> J.P. Morgan has released its own blockchain and token based on Quorum

Thats a question for the tokenomics. The token price is currently being driven by speculatards getting excited by potential big name announcements, but at some point in the future the tokenomics 'should' result in the value of the token rising to match usage and demand.

Though its important to remember that QNT is like many others a utility token, and is not designed to be a vehicle for financial investment (or store of wealth). Its an altcoin. One day it will fall in line with BTC like all the rest. Until then, enjoy the ride.

You realise Overledger isn’t three lines of code right? It’s about connecting the enterprise’s system to Overledger you retard. That’s the point of it. They’re trying to make integration with blockchain easy and quick enough for enterprises to adopt.

QNT is needed for licensing and usage fees. So with major adoption, there would be huge buy demand.

But obviously, something as simple as this would mean the resulting price pump suddenly makes Overledger way too expensive, so they peg licensing and usage to a fiat value.

This means such utility demand would pump the price a lot, but actual clients, depending on token value, might need to buy 10,000 QNT or even just a fraction of a QNT.

And the best part is the Quant Treasury will handle this if the client doesn’t want to buy and hold crypto directly. So we get tokenomics perfect for price appreciation without the barrier of crypto-only charges.

Genius.

If you are referring to what they have announced publicly so far as a startup company, last month they revealed the Australian government is using Overledger in conjunction with AUCloud to "interact with their supply chain, critical infrastructure, national record keeping and financial services."

Quite a big deal actually, that 3 lines of code is sufficient to protect national interests:

medium.com/@quant_network/quant-network-and-aucloud-partner-to-provide-worlds-first-blockchain-operating-system-for-889e3c1f990d

Quite the opposite. Most of the token use is based on locking up tokens. Do I have to explain what happens when large amounts of a tokens are locked up?

When the bulls return I will be selling everything at the peak or at least try to. If you think a utility token will hold its value when the inevitable bear market occurs afterwards, feel free to continue holding QNT.

>muh secret club xD

Polkadot is gonna put an end to quant

this is so stupid, inefficient and convoluted. why can't they just make the token directly on ethereum ffs. fucking control freak bankers.

here's why. Massive companies cannot trust any one chain. They have to have a middleman, this is about billions of dollars, you think they are gonna trust some chitty chain that forks and fucks up regularly or gets 51% attacked. No fucking way, ETH couldn't handle fucking crypto kitties.

This is also why Polkadot is another bad idea that doesn't understand Business only tech. Companies do not want to trust another chain. They want to have choice and ease of movement between chains and not be dependent on one. Thats what they want. Quant cause the CEO has worked in this area at the top level of payments knows this. Polkadot just with another chain creates another problem. Solves nothing...

Big banks will use this cause its better than Hyperledger. Either u accept this fact now or be pissed later when you missed investing early, I dont fucking care its not my fucking problem.

I disagree. First off Polkadot allows you to leverage many chains. Also, no company is going to paid to have their smart contracts on many chains at the same time. Maybe sometimes they want to test out chains or offer a product on two chains, but the costs of deploying robust products on multiple chains makes no sense. They can back up their data with their own servers

All wrong. Quant has the ability to have smart contracts work across any chain. Quant allows no overhead that Polkadot has adding another layer of yet another chain which adds unnessecary risks. And this is a fact no one talks about you can't have all 3 in a chain, security, scalability and speed. Not possible so Polkadot is just a project that has a big name behind it like EOS, The ETH mess should tell you enough about its abilities.

fact is Banks and companies so far have used Hyperledger, Overledger is like Hyperledger but 10 times better in all areas including ease of use. Its being deployed right now......Polkadot is an ICO money grab by yet another techie who doesn't know business needs.

Wrong. Quant is proprietary software and yes it will require overhead because you can't leverage smart contracts on chains without paying the gas costs. Then you pay fees to quant on top of that. There is not more risks, in fact its more secure because it keeps state and has consensus. Polkadot can give all three because it has many virtual machines with the general framework of polkadot. Polkadot is eth with sidechains that have their own consensus and states

>sidechains
>secure

Attached: Screenshot 2019-02-15 at 18.34.54.png (449x349, 217K)

Polkadot shares a pool of mining as opposed to each one needing it's own. Quanties think they are gonna rule the world... sad

Here's the thing. This isn't actually a competition, its not zero sum game where one interoperability project wins all. BUT you can tell me how Polkadot is the best thing in tech ever made but in the end all that matters is how much actual adoption does it get.

