Reddit Posts
GG Token - Created in cooperation with GG International, White Lotto, and GG World.
SEC Sues Bittrex Crypto Exchange and Former CEO. Algorand deemed a security along with OMG, DASH, ALGO, TKN, NGC, IHT as Securities Traded on Bittrex in Complaint
🔥PHOENIX🔥 Just Launched | Low MC 💸 Giveaways and Daily Contests with Prizes in $BUSD | 👥 Doxxed Team in Video Chat | 🔒 Liquidity Locked
TokoNFT marketplace NFT on BSC | Doxx | listed CMC & CG under 9 hour and trend 1 Dextools
TokoNFT | Doxxed Dev | Metaverse NFT Gallery | Marketplace NFT on BSC | x1000
TokoNft | Metaverse | Doxxed Team | SAFU | Launch Today After Presale
Mentions
Got in on Wels and TKN at 5-7c. Ath was 50c for both .. lets farm
Yes, when referring to bonded LP value you always refer to the total value of the bonded LP not just one side. It is sending USDC to uniswap, I thought I had been quite clear in my explanation and the model. >So yes, someone buys $10,k worth of TKN and their $10,k \*\*(of USDC)\*\* is used \*\*(by bonding it along with the equivalent amount of TKN from the LBC)\*\* to create 20k worth of bonded USDC and TKN on uniswap, the original $10k stays in the FLP.
Now it just sounds like you're creating USDC out of thin air here... unless you mean that the "20k" here is 10k USDC and the amount of the TKN token that was just bought for $10k in USDC, at which point I am still unclear about how this isn't sending any USDC to Uniswap but is still somehow creating 20k in "liquidity", or in fact creating any Liquidity at all...
>That's not what your post says This appears to be where the disconnect is. What I said is: >The total supply of TKN is 2million and let's say you take 500,k TKN and put it into a liquidity pool that is created by the project to be used as the faucet liquidity pool (FLP) along with 10,000 USDC. and >Now let's say you create a smart contract that holds another 500,k TKN and all this smart contract does is, when it is sent USDC it uses that USDC to bond with the TKN and create liquidity on a Uniswap USDC/TKN pool (LP) we will call this smart contract the liquidity bootstrapping contract (LBC). And >Now let's say someone buys $10,k TKN, what happens is that the FLP would create 10,k iUSDC, and send its USDC to the LBC. So yes, someone buys $10,k worth of TKN and their $10,k is used to create 20k worth of bonded USDC and TKN on uniswap, the original $10k stays in the FLP. Will reply to the rest of the post soon
>The FLP started with 10k USDC, the user who bought TKN from it deposited 10k USDC into the FLP and then the FLP sent 10k USDC to the LBC. That's not what your post says 😂 >Both the FLP and the LBC started with 500k TKN each. They must start with the same amount of token in order for the system to work. This ensures that for every TKN that the FLP sells the LBC bonds the same amount. Right, but at the point you made this statement you'd just had a transaction where someone had bought \~9.8k from the LBC (I think?) so they don't have the same amount anymore... >Yes, this is true, but if the only way to get TKN is through the FLP then the price will by definition be dynamically tied to both supply and liquidity. No? The price is based on what someone will pay for it. If someone buys your token and then decides they don't want it anymore, but can't find a buyer at the current FLP price, then they sell it lower and your price on the market has, by definition, dropped. Nothing in your proposal puts a floor on the price, only a ceiling, and only as long as the FLP has tokens to sell. >My thinking here is that the only way to get the TKN would be through the FLP initially. However you can't drain the LBC (because of the fact that it is limited to the 10k initial USDC and all USDC that it sends is first received from someone purchasing off of the FLP) or the USDC on uniswap because the liquidity on uniswap would always be equal to the circulating supply of the token. It's going to be equal to what people paid for it in USDC (at least if I'm understanding what you wrote correctly, I'm not sure what you wrote is what you meant though...) but once someone buys the tokens if they can ever get them at a lower price from someone else then they can potentially sell them to the Liquidity pool at its calculated price (again, assuming I'm understanding this right) and thus make more than they personally paid for the tokens. >To illustrate, once there has been $75,k worth of TKN sold by the FLP then there would be 30,k TKN which would be circulating on the market, and 30,k locked up on the uniswap LP, So, this doesn't math out as correct, or match your spreadsheet... just for a start from what I can tell if you buy $75,000 USDC worth of TKN then there's now \~60-65k TKN circulating, not 30k. > the average price would have been $2.5k and there would be 75k of USDC locked in the uniswap LP pool as well. If