I think there is a little confusion here. In the original example, John would go from 1 to 2 BASE tokens, that is still very true. We are simply saying that the rebase percentage can be any percentage, it all depends on the target price and current price of BASE. We actually built out a dashboard on our website, so that people can easily understand the numbers behind the rebases.  https://dashboard.baseprotocol.org/

As for the red trust... that is simply malicious activity from users on the site, and there is nothing we can really about that.

Okay I'm seeing the explanation from Base, anyway you guys started with a Blockchain project before (it failed). I don't want to make you difficult, but if it started and failed then the end is my experience. I was also curious about Base's upcoming fundraising process.

An experience will make us more careful about what we want. I agree with you but we should continue to monitor this project and to what extent they will develop in the future.

If that's your answer, then we're back to the point where I questioned your method to stabilize price, because that is where the confusion began. According to the general idea stated on this thread, as well as confirmed by you on the answer I quoted above, stability achieved by airdropping token to holders, proportional to the increment of crypto marketcap. But, at one point of your explanation on this thread, as well as what's stated on what I screenshotted from your WP below, your attempt to stabilize price only stretched to increasing and decreasing supplies, while the actualization of price correction themselves depends entirely on holders action to sell and buy. In other words, if they wanted to get (for example) from 1 BASE to 2 BASE, they need to bid 1 extra BASE at certain price. They need to BUY, because token will not be airdropped to them. And only after a transaction finalized, a stabilized price will occur.





Tell me, were the people who write WP and moderating this thread different people with different understanding of how the project works?

The rebase method has been allowing the developers to did a modification to the total supply of coins to make it become stable on its initial price.
This project was taking the idea used by AMPL. Some projects have been doing the same too.
When the token price was getting dumped and the developers will be issued more tokens to make the price will be equally with the initial price before it gets dumped.
Im only sharing about my knowledge from AMPL. This project is actually wanna copying AMPL. The idea was almost the same.

I held on to this tokens through out 2018 and the project was left to die, and the big question is that, how are we sure that this project won't end up the way Spectiv did. I have always said it is naive of any team to hold on to the fund raised in crypto, atleast convert part to fiat that can cover your running cost for 2 years

I can confidently say that we will be converting all of the initial money received to a stable currency.

So Dev, your thread were flooded with spam from bumping service, and you were online few days ago but didn't bother to answer my question, how is this suppose to encourage investing in you?

Yeah, in their defense, it was due to the failed project they had and they've do the best responsible possible by refunding at a higher price than market, although it's still lower than ICO. I came with full intention to give them benefits of the doubt, but it seems there's nothing to be benefitted from the doubt