Quant has some serious clients onboarding. I mean SERIOUS as we are gonna see I believe in the following weeks as relationships are too be revealed. So in the end this isn't a PC vs Mac thing for tech nerds its a what are the banks and Large companies gonna adopt and my bet is Quant cause it gives them OPTIONS. And that I believe will be key.

Also Polkadot is a faggoty Onions boy Silicon valley name hahahahahahahahaha

Why the fuck does Jow Forums turn s o y Boy into fucking Onions?

Why are you so new?

First off you say they have serious clients are we have yet to see any. Quant likely will have success but it won't be on the same effects on the token price. Quant is going to end up being a security token and not a utility like everyone thinks. It functions much more like equity than utility.

cringed hard at this you autistic faggot

No doubt the tech is good. But here's the thing: All these cunts know and trust Gilbert. ~He's all up in their lunch meetings sucking dick. Who the fuck is polkadot? Why will banks want anything to do with it?

This train of thought is why so many projects go in the wrong direction and will ultimately fail.

Enterprise does not want to be tied to a single blockchain. What if they pick one like Polkadot while other enterprises pick another? How do they communicate?

No enterprises want to take the risk of leaping into blockchain first and tying themselves to one in case they make the wrong decision, because it then causes major disruption and costs many more millions to change it. But with Overledger, they won't have that concern.

Enterprise is also very worried about stability, which multi-chain apps with Overledger can easily solve. Imagine a system that uses 4 or 5 blockchains at the same time for different functions, and with Overledger, it's very easy to do this. Even if some of the blockchains ran into issues (such as forks or slower transactions), they'd have part of the system running on other blockchains so the whole thing doesn't go down.

The fact is that Overledger takes all these great, but isolated, blockchains and brings them all together. The reasons to use it as a middle layer FAR outweigh the reasons not to.

Greater usage = Token value appreciation. With the tokenomics model, adoption will always translate into higher token value. It's impossible for that not to happen.

Also, thank you Biz basement dweller for your years of legal experience so you are able to identify that QNT will be a security when Gilbert and his team of lawyers have missed this. The absolute state.

Polkadot can have all the chains connected on one. At that point there will be no purpose for quant. It's a short term solution that requires a middleman. It's a useful sandbox, that's it

Do you even know what Polkadot is? I don't think so because your first sentence doesn't even make sense. It's a federation of blockchains. It's not one specific chain.

There have been several coins to backtrack after the fact.

But you are still tied to the core Polkadot blockchain groups and the limitations they have.

It would actually be in the best interests of enterprise to use Overledger with a Polkadot connector alongside Bitcoin, Ripple, Ethereum, Quorum, Hyperledger and Corda connectors too (which are almost all complete already). That way you have the best of all worlds.

What people don't seem to get is that you can't connect to blockchains without having a middle layer. If you have an existing legacy system, and you want to connect to a new system of blockchains, you will always need some kind of interface, otherwise you'd need to radically change your existing legacy system which is way too expensive and risky.

Quant's Overledger is that interface. It's ready to go and currently years ahead of any other system in terms of interoperability and the ability to create multi-chain systems. And the great thing about it is that if you go with Overledger, you aren't stuck. You can use it, and STILL use the likes of Quorum, Corda, Ripple, Hyperledger and maybe Polkadot in future too. Using Overledger doesn't mean you have to sacrifice or choose between any of these.

Yeah it's a useful service but you could use external adaptors with link to do multichain communication just as effective. Now you couldn't do multichain apps but I'm not really convinced that's as big as people think but I see the idea of testing around till you find something you like. Because testing all of them at the same time is still expensive since you are going to be paying fast costs on each one

Yes. People want to be able to connect to various chains as simply as possible. That's what quant enables.

QUANTards are the worst of all.

GET THE FUCK OUT OF Jow Forums PAJEETS

Attached: 560.png (493x639, 394K)

Yeah but why would you? There has to be a reason to take the more difficult route. Quant have spent years creating this tech, and they've patented it, and they're building a full off-the-shelf system which handles all the heavy work in the background.

Providing the licensing and usage fees are affordable for a huge company, it's in the best interests by a mile to just use it instead of trying to create their own version with possible legal issues, years of extra development and no discernible benefit in terms of interoperability.