at that point 100% of the circulating TKN was dumped on the uniswap pool the price of TKN would go from $2.50 to $0.63 but there would still be 375000 USDC on the uniswap LP. I have no idea where you pulled 2.5k from in all of this, but it doesn't match your spreadsheet at all. Just so we're clear, 2.5k would be short for two thousand five hundred dollars. Also the general idea of this conflicts with this statement from your post: >his bag didn't go down in price. If someone buys X tokens for 10k but then sells them back and gets back $Y, which is less than 10k, then the value of the tokens is not 10k/X it's $Y/X. More basically you're calculating the price of the sale after knowing how much is being sold, which I don't think actually works, legally speaking, with a 10k limit. You either have to sell one token at a time, or sell the whole batch for the advertised price per token. More generally I think you're making a math mistake here, which is you're taking some quantities from after the transaction and others from before it, and it's not consistent. By your own equation if there's 75k paid into the pool, and I sell all circulating tokens to the pool, then the value in USDC in the pool should be 500k, because the pool now contains 500k TKN and its value is a static calculation at 2.5 \* 10\^11. Also if your system won't buy back the tokens for at least the price someone just paid for them then why would they ever use it? All it seems to be doing with this version of your explanation is locking up USDC inside the LBC on Uniswap that either never comes out or makes the token creator richer? >How would this happen? Rounding in the code, any other coding error of any kind, or given the new information when the founders unlock their 1m TKN any selling from that would almost instantly drain the 10k.
>You send the 10k USDC from the FLP to the LBC on Uniswap, but then you say the FLB (I assume you meant FLP) still has 10k USDC, which doesn't add up. The FLP started with 10k USDC, the user who bought TKN from it deposited 10k USDC into the FLP and then the FLP sent 10k USDC to the LBC. >Then you also say the FLP and LBC have the same quantity of the hypothetical TKN, but at this point someone has bought \~9.8k from the LBC, and none seems to have moved out of the FLP, and even if it had none of the amounts listed are going to result in the FLP and LBC having the same amounts. Both the FLP and the LBC started with 500k TKN each. They must start with the same amount of token in order for the system to work. This ensures that for every TKN that the FLP sells the LBC bonds the same amount. >If the price of the token goes up then yes, someone can buy from the FLP and then flip the tokens to make money, but as soon as the price drops there's no incentive to touch the FLP. Yes, this is true, but if the only way to get TKN is through the FLP then the price will by definition be dynamically tied to both supply and liquidity. >Also unless the literal only way to buy these tokens is through the LBC on Uniswap then there's the potential for someone to gather enough tokens to drain the USDC in the LP behind the LBC contract and make a profit through price manipulation or even a small error in the contract's code. My thinking here is that the only way to get the TKN would be through the FLP initially. However you can't drain the LBC (because of the fact that it is limited to the 10k initial USDC and all USDC that it sends is first received from someone purchasing off of the FLP) or the USDC on uniswap because the liquidity on uniswap would always be equal to the circulating supply of the token. >Like, you said there's 2 million tokens, we've accounted for half of those in your example, there's nothing that stops the other 1 million from having their price drop and then this whole setup becomes worthless. Let's assume for not that the other 1 million are locked up for partners with a 3 year vesting period or something (I shouldn't have included them in what I wrote). To illustrate, once there has been $75,k worth of TKN sold by the FLP then there would be 30,k TKN which would be circulating on the market, and 30,k locked up on the uniswap LP, the average price would have been $2.5k and there would be 75k of USDC locked in the uniswap LP pool as well. If at that point 100% of the circulating TKN was dumped on the uniswap pool the price of TKN would go from $2.50 to $0.63 but there would still be 375000 USDC on the uniswap LP. I modeled it out in google sheets here: [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hGcOEAMgalqr9YN\_r7Awc1JIxKvaCGozGt5odJzQgSA/edit?usp=sharing](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hGcOEAMgalqr9YN_r7Awc1JIxKvaCGozGt5odJzQgSA/edit?usp=sharing) >In short, this seems like a way to donate 10k to whoever figures out the best way to drain your LP How would this happen?
