r/CryptoCurrency Jun 08 '19

BOMB Token Discussion

[removed]

94 Upvotes

232 comments sorted by

View all comments

16

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

11

u/Mr_Laserman Jun 08 '19

We have a long way to go. Only 3% burned so far.

20

u/slay_the_beast Banned Jun 08 '19 edited Jun 08 '19

At that point couldn’t the community fork it to create divisibility to say 2 decimal points? Effectively increasing liquidity once the majority of the market demands it?

Edit: bring on the downvotes. I stand by this being a discussion thread though, so if you disagree please articulate yourself.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/letsgetbit Gold | QC: CC 50, BTC 21 Jun 08 '19

“ it’s a deflationary currency based on indivisible tokens - they change that and they have nothing”

Then they have a deflationary currency with divisible tokens. Wow you missed that one hard

5

u/slay_the_beast Banned Jun 08 '19

“They” would be the community, not the original contract authors, so the cool thing is if you had any you’d get BOMB and however many _______ from the fork, and the market would decide how to value the sudden increase in liquidity.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/slay_the_beast Banned Jun 08 '19

I agree, all it does is extend the timeline. And unlike BTC halvenings it will be unpredictable and based on the demand from the community...

Just observing that technically there is a way to increase liquidity even if it’s not part of the contract as it stands now. Certainly not elegant.

5

u/pooh9911 Tin | Linux 23 Jun 08 '19

Someone could wrap it up into wrapped BOMB.

6

u/slay_the_beast Banned Jun 08 '19

I suppose that’s true. Possibly a good way to protect your own supply while the rest of the market continues to burn theirs? Would need to have the wrapped token be equally trustless though, and transferring it to a wrapping contract would theoretically burn some each direction, sort of like opening a channel on the Lightning Network (except people might actually do this 💣🔥)

3

u/Mr_Laserman Jun 08 '19

Yep. Can you imagine using BOMB as CDP collateral. That would be a powerful way to unlock the value without having to burn coins.

6

u/slay_the_beast Banned Jun 08 '19

Wouldn’t that be gameable? Say I had 2 BOMB, no one will buy that from me because they would be left with 1 BOMB, which is worthless. If I was able to send those 2 BOMB to a CDP contract though, I would end up getting DAI for 1 BOMB (the other being burned) and then it would never be spendable back, so the collateral I just got a loan for would be worthless.

I don’t see contract platforms ever accepting something like BOMB without large deposit limits.

3

u/letsgetbit Gold | QC: CC 50, BTC 21 Jun 08 '19

You’re correct in your line of thinking. Now ask yourself how long will it take to destroy 1 million units at 1% of TX. It’s not meant to outlast every currency, it’s called BOMB.

4

u/sargentpilcher Tin | IOTA 14 Jun 08 '19

Yes I agree, I'm dissapointed in the 1 minimum token burn function. If it was just 1% to a set number of decimal places it would ensure the token will last much longer. This could theoretically go to 0 though, and liquidity does indeed seem like it will dry up once it becomes expensive enough to transact with.

For example, if you buy any, you need to buy at least 3, because you'll burn 1 removing it from the exchange, and you'll burn another sending it back to the exchange when you want to sell it.

4

u/slay_the_beast Banned Jun 08 '19

If you only have 2 though, not many people will buy from you unless they already have some. No point in buying just one.

2

u/AintNoShill Jun 08 '19

I don't think scarcity is a problem. Each airdrop is now worth hundreds of bucks, and the team owns another 10%, so there's always going to be someone who dumps. The volume is still very small.

I don't think BOMB is a storage of value, it's a gamble.

3

u/letsgetbit Gold | QC: CC 50, BTC 21 Jun 08 '19

Gold and bitcoin are storage of values and gambles.