
Sky
699 posts

Sky
@Iglockyy
Crypto enthusiast since 2013 🚀 and diving deep since 2016 💻 | TA wizard with my own set of indicators 🔍 | Riding the crypto waves and charting the future 📈✨



Stupid myths about #bitcoin 1. “Bear market last more than 1 year” No. 2. “Consolidation Year after bottom” No. 3. “ATH comes after halving” Soon No.













Powell: The Fed could end QT in the coming months










The MultiversX Foundation is proposing a huge economic change to $EGLD, which is extractive, imo. I'm glad to have been distancing myself from the project recently. > remove supply's hard cap > 9.47% annual tail emission The core idea here is to remove the supply cap. A feature that for so many years was used as one of the main selling points for EGLD, found in dozens of promotional materials > "there will never be more than 31.4M EGLD" < now proven misleading, as the proposal comes from the same entity that made these promises in the past (and highly benefited from them). Moreover, not only is the foundational economic promise being broken, but the proposal is to implement an inflation that goes far beyond the industry's standards. 9.47% is just too high. This also comes in a context where most other chains are discussing reducing their own emission rates, as many researchers have been arguing (and I agree) that most chains are simply overpaying for the security budget. I'm not going too deep into this topic, as my interest in MultiversX has dropped to zero following many subsequent developments, but I've commented a lot on this topic before. This is, in particular, a subject I'm very interested in (economics), and I've also onboarded dozens of people to MvX, so I kinda feel that I need to express my opinion on that matter. I strongly oppose this proposal. But even if it doesn't pass (I think it will pass), just making the proposal is bad enough, imo. GL to everyone who remains supporting MvX. Wish you all the best. Take care.














