought some free coin to the group so I thought I'd bring in the negative too. Actually, I can thank Eric for posting this link on his personal feed.
I just couldn't resist reposting here.
Let's run down some complaints:
1) Hype. Tons of that on the premise that its ex Paypal contributor brings brand based social proof and virtually nothing else. Yep, total hype!
2) Totally centralized, which is probably going to happen a lot as banks get into internal mining to prove transactional data. This is more efficient, but not decentralized and therefor not as trustworthy. Any banking that isn't just sending 10 or 17 numeric code across the internet is superior to what we have now. That's all we do people, if I know your routing and checking account I can take money out of your account with very few checks and balances other than the threat of legal prosecution for doing so without proper authority.
3) Shady marketing. Uhm, welcome to crypto buddy.
4) Not anonymous. Nope, they're collecting your email address and name and you are now in a database.
5) No technology yet. That's 100% true, there's no product to actually promote.
These guys are dry marketing or proving market viability. It's a typical tactic used to get capital to start a project. Looky here, I can get millions of people to give me their name and email address so it's a viable idea!
There you have it. Don't buy Initiative Q with real money since it's not yet a real product. Keep an eye on its development. Yes, right now it's a giant list grab. No, I'm not freaked out by that. The government and a massive credit reporting agency already leaked my most intimate sensitive financial information to criminal and the dark web.
So, meh on someone getting an email address and name on me.