Even COINTELEGRAPH has no idea how this works. LOL.

[Anonymous No.20846289]

We are still early, lmao:
https://cointelegraph.com/news/this-coins-supply-goes-down-as-the-price-rises

[Anonymous No.20846446]

>>20846289
“ Let’s say an investor owns 10 AMPL that they acquired for $1 each, making their portfolio worth $10. The price then increases by 10% to $1.10, but the supply contracts 50%, decreasing the investor’s holdings to 5 AMPL. Despite the price appreciation, the investor’s portfolio diminishes to $5.50, losing 45% of its original value”

Bravo, I actually can’t believe this is real.

[Anonymous No.20846624]

didn't know anything about AMPL until i read this and i can honestly say i feel like i'm more confused on what AMPL is even supposed to be/do than before i read that.
so what's the point of AMPL being designed the way it is? seems absolutely ridiculous that it goes up in value and drops in supply affecting the number of AMPL a person owns.
i figured when it went up, supply as a whole would decrease, making all AMPL worth even more as a result, but that clearly wasn't what they were going for.
so someone who knows how this can ever be useful please explain it to me. i'm actually amused by this.

[Anonymous No.20846703]

>>20846624
>>20846446
That article, is the perfect, PERFECT example of how much of a filter this project is. All the memes are spot on.

>Michael lives in New York. He has been working in the blockchain space since 2015, founding, advising, speaking and writing. He currently teaches a blockchain course that he designed for MBA and master’s students at Pace University, and he mentors startups at the Columbia University-IBM Blockchain Accelerator.

This is just hilarious. We live in a clown world.

[Anonymous No.20846850]

>>20846703
that's actually fuckin hilarious. we truly do live in a clown world. i wish i realized this sooner and it wouldn't have taken me so long to make profits trading crypto. i used to buy based on tech and progression, lost a lot of money. started throwing money at shit alts with no use and getting out after a bubble started forming, made money.
this is truly a clown game in a clown world. i wonder why i even do this anymore sometimes.

[Anonymous No.20846864]

>>20846624
>didn't know anything about AMPL until i read this and i can honestly say i feel like i'm more confused on what AMPL is even supposed to be/do than before i read that.

The author does not grasp how AMPL works.

>so what's the point of AMPL being designed the way it is? seems absolutely ridiculous that it goes up in value and drops in supply affecting the number of AMPL a person owns.

Yes. That would make no sense. This is also not how it works.

>i figured when it went up, supply as a whole would decrease, making all AMPL worth even more as a result, but that clearly wasn't what they were going for.
so someone who knows how this can ever be useful please explain it to me. i'm actually amused by this.

When the price of AMPL increases over 1.06 USD, every 24 hours, the supply is readjusted - SO THE TOTAL SUPPLY IS INFLATED - and redistributed to everyone who holds AMPL. So, this is a mechanism of ensuring that everyone who participates in the network maintains equal standing. The opposite happens, when the price goes below 0.96 USD.

When the supply is readjusted and redistributed, the price will move toward it's target of trying to be betweem 0.96 - 1.06 USD.

It's so simple.

[Anonymous No.20846890]

why is it valued at .70? for people to make money from the rebase it needs to be above a dollar correct?

[Anonymous No.20846947]

>>20846890
shaking out weak hands and retard top buyers. 2 months until the next run starts. Millionaires will be made on every run up as long as they cash out.

[Anonymous No.20847381]

>>20846864
ahhh, ok, see i was interested in AMPL, just been doing research on other coins and tokens, so i didn't get around to it, but it was next on my to-do list of research.
i knew it wasn't some ponzi scheme or anything like people were claiming today, but the price drop made me think maybe it was.
thanks for the explanation, that's all i need to do my own research into it. it seems very interesting.
and i misspoke, that author is a total fucking idiot.
i thought you were talking about the founder of AMPL. sorry i barely have been getting sleep, have a two 2 year olds.
that all being said, if you care to give me your opinion on if now is still a good time to get in or hold off and do my research first? i don't want to be even further behind the curve on this. thanks either way, whether you give me your opinion or not, you're one of the helpful ones left on here.

[Anonymous No.20847610]

>>20846703
>he mentors startups at the Columbia University-IBM Blockchain Accelerator
this can't be real

[Anonymous No.20847752]

>>20847610
Clown web 3.0

[Anonymous No.20847867]

https://tunein.com/podcasts/Technology-Podcasts/The-Blockchain-Show-p1161995/?topicId=139241029


For non pajeets. Dev Kuo really is a visionary.

[Anonymous No.20847900]

>>20847867


Episode 153

[Anonymous No.20847944]

>>20846446
Its a retarded investment but your shit is even more retarded, if the supply is halved the price will double. Not decrease.

10 AMPL for $.5 will become 5 AMPL for $1
5 AMPL for $2 will become 10 AMPL for $1

[Anonymous No.20848009]

>>20847944
It’s straight from the article, dumbo

[Anonymous No.20848033]

>>20848009
Then both you and the article is retarded. Feel better now?

[Anonymous No.20848068]

>>20848009
>Let’s say an investor owns 10 AMPL that they acquired for $1 each, making their portfolio worth $10. The price then increases by 10% to $1.10, while the supply expands by 10%, increasing the investor’s holdings to 11 AMPL. The value of the investor’s holdings increase to $12.10

The articles says the absolute opposite, congratulations you are illiterate.

[Anonymous No.20848156]

>>20848033
>>20848068
Yeah, no. >>20848009 was correct. They are fucking correcting the article as we speak.

This is hilarious..

[Anonymous No.20848179]

did anyone archive the original article before it was updated?

[Anonymous No.20848193]

>>20848156
Yeah, the URL should be proof enough. Look at what the title of the article is in the URL, and then compare it to the new title in the article. Jesus christ..