Personally I think multi-chain apps are going to be huge. Each app feature could be on a different blockchain compared to the pros and cons of that blockchain (i.e. whether it's faster, has more storage, is cheaper etc). It provides a huge amount of flexibility in terms of creating better apps without putting all the pressure and workload on one blockchain.

I don't think so. Chainlink, which should launch soon, you just connect the smart contract through APIs and they will have tons already available so you just plug and play. The whole world connects through APIs so no need for some patented software. It's a similar model to quant but without the licensing fees plus you have more options on security and data aggregation methods and can still leverage different chains and cross communicate.

Disagree on multi-chain apps being big besides for testing. A user just needs an app in the dapp store. They can easily download it so if one blockchain works well that's all they need. Now in the beginning testing might be necessary to see which chain so I get that but you will eventually find a chain you like and go. Quant is good for the beginning but will lose value over time.

Fucking nerds ITT, who gives a shit? QNT is going to the fucking moon.

Then what stops Chainlink being copied? Where's the tokenomic value in link unless enterprise must also pay in some fashion to use Chainlink too? Overledger is also miles ahead in interoperability connectors already available.

I actually like Chainlink (I was in it from day one) but I don't think they directly compete. Some things Chainlink does better, other things Overledger does better. And there's nothing to stop Overledger acting as a connector to Chainlink and other blockchains for more flexibility. Enterprises in some cases could use both.

As for multi-chain apps, you say "if a blockchain works well". Works well for what? Some are faster, some are slower, some have more storage, some have less, some are cheaper and less secure, some are expensive and more secure. The list goes on. If you're creating a hugely complex enterprise system, it'll be extremely difficult to find a one-size-fits-all blockchain that does everything perfectly.

With Overledger, you can cherry pick the best features of each blockchain and bring them together into one app. The best of all worlds. And you can create redundancy in case there are any issues with one particular blockchain. Overledger could be the catalyst that results in apps that are lightyears ahead in terms of functionality, speed and security purely because they can be multi-chain.

None of these nerdy tech projects gonna get adoption. They are run by autists who know zero about real business.

They are not miles ahead. You have no proof of that. Chainlink has POC's too so that's simply not true or atleast you really don't know or have any proof of it. Gilbert says things but we really don't know what's going on. Chainlink has also been in development for awhile too so again we can't be totally sure about either.

In terms of the tokenomics, you pay per use or some projects like OpenLaw are working on models when you pay fixed rates. Also, you get protocol level insurance paid out to you automatically if the oracle feeds outlier data, giving you a certain insurance on the contract. You also have tools for different levels of security and privacy.

What I'm saying for multi-chain apps is you wont use the same contract on several chains. You might use different chains for different purposes but you can do that without quant too. It makes sense to be able to try the same contract on multiple chains but once you settle in on one you don't need it.

I get it can leverage many chains but so can chainlink. It's no better or worse for multi-chain apps that leverage a few systems in one contract. I can simply do that through an API system too. Quant is not special in that regard and is just centralized. My contract is totally dependent on their system and how can I know there are not backdoors?

Maybe Quant becomes the intranet version of interop, but it will lose to network effects for a public standard. It will succeed in the short term and fail over the long term

But Sergey is autistic. How's he going to to convince people who aren't autistic? It makes sense why biz loves link.

Kek.

Go and research Gilbert Verdian. 20 years of enterprise experience in governments and corporations. Unlike most projects where dev nerds try to move into business, Gil is moving the other way.

He doesn't need to build contacts and connections. He already had them before he even started Quant.

You don't have any proof that they aren't miles ahead either. I suppose it comes down to who you believe. All I know though is that the Overledger SDK was released a while ago, and if their progress in terms of connectors etc was untrue, it would be easy to tell.

Yes, Chainlink has tokenomics that pay for usage etc, much like Quant has tokenomics for licensing and usage fees. Either way you have to pay, but just with different structures, so I don't think one wins over the other here.

Why wouldn't you use the same contract on several chains? Overledger is going to allow multi-chain smart contracts as well. As I said before, there's a huge benefit in using the best features of different blockchains to put an app or system together. And it's impossible to have a hugely complex system with hundreds of different functions and expect one blockchain to do all of them equally well.

We'll have to agree to disagree, user. But right now I have considerably more faith in Gilbert and his team considering they've came from a huge background in business and enterprise and will know exactly what enterprises want way more than any of us do.

Fair enough. I have more belief in Sergey and network effect in particular that happen on an open permissionless system than proprietary although quant should get some use in the near future.

