pull down to refresh

I'm sure. I just want my offer on the table😀
How do you think they will price out in the future? Will it be pegged to the sat?
reply
Of course they will always be worth less than a sat, but they will have some value because they are accepted as territory rent. It's kind of interesting. I'm sure @k00b and @ek have already figured it out.
reply
It's like the dudes have been reading MMTers. This is straight outta Warren Mosler
reply
If they knew, wouldnt they raise the territory rent? I thought they just lowered it?
reply
61 sats \ 4 replies \ @ek 5 Jan
As far as SN is concerned, 1 CC = 1 sat.
Raising or lowering territory cost does not change that.
reply
Oh yes. I'm sure of that. I meant you were aware of the arbitrage games that would be played. In fact you started it!
reply
Congrats on buying them so cheap then lol
reply
20 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 5 Jan
Only two took my offer though.
reply
Well, its still early. You might have more chomping on the bit soon.
reply
I don't think the lowered rent had much to do with cowboy credits. I think it had to do with the fiat price of bitcoin doubling since rent was set, but maybe I'm mistaken.
reply
No, you could be right. I didnt even think of that. It would be interesting if they only had a certain amount of CCs, they could create their own economy and market. Lol
reply
They're like the US Treasury. They control the cc printer.
reply
41 sats \ 3 replies \ @ek 5 Jan
I know it was probably tongue-in-cheek but let me explain why printing CCs would be a bad idea:
Every CC has to be backed by sats because they’ll eventually turn into sats again via rewards or will be used for territory rent. So we would literally cut into our own revenue if we would print them.
reply
Yes, it was tongue in cheek, but it's still good you explained it. It will take a while for everyone to wrap their heads around these things.
The US printer never stops. CCs are exchanged and then destroyed? I dont know the coding behind it.
reply
I don't have a clue.
Nah, never. sats have use and value elsewhere; CCs are local to SN
reply