also just from lowering provide rates, they must have noticed people pulled out bc they quickly reset them back…
when they do away with provide , that’s when it looks like incognito will suffer also
Keep building
Provide has always been unsustainable. It was only a temporary solution.
I mean lets say in the circumstance they dump, all the pCoins in liquidity that’s not PRV is removed from the platform (30-40 Mill in Crypto, which would now be theirs). They don’t have to do a full dump either, they can slowly liquidate over time. There’s just no assurances in place that we currently know of, that prevents any of this. We don’t know who authorizes DAO transactions and what transactions have already been made. Theoretically they could have been using DAO funds to make trades the whole time. We just don’t know and that’s more or less the issue. Simply releasing the view keys for the DAO would mitigate a lot of this unknown.
Besides trustless bridge’s like ETH, the 1:1 peg isn’t fully true. pBTC itself has 270,023,804,245 coins minted on the platform. All this pBTC is fully in control of the Incognito Core Team via the BTC bridge. The amount of pBTC they control is not 1:1 with the amount of BTC they are custodians for. The idea here is that they only release an equal amount of pBTC when they receive actual BTC via shielding, but the bridges are indeed closed source. The reason why it is done this way is because when you mint pCoins, you can not mint a variable supply, it’s only fixed. However with the trustless bridges, like ERC-20 coins, that doesn’t seem to be the case.
1 Like
Okay, @Jaime let’s just say that you and @Revolve are not just not going to agree on this issue but even more so not see eye to eye either on it for now. And of course, it goes without saying that you will always express your opinion as well will Revolve express his…you both cannot help yourselves one could say…lol…neither party is right or wrong just have differing opinions at this time and let us leave it at that if we can…This back and forth only creates more division than help at this time though I know that both of you mean well and both of you are respected members of this community. So if it is ok with you and with Revolve can we just table this matter for now and let it be in peace…I ask you both as friends…Tempestblack… 
5 Likes
so if they dump, its basically the perfect ponzie scheme, they leave rich and safe in Vietnam. it sure wasn’t in the best interest to show us what’s its like to ghost us by firing anyone who grew the product. but I hope they have morals and at least gave a severance package to the ones who got let go.
2 Likes
I personally don’t view it to be a Ponzi scheme or scam. If it were, that was the prime time to pull the plug after firing outward facing support.
Instead it appears they are pulling in the reins and focusing on being productive with the core dev team. I’ve had devs reply to my tickets who I’ve never seen before. This removes the divide in my opinion. The setup prior was community speaks to support team who speaks to dev team. Dev team replies to support team who replied to community. When I was in kindergarten we played the telephone game. For those of you who know what that is the more people who relay the message the more messed up and complicated things become.
5 Likes
1 Like
In relation though to people thinking the worst this is a scam or a Ponzi…why would the developers be updating the app at all? The fact that we are getting these should be very clear that the project is not dead.
Notwithstanding the clusterf“ck in communication and good points raised in this thread.
6 Likes
look up what a ponzi scheme is when you have time
I dont 100%/think it, its looks it by design butt I want it to be great and succeed, but even then all great ponzi succeed for a long time before they “scam”
3 Likes