>he doesn't have a high enough IQ to hold both LINK & QNT

Attached: 1549109541620.jpg (1024x888, 299K)

Absolutely checked.

connect.vocalink.com/2018/december/mits/

Attached: accenture_example.jpg (750x376, 33K)

This is it, brothers. Chainlink and Quant have an Accord forged in the fires of the bear market.

Attached: qnt_link.jpg (1280x959, 192K)

Pls stop I'm dying to laughter

how much QNT to make it?

Will i make it with 34K LINK and 32 QNT?

I'm balls deep in Quant but I have respect for Chainlink. I like what they're trying to do.

We must join forces to combat the waves of shitcoins such as LTO.

>not all in chainlink
I have bad news for you..

LTO, UBT, CHX, Midas, etc. are all shitcoins trying to ride the coattails of Quant.

Chainlink is Quant's only true brother. Few Jow Forumsraelis will see this.

Pic related

Looks of an average QNTard holder

Attached: BMNSM9S.jpg (570x575, 172K)

Here is a price chart to have a think about.

I see no reason why $100 is not very realistic for Quant - that's only a 1bn market cap.

Attached: QNTprices.png (752x603, 45K)

Centralised pos with no cross border. Er, no thanks.

I fully expect around top 15 relatively soon.

Huge enterprise demand with a unique patented method, a multi-chain app ecosystem, and a tokenomics model that will increase the intrinsic value of QNT relative to demand.

And given what they're trying to do, and the connections they have, this could be one of the very first examples of the "new era" projects that process many millions of dollars worth of subscriptions and usage.

lol the fud is just embarrassing at this point. Been in since September.

Well, standby for years of it. Fuck, XLM still gets the "airdrop to Africa" shit from 2014!!

But it is gonna be centralised, controlled by jpm and only for a narrow set of company's

He's talking about being in Quant not Quorum. They're completely different things.

>I fully expect around top 15 relatively soon.

Absolutely realistic. If the market goes up a notch or two as well then $100 EoY is extremely likely.

Literal huge sell signal in this post.

Sold two days ago anyways, enjoy the bear market.

You too man. We'll wave down at you from the top.

>Literal huge sell signal in this post.

user make a bullish and realistic prediction = time to sell?

Pretty sure the market won't react to my post there.

You prob have a couple of weeks to get back in, based on QNT's previous behaviour. It will plateau around here for a little while before the next run.

Block Collider anyone ?

Been saying it since the start. Jibrel part 2.A load of partnerships, trials etc that will amount to nothing.

Huge, huge differences between Jibrel and Quant. If you can't see that you're destined to be poor.

Enterprises are itching to use DLT tech and blockchains for the benefits they bring. The only things holding them back are the costs, the complexities, the risks and the lack of interoperability. Overledger solves them all.

Gilbert says 70+ corporate deals in the works right now. If you don't believe him, fine. We'll find out who's correct pretty soon.

I already have some of them.

etherscan.io/address/0xa796d1d9a97bcab5abab9329b8f020746e0a0bdb

Attached: photo_2019-02-11_16-13-47.jpg (800x1067, 128K)

Gilbert also makes hammy press videos and shills to blockchain brad.All the same shit jibrel pulled.

etherscan.io/token/0xa796d1d9a97bcab5abab9329b8f020746e0a0bdb

Block Collider could be a useful lesson for the less well informed.

Let's say, hypothetically, their tech was good. No one gives a fuck. Most don't even know about it. They don't have the team or acumen to do enterprise networking, make contacts and close deals.

What people need to realize is you could have a great idea and great tech, but that's not enough. You need to push it too. You need to market it. If you don't, it can easily be an abysmal failure.

Honestly a lot of crypto these days reminds me of the dot-com bubble. Not just market movements, but the way people seem to make things, put them out there in the middle of cyberspace and expect them to just gain traction all by themselves. Then when nothing happens, everyone is somehow shocked by this.

The fact Quant's team is directly from enterprise with lots of connections and contacts is way more important than many think. Quant has the best tech, but even if it didn't, it could still blow away any competition that doesn't have the tools to connect with decision makers.

Business is already this way and has been for decades. Crypto is no different.

Yo Jow Forums are they giving any gibs away how much is the launch price and when is it set to drop?

Go balls deep, the top 1 10th of 1% collude with each other behind closed doors

>Quant has the best tech
Wrong. They aren't even close to deliver finished product, even if they did i highly doubt it'll be something amazing based on the code i've seen so far.

