Jump to content


Silver Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Seoulite last won the day on June 17

Seoulite had the most liked content!


About Seoulite

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Seoulite's Achievements

  1. I think your proposal might be good, but I think upsetting the exchanges is more dangerous than upsetting the exchange users. Anyway let’s see. I don’t have that strong feelings either way, as Songbird is not the main event. I was far more animated by the governance vote distribution stuff.
  2. People are sharing this around on Twitter saying it shows the necessity of Songbird:
  3. Yes and no. While I agree in the short term, I think the move away from exchanges has begun, with DEXs popping up all over the place.
  4. Thanks for the post. I appreciate a lively discussion and good faith disagreement, no bad feelings here at all That said, I think you're wrong haha The problem is that meta maxi arguments filter down to the general population and do have an effect on how a project is seen, particularly in the beginning. Furthermore, would it be smart for Flare to alienate some of the largest exchanges before the launch? Less desirable for users, perhaps, but better for Flare Limited and the project overall? Maybe. Yes I agree they can do something. I amend my statement to 'they shouldn't do anything.' Moral and religious arguments matter. I know most people don't give a crap about the decentralisation, much freedom, destroy fiat currency aspect of crypto, but they do care about who controls their money. If they are under the impression that Flare can just decide if you get tokens even though you control the private keys then are people going to be so willing to sink significant amounts of cash into a project like that? We both know that that won't be possible once the network launches but I'm talking about first impressions. At the beginning of this whole process I would've said yes, but look at the whole thing around governance votes, etc. Everyday we get closer to 'you control the network' in spirit and in practicality. This is how it will sound: "we are airdropping a new token but we are not giving it to some people because we don't like what they are planning to do with it". Now, that is what they did with Jed and Ripple execs, but we are now years down the line and we've had Hugo talking nonstop about decentralisation and DeFi and governance and its your network and blah blah blah. Think about it like this: what if they turned around right now and said 'we've decided to exclude all the people who claimed the full 1 billion spark limit, because we want this project to be for the less wealthier people and we don't want whales on the network.' Imagine how that would go down? Sure, there wouldn't be loads of sympathy for the rich people, but it would still be a case of 'Flare controls your tokens and makes arbitrary decisions about them'.
  5. The problem is we are not just talking about exchanges. Forget about exchanges for a moment. The principle is: Flare can unilaterally decide to withhold tokens from the controllers of related private keys because they don't like how they acted. Yes they excluded Jed and Ripple and put a cap on the original airdrop; given that that happened before anything was launched or snapshotted, and that there are very reasonable arguments for those precautions, I just don't think it's the same. "You are under no obligation to do what we say but we will punish you for not doing what we want just because we can." Yeah, not a good look. It doesn't matter that Flare won't have the power to do that after the launch. It will be the main thing that people remember about Flare. Those of us who have been around for a while imbibed the paranoia of the OGs around exchanges and got 'not your keys, not your crypto' tattooed on our foreheads. In the intervening years this paranoia has barely touched the new entrants but remains strong in the OGs. This is how I knew @brianwalden most likely self-custodied despite being a fan of Nexo. A lot of new entrants are getting a rude awakening to the reality of exchanges. I don't blame them, I don't think it's right, but not your keys not your crypto is just as correct as it was when Satoshi first descended from Mt. Gox with the genesis block stone tablet.
  6. Seems like a very drastic step though doesn’t it? And sends a very bad message about governance. We’ll be hearing until the end of time how “Flare can freeze your account”
  7. Yes and there could be other governance changes that flip all that about. The key is that in market cap terms Kusama is currently 10% of DOT, which seems reasonable. If Songbird can be somewhere between 5-10% of Flare then I think we will be doing well. The key thing is though that FTSO rewards are bigger in the beginning and proportional to participation, meaning the early adopters benefit the most. That might be similar with Trustline and FF but I don't know.
  8. Given that the risk is higher, presumably the reward will be higher? I think participation rates will be lower so FTSO rewards will be greater. I'm considering what my exposure to Songbird should be. That video that I just posted from Patty XRP talking about what happened with Kusama makes me think it will be highly unpredictable for a while. This whole songbird thing has just multiplied all the considerations. There will even be a SGB / FLR pair that needs to be taken into account. Good lord.
  9. I think it's a little unfair to blame Flare since this is likely a new development and the snapshot has already happened, so they have no leverage over exchanges. They can't threaten to exclude them from the Flare airdrop if they don't support Songbird, for example. I'm not sure what people are expecting them to do. Story of this launch so far.
  10. Sure I understand. Cold wallets have been great so far when the only thing to do was hold, but now with staking and all the flare stuff and DeFi it’s starting to become necessary to use warmer wallets. Maybe there will even be a time when cold wallets are not used by most people unless they are holding useless tokens like btc. So to be clearer, what I mean is I plan to keep the bulk of my xrp holdings on the ledger but do my flare stuff with another wallet. Haven’t decided about f-assets yet. But as I see it constantly accessing your ledger is kinda like constantly using and then making a new paper wallet. Kinda defeats the purpose.
  11. @BillyOckham has already been helpful, but I will say with regards to chain ID, I know that on metamask you can change the chain ID and access other networks. I am assuming that is the same with other wallets these days. In a few days the Bifrost wallet is being released which has been purpose-built for Flare. I will certainly be looking into using it and I advise others too as well. I have a ledger but using ledger for actual wallet stuff is a bit janky. I like it as a thing that I don't keep touching and I know it's safe. So I will likely set up a bifrost wallet and use that for anything flare related, rather than connecting it all back to my ledger. edit: the Bifrost beta is coming in a few days, not the official launch
  12. They could be leaving hundreds of millions of dollars on the table by doing nothing. They may well be banking on the lack of awareness / confusion of the public to avoid dealing with, then maybe six months or a year down the line start selling their holdings. I don't know too. But it's a very large chunk of xrp that we are talking about. Having said that, Bitrue will support it. I wonder if other relatively large ones who were planning to list FLR anyway will also be on board. Reduced circulating supply is good for us. It's already only 15 billion too so if it is sustained and has the kind of success that Kusama has had then we could be very lucky.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.