Fundraiser program, price of Ether following BTC price?

superluzsuperluz Member Posts: 4
Hello,

I have a question about the fundraiser program.

I’ve read that early investors would be able to get 2000 Ether for 1 BTC.

Let say that the opening of the fundraiser program is at the beginning of March.

So 1 BTC= 2000 Ether.

If in March the price of BTC is around 700 usd makes about 1 Ether equal to 2.85 usd.
Let’s assume that around December we will get the coins and the price of 1 BTC is around 2800 usd.

Will be the price of 1 Ether also 4 times the original price of March when it goes public? 2.85*4?

What I’m trying do understand if it is better to keep the 1 BTC and invest in Ether in December, knowing that 1 BTC will be worth more in 8 months (so I can buy more Ether) or the price of each Ether will be following the BTC price, since the fundraiser program?

Thanks




Comments

  • CryptStormCryptStorm Member Posts: 4
    No one knows whether BTC or Ether will be worth more in a year, and how could they? I would imagine that Ether, being younger, will have more volatility during the year, especially if it can be traded on an exchange (gox, cryptsy, etc.). Good luck!
  • DoneDealDoneDeal Member Posts: 4
    You are right CryptStorm, but what the hell I am going to take a chance/gamble with Ether.
  • greycellgreycell Member Posts: 4
    Hello,
    I am a biologist , so I have no clue but would like to buy some ether.Please let me know to proceed . when and where can I buy it?
    Thanks
  • BunkerBunker Member Posts: 22
    Hi @Greycell. We need to wait that the fundraiser program will start...
    you can check here for update
    http://forum.ethereum.org/discussion/196/participation-faq-live-updates#latest
    In the mean time you need get some BTS's i suppose ;-)
    Bunker
  • RickMarroRickMarro Member Posts: 7
    Please give me the best explanation you can for Ether and how you reconcile the Paper Boy Paradox:

    A paper boy in 2009 could conceivably have heard of BTC and taken 50% of his weekly pay to purchase BTC. So lets say the paper boy made $80 per week for delivering news papers and bought $40 each week worth of BTC @ a price of $0.40 per BTC, he would be acquiring 100 BTC per week. At the end of 2009, let's assume the paper boy has possession of 5,000 BTC. Then he gets hit by a bus while delivering his papers. IF he is dead the BTC is out of circulation forever, hence worthless. Let's assume he survives, but in a comma until November 2013, he wakes up and logs into his BTC wallet to find that his 5,000 BTC are "worth" $5,000,000 US Dollars in purchasing power.
    In 5 years his purchasing power goes from $2,000 to $5,000,000 how does one justify this paper boys purchasing power, relative to his contribution to society ? ? This makes no sense at all, he has brought no value to humanity, society, or the BTC community, yet because of the hype while in his comma - his 50 weeks of news paper delivering has afforded him the purchasing power of $5,000,000 ? ? How does one reconcile that with, the doctor who studied for 12 years and saved the life of the paper boy and has monitored him through his comma ?? Over the same period of time the doctor amasses a purchasing power of $500,000 from practicing medicine for those 5 years and helping people all along the way. How can one justify this ??

    If the doctor wished to purchase the paper boys bitcoins in November 2013, he would need $5,000,000 to do so? ? The doctor would need to perform $5,000,000 worth of service to society to purchase the same bitcoins that the paper boy acquired with $2,000 worth of service to society.

    In closing BTC won't be the digital currency adopted by the world, because it transfers all the wealth from the people who get on board late Directly to the people who got in early, for nothing more than having got in early.

    _____end of Paper Boy Paradox_____

    It seems Ether is modeled on the same premise as BTC - - I would love to hear your thoughts
  • gabbo876gabbo876 Member Posts: 5
    @RickMarro

    You are in deep waters my friend, fundamentally this is something economists and nations have battled over for decades. I'm confident this cannot be solved here, and here's why:

    Off the bat the absolute solution to your paradox would be to adopt a socialist style distribution. In such a model, neither the doctor nor the paper boy has an early advantage over the other. This would be possible because in a socialist economy, the value of goods or services is based on its use value, rather than its cost of production or its exchange value. The profit motive as a driving force for production is replaced by social obligation to "fulfill the economic plan" - set by a central authority. In the case of the paper boy and the doctor, as long as they are fulfilling the economic plan of the state, they would receive fair and relatively equal stakes. Now, if we apply this to Ethereums case the value of ether would be based on its use, rather than its exchange value. The profit motive for creating/using DACs would be replaced by Ether owners obligation to fulfill the overall economic plan of Ethereum. Here lies the flaw, if this were adopted a central governing authority would be required to set the dynamic goals/aspirations of ethereum as time goes by.

    As you can see this would defeat the fundamentals of Ethereum being decentralized. Since its founders have stated that in the 1st year - their roles diminish significantly, almost to zero.

    The next best approach is to go out a provide to the world a decent and "fair" initial distribution. I think Ethereum has done pretty well so far stating their intentions to do so. They have (I think) atleast 3 ways to obtain Ether in the first year.

    I want to point out that in theory a socialist Ethereum distribution is possible - If for kicks "the economic plan of ethereum" were hard coded into it from inception, ensuring all useful DACs of the future are created/used to fulfill the economic plan - then BAM!!!!


