Post #689
-
-
Signature not verified
This entry might be using an old signature, or it was signed by a key that does not exist on the server.
-
-
{"entry_date":1532465606,"post_data":{"edit_count":2,"last_edit_date":1524693758,"last_edit_user_id":34,"message_sha512":"aa3b98770e851fa8025d247b41df946839b549b35e01d16ba1335553c67ae52a42fd343b87b3cdb8bc364ccc6bfd1fbc5e1b903ce54933f50b3475ed56567376","node_id":10,"post_date":1524693294,"thread_id":86,"user_id":34},"post_link":"http:\/\/factomize.com\/forums\/index.php?threads\/86#post-689"}The entry content as it exists in the database. This should be verified against the blockchain entry.
-
-
Block Party
-
-
[QUOTE="Niels, post: 528, member: 8"][B]NK06)[/B]
You are talking about application development and using the FCT to accumulate more Entry Credits. Given the pegged price of Entry Credits, wouldn't your customers be willing to pay for the registration then? [/QUOTE]
Yes, they’d be willing to pay the cost associated with the entry credits, and that is factored into our financial projections. However, this gets back to the liquidity question. The best and most sustainable use of FCT distributions is to utilize them for their intended purpose - utility - i.e., generating entry credits. This is our approach. We think imposing a vesting schedule for node operators would incentivize rapid development on their part, as they wouldn't be able to sell FCT for fiat, but they would be able to burn them for entry credits. So at least in the short term, node operators would be strongly incentivized to build demonstrable utility on top of the protocol, and that benefits the protocol in the long term.This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.