Quant isn't different from Quarkchain and Tron rightnow and probably will stay that way forever.

Also, Most of the "partnerships" don't mean shit, I can count on my fingers the ones with the right motivation behind them.

Also thanks for the Block collider remaind, paper was really nice, i really should check if they lived up to their promises.

Congratulations on knowing absolutely nothing.

>They aren't even close to deliver finished product

Good. Much more time for speculative price increases, then, eh?

devs are dumping idiots. it's a scam

Scam

Realistic price targets by August and price for fresh entry ?

Quant's bullshit "partnerships":

Pay.UK - board oversight position, no direct use of QNT or OL, no proven use or intent to use by any other members to date.

Oracle - Quant part of their startup accelerator, anyone can apply, no use of QNT or OL by Oracle, no proven use or intent to use by any other startups to date.

Global Legal Blockchain Consortium - 1 of >140 members, advisory consortium, anyone can apply, no direct use of QNT or OL, no proven use or intent to use by any other members to date.

Crowdz - another startup, no actual ties to Cisco other than CEO being a supply-chain manager, no direct use of QNT or OL, no proven use or intent to use by any other members to date.

AllianceBlock - startup investment platform still in development and testnet, no proven use of QNT or OL to date.

INTEROpen - open collaborative project, >250 members, anyone can apply, Quant not listed anywhere on their website, no direct use of QNT or OL, no proven use or intent to use by any other members to date.

MOBI - 82 members, anyone can apply, Quant not listed anywhere on their website, no direct use of QNT or OL, no proven use or intent to use by any other members to date.

AUCloud - Australia-based cloud infrastructure provider, no info on customers, no mention of Quant/OL other than the partnership press release, no proven use of QNT/OL to date.

Attached: Quan'tOL - Copy.png (500x1278, 65K)

So glad I sold this.

This is what happens when the team itself sends tokens from their wallets to idex and bittrex lol

Team dumping their own Quant

Attached: gilbertdumping.png (2246x1132, 352K)

etherscan.io/token/0x4a220e6096b25eadb88358cb44068a3248254675?a=0xf5e38bbedc78efea055e0c56035adb320e64c4bc

thats not even the DEV wallets

What's up buddy?

lol
glad I didn't waste time researching this. it sounded like a hypey scam and I guess it was.

You need to use QNT to use the network. If more people use QNT the price of new tokens can be raised by the Quant company, which they will obviously do.
QNT already in circulation will rise in price with it.
It's all fucking obvious the FUD is getting more and more retarded.

Such massively weak FUD.

home.barclaycard/insights/payments/Barclaycard-Payment-Solutions-and-Crowdz-partner-to-speed-up-the-B2B-supply-chain.html

What the fuck do people honestly expect when a project is making these moves? That they're going to suddenly appear with a photo shaking hands with the CEO? This isn't a movie.

One, some aren't "partnerships" and Quant never said they were. Two, the whole point of forming a partnership is that you explore potential collaboration. Three, in the real enterprise world you announce use of the systems on the basis that the client wants to and when they want to so a joint agreement can be arranged.

I'd much rather they were honest and patient so they don't fall into the trap of other projects where they hype things up to be more than they seem and then get BTFO'd like Req did and many others.

It's fine though, QNT will follow the same cycle as many other big gainers. Initial pump, then a slump followed by lots of FUD, then more news is released most probably with a Binance listing and then up it goes. Same thing happened to HOT where everyone who got out early missed the biggest pump of them all. Seen it happen more times than I can count.

Gil says there are 70+ corporate deals in the works. Not "partnerships". Actual deals. We'll soon find out if he's telling the truth, but if he is, there's going to be an awful lot of pink wojaks on this board.

>relying on centralized team to make proprietary software, deals, and moves that raise token price
>not realizing this is the literal definition of a security

>some aren't "partnerships" and Quant never said they were
tell that to rest of the Quantfags on this board that have been shilling these "partnerships" and "deals" non-stop

Yeah thats the thing. Proprietary software with licensing fees is definitely not a utility token. They might be using a loophole but the rules are still unclear. They are def going to become a security token in the next year or two.

buy qnt desu

Attached: 1549643527447.jpg (1600x1067, 202K)

it's fucking pathetic how other shill groups are trying to copy LINK reverse psychology tactics

Attached: 1549039116289.png (480x476, 206K)