Are you kidding me? I guess you haven't been following NXT development at all, as many people are contributing their time and skills to make NXT better for everyone. Also, you're deluding yourself if you think the "core 20-30" of emunie are not acting out of self-interest (even a tiny bit).
You misunderstand my point. On the contrary, I have followed NXT very closely (every page on this thread, the other forums, the wiki etc etc) and I am very impressed with what the NXT community is doing. I own some NXT and have done very well!
The point I'm making is many here might be tempted to take the events of the last few days with Fuserleer postponing the IPO in response to the repeated FUD and personal attacks on his professional integrity as an indication that emunie is no longer a serious competitor to NXT. I am challenging this idea directly. Fuserleer is honest, and very skilled, and now he's even more determined than he was before to make emunie the best crypto financial system ever.
eMunie has the features and the backing to be THE main contender to fiat currencies after it is launched. The eMunie team IS obviously motivated by self-interest, and financial rewards are part of that, but a large part of that self-interest is also the desire for satisfaction they'll get when emunie becomes a world wide phenomenon, and Fuserleer has been lauded as a genius, and all those who questioned his honesty hide their heads in shame. NXT does not have that X-factor. The BCNext disappearing act is enigmatic, but it doesn't inspire loyalty
Let's say there is 10 million EMU at ten cents and an order for 1 million EMU in excess of supply appears. Then the network automatically creates 1 million more EMU to satisfy the order, 500,000 to existing holders and 500,000 to hatchers. This is what confuses me.
So we have a new buyer who wants to buy, but the new EMU is going to existing EMU holders and hatchers. Where does the new buyer get the 1 million EMU from?
Separately, we now have 11 million EMU (presumably), but the original EMU holders have 10.5 million, so their share went from 100% to 95.45%
Is the price charged to the purchaser increased by ~5% so that the value of the 10.5 million post purchase EMU is about the same as before the purchase?
How can all these mechanisms be stabilized? It would seem that under any sort of real world supply and demand scenario, the market value will oscillate and the reality is that the original EMU holders will continue to get a smaller and smaller share. In order to maintain their ownership percentage, they would need to continue purchasing EMU continuously. It almost seems designed to create an unsustainable price feedback loop.
Please explain mathematically how the adding of new EMU into the system doesn't dilute the prior EMU holder's value.
James
P.S. I don't expect you will answer this as there seems to be a pact of silence around this issue. I have asked this question in half a dozen emunie forums, without any responses.