    Lastly equal distribution has nothing to do with the digital currency adopted by the world. Take a look at fiat, it is now "the currency of the world" and it is unfairly distributed. It simply boils down to what is available and what the people want....
  • RussRuss Member Posts: 4
    @gabbo876, nice post!

    @ RickMarrio,
    Ethereum can do all it can to be fair; but unfortunately it will be inevitable that the prospectors could win early; and fair enough, we ARE all taking a large risk. Ether is not a guaranteed success, and your donation could all be for naught...

    Your concern threads throughout history:
    What was the value-add of the first share-croppers in the 1800s who got free land from the U.S. Government that was taken form the Lakota?

    What was the value-add of a friend of Steve Jobs giving a start-up named Apple Computer a couple thousand dollars?

    A lack of fairness can be oppressive when a small group of people succeeds at opportunities that others don't even know exists. Ironically, so to can the "totality of fairness" be oppressive. Imagine A world where ALL people are mandated to be paid equally in Ether, no mater the quality of their work, or even their basic knowledge of Ether...
  • RickMarroRickMarro Member Posts: 7
    @gabbo876

    Gabbo876 you are 100% off base on the point you make, "it simply boils down to what is available and what the people want" --- I would like you to try and name a time in all of economic history, when people decided the currency (rather than the king, State, or leaders of a tribe).

    I think you are 100% correct, that for the first time in history, SOCIALISM has a chance --- with technology as the backbone. Socialism has always, and will always fail, for the fact of it distributes wealth "equally" but all power resides in the State.

    Ethereum is a fantastic idea, but the model chosen for ether distribution is a flawed model. The "first in" = "get rich" model is seen as a hybrid of Pyramid/Ponzi scheme (by an extremely large portion of the people who look at cyptos). There will always be people who think they can get rich quick, people who are unsophisticated, and people who just plain fall for bad investments (but this model will never succeed as it's core prevents the mass adoption in the free market).


  • RickMarroRickMarro Member Posts: 7
    @russ
    Imagine a world where you could hop on board early, and without hyping the price and convincing new investors to bring the "market price" up, your investment in BTC or Ether is worthless as time goes on.

    THAT IS THE REAL WORLD. We are not talking about planting a tree, or building business, we are talking about another form of fiat currency (but rather than decreed by the state, the currency comes into being via coded fiat).

    As long as the proponents of crypto currencies, rely on the gullibility of the uninformed, they will continue to run into resistance (for it is built into the system). Nobody will ever pay $1,000,000 for a BTC, it is just not going to happen, there is no "market" for such a thing to take place. PEOPLE can not support that sort of price, no matter how much hording and hype takes place.

    All cryptos that follow the "first in" model of wealth distribution, will inevitably fail, way before they ever reach critical mass and make everyone rich in the process.
  • EtherBrokerEtherBroker Member Posts: 6
    edited February 2014
    RickMarro, The PaperBoy Paradox isn't a paradox. You are assuming that our current economic system is a meritocracy, but it simply isn't.

    So if you revolutionize the world of finance and flip it upside down, its.. going to look weird. Because over time, wealth has accumulated in very strange and unsustainable ways. When a paper boy gets rich, it is just the effect of an ancient elite breaking down, a simple transfer of wealth.

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with this mythical paper boy becoming a millionaire. If he was smart enough to do that BTW, he is probably going to be smart enough to keep investing and growing the economy.
  • optictopicoptictopic Member Posts: 10
    edited February 2014
    Life itself is a lottery of sorts.
  • mode80mode80 Member Posts: 64 ✭✭
    The simple answer is that there cannot be innovation without risk. Innovation is valuable and therefore risk is rewarded.

    If nobody ever took a risk on bitcoin, its benefits to the world would have been lost. In 2008, there was perhaps a 1 in 2500 chance that paperboy's bitcoins would become worth $5,000,000. His "expected value" on that investment was then $2000, which is exactly what he spent.

    If he deemed his odds to be better than 1 in 2500 then he made a "profit" on the risk he took. That profit incentive is what drives people to seek out and identify the best opportunities, which is a benefit to society.

    It only seems unfair to you in retrospect because paperboy's unlikely gamble paid off. But that ignores the 2499 times in 2500 that he would have been worse off personally by enabling something that had the magnitude of bitcoin's benefit to society.
  • JasperJasper Eindhoven, the NetherlandsMember Posts: 514 ✭✭✭
    1. If you're against deflation, and you want to create a cryptocurrency, you have to figure out a way to increase the money supply matching the adoption/value of the currency. We currently dont have a way to measure either adoption or value. We couldnt.

    2. The 'mining' approach also requires an investment. It is only *obfuscated* by the mining bit that early miners are basically advantaged the same way. Except those miners never gave the developers any money. I suppose they 'did work'. Unfortunately it was useless work.

    3. If there was a way to invest in the development of a coin, what better way to pay out than in the coin itself and let it deflate a bit?

    4. Besides, maybe some people would get rich, so what? I mean would they be worse people than are rich now? I reckon not. Meanwhile, ethereum is a great place to try get more egalitarian wages. (I am against fully egalitarian ones)
Sign In or Register to comment.