Please allow xcp in swarm IPO 

We'll be at several conferences this summer. Check out the full list here:

https://www.counterparty.co/counterparty-coming-to-a-conference-near-you/

If you're going to any of these, please reach out. We'd love to meet you.

+1

I (Jeremy) will be speaking about crowdfunding with Counterparty and Vennd at Cryptocon Sydney. Cryptocon Sydney runs on the 24th and 25th July. The schedule hasn't been updated yet but it is confirmed with the conference producer.

Both myself and Jonathan will be there. Seek us out and ask all the questions you might have!

http://www.cryptocon.net/

I like what I have read about counterparty and my sixth sense is that it is more legit than competitors. However, I am not technical minded at all.

Could someone please explain the difference between counterparty and some of the other cryptos purporting to do the same thing, like mastercoin, namecoin, ethereum etc?

thank you

Functionality-wise, Counterparty has the most features live and available right now. It is also important to note that Counterparty can trade directly against BTC on the Counterparty decentralized exchange - something others cannot do.

The major difference and in my mind though is that Counterparty is developed under the same principles as Satoshi. The platform was developed for the people to use and *never* was there and will there be some IPO that favours and enrichens the developers. The developers of the platform had to buy in exactly the same way in which everyone else during the proof of burn period.

All other platforms either:

* Have an extremely small number of large holders, or
* Have a 'social contract' to 'richly reward early adopters, or
* Have raised funds in a commercial fashion,

Counterparty is built by the people for the people.

Makes sense regarding the funding at inception. That is definitely a plus. Is there a broad based consensus that the features on there are better? What about the developer team? Are they more skilled or more serious or even just more full time than competitors?

This is just my personal opinion and experience:

When the Counterparty team made the initial announcement and made available the code to counterpartyd for everyone, I was naturally skeptical. I cloned the git hub, ran the reference client and looked at the code. From a technical point of view, I could see it was *extremely* tight code. Functionally, it was like they just dropped a bomb on everyone - day 1 on launch, the platform was operational. It was all command lined based so it was technically difficult to evaluate but it worked.

I had never heard of any alt/metacoin that released simultaneously with a fully functioning platform during the 'funding' period (though proof of burn wasn't funding the developers, it was funding the economy of XCP).

Despite what the detractors say, no one can deny the execution ability of a small focused team when compared to the relative juggernauts of the competing platforms.

If Swarm accepts XCP, then the DEX is not endorsing Swarm; Swarm is endorsing Counterparty. Ideally, this sounds like a good thing. It offers tacit support and gives use value (and thereby financial value) to XCP. However, your larger point still stands: this creates a risk for XCP if Swarm encounters significant problems.

At this point in Counterparty's and Swarm's lifespan, this risk is very high for Counterparty if Swarm accepts XCP. Going forward, as more companies raise funds via Counterparty, the risk of any single one of them jeopardizing Counterparty grows smaller. So perhaps now Swarm should not accept XCP, but I don't think this should become a standard for future fundraising initiatives.

Edit: I see that I might have misread your post. You were suggesting a new thread for Swarm in order to decouple Counterparty and Swarm. I don't think you were making the argument that Swarm accepting XCP poses a risk to Counterparty in case Swarm encounters trouble, were you? Sorry if I overstated your position. I agree with your recommendation to decouple the two projects.