I don't like stonks, and this is literally the same thing. The issue with stonks was never the liquidity, it was the non-deflationary aspect and the childish holders. Without deflation, this coin could be replaced with literally anything. Why not just buy DXD instead of this and leave this out of the pool?
Also, Comp was hacked from the balance pool, too, just using a different method.
William Hall
>Without deflation, this coin could be replaced with literally anything Yes, for Stonks this is totally true. Look at the "Whirpool Problem" in the whitepaper for more on this. But Stacks is backed by an injection of liquidity, meaning teach token isn't just an index of the pool, it also represents ownership over a fixed portion of liquidity permanently injected in the pool (90% of the funds raised during public sale)
Colton Perez
no balancer tokens gives you ownership of the pool. ownig stonk just means you bought a coin thats value is based on people willing to pay. the meme stonk thing is bad for branding for serious investors.
Adrian Cruz
What is the difference between what you describe and someone just contributing to the pool directly? It sounds like the same thing, only forced.
Jackson Carter
It gives you ownership by the sense you can sell your tokens into that liquidity. Most "exit scams" today happen because scammy devs pull liquidity. With Stacks, there is an initial injection of liquidity that can't be pulled. People call this Proof of Liquidity. Difference here is the proof of liquidity isn't being put into Uniswap (50% token, 50% ETH), it is instead spread over the asset pool that the token is an index for. The whitepaper explains this in detail and gives examples and everything. medium.com/@stackstoken/the-stacks-model-backing-an-erc-20-index-token-by-means-of-a-crowd-sourced-initial-liquidity-965aacbdf78a It means the index tokens are backed by liquidity before a single owner decides to pool. I don't know what you mean by forced because you don't have to buy tokens from the public sale if you don't want to
Aiden Jenkins
>It means the index tokens are backed by liquidity before a single owner decides to pool THAT is what I mean by forced. So people who buy in at the beginning are contributing liquidity whether they want to or not. I don't believe this is a scam, and never claimed that, my concern is moreso that it is identical to an existing project and very similar to another. You are just reinventing the wheel and there is no reason to choose yours over the other, already established projects
Liam Myers
>So people who buy in at the beginning are contributing liquidity whether they want to or not Well, no not really. By "contributing liquidity", most people would mean that they are putting their token, paired with more assets, into the liquidity pool. In this case, they are just trading ETH for a token, just like every other trade they have ever done. It is the public sale funds (funds which most of the time end up lining dev pockets) which are used to actually contribute liquidity.
Jordan Flores
So the public sale funds go to you and then you put them into the pool as the other coins?
Thomas Cox
Yes exactly! Funds are spread like this. There is an arbitrary amount of Stacks minted which is used to inject the public sale funds which remain permanently, with the remainder of the liquidity tokens being burned.