I think you're skipping some steps in here somewhere, because I'm on my third read through of this and it's not parsing as sense... You send the 10k USDC from the FLP to the LBC on Uniswap, but then you say the FLB still has 10k USDC, which doesn't add up. Then you also say the FLP and LBC have the same quantity of the hypothetical TKN, but at this point someone has bought \~9.8k from the LBC, and none seems to have moved out of the FLP, and even if it had none of the amounts listed are going to result in the FLP and LBC having the same amounts. More than simple math errors though I think this just doesn't do what you think it does... If the price of the token goes up then yes, someone can buy from the FLP and then flip the tokens to make money, but as soon as the price drops there's no incentive to touch the FLP. Also unless the literal only way to buy these tokens is through the LBC on Uniswap then there's the potential for someone to gather enough tokens to drain the USDC in the LP behind the LBC contract and make a profit through price manipulation or even a small error in the contract's code. Like, you said there's 2 million tokens, we've accounted for half of those in your example, there's nothing that stops the other 1 million from having their price drop and then this whole setup becomes worthless. More than that though, even if we ignore the extra tokens, ignore external trading, and just have this system you've described, I think the only thing you've done is create a zero-sum setup where all the money that went in is guaranteed to go back out again, plus your starting 10k. In short, this seems like a way to donate 10k to whoever figures out the best way to drain your LP.
Maybe BOB , TKN peaking here also
Maybe BOB , TKN peaking here also
BOB, Mode, Velodrome, TKN, PyreSwap, ElonRWA, Blast, WELS, Gambit, KLIMA, Tower, Virtual, Void, OVN
Look up TKN, Token Name Service on Base.... looking real good
OMG Network (OMG), Dash (DASH), Monolith (TKN), Naga (NGC), Real Estate Protocol (IHT), and Algorand (ALGO).
Some of the coins from [the complaint](https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2023/comp-pr2023-78.pdf) the SEC claims are securities: * ALGO * OMG * TKN * NGC * IHT
The 6 tokens specifically called out as securities: OMG, DASH, ALGO, TKN, NGC, and IHC
Along with: OMG, DASH, TKN, NGC, IHT
>The complaint lists 6 tokens that the SEC contends were illegally sold as "crypto asset securities." It's an eclectic list: ALGO DASH IHT OMG NGC TKN The SEC emphasized that this is a non-exclusive list of tokens that they contend were sold as securities on Bittrex.
>\[DB\] SEC Cites OMG, DASH, ALGO, TKN, NGC, IHT as Securities Traded on Bittrex in Complaint Well it's something but Bittrex is an exchange with only small volume
SEC Cites OMG, DASH, ALGO, TKN, NGC, IHT as Securities Traded on Bittrex in Complaint.
It's really not about farming or anything. It's just about converting my ETH and BNB (that won't be doing a 10x anytime soon anyway), into a promising micro cap. I'm not even holding any BNB or ETH right now I'm all in USDC, but I mentionned them because the pairs are BNB/TKN and ETH/TKN so I would have to buy some.
If you know its gonna keep dropping for a few weeks, why DCA at all? Just wait a few weeks. I guess the real question is how to manage your portfolio in terms of splitting between ETH/BNB/TKN. By trying to DCA with too small a fund size, you'll just end up giving a lot away in gas
Monolith. The first and AFAIK only non-custodial crypto-fiat spending Visa card. Their product is a defi enabled smart contract wallet on Ethereum that can be used to top up a Visa card. They also provide a fiat on ramp. The token TKN gives a share of project revenue from top ups in a Community Chest. Tiny market cap, decent project, good team that is well capitalised. They are soon to release a new product, token.com. This is starting in Brazil first as an easy defi access point.
They stole their whitepaper from TokenCard, but seeing how TKN(now Monolith) has performed I cant really say shit about fuck, because one is a clear winner and one a clear loser, oh well...
Too many to remember, TKN, FUN, ARDR, OMG
Yes, boss 
Nice! What about Krang? 
Sounds kinda like a liquidity pool…do you profit when the coin/TKN does?
TKN. Monolith is an OG 2017 ICO company that launched a non-custodial defi wallet connected to a Visa card. TKN holders can claim a share of a pool of assets that grows when users swap crypto to top up the Visa card. Monolith currently also in the process of launching a new defi product in Brazil because it is the heart of fin tec in SA.
TKN (Tokencard) one of the first successful ICOs of 2017 which then had its code and white paper STOLEN/PLAGIARISED by the Moneco team who is now Crypto.com(CRO). TKN is now Monolith which is worth basically nothing while Crypto.com is loved by all and has a place in the top 35. Sucks.
Is TKN dead? (aka Monolith)? If anyone remembers, they ICO'd in 2017 to pretty significant fanfare and seem to have solved big technological and government hurdles since then, but there is just zero interest for some reason.
Interesting, how people differ. My experience with Binance is the opposite. I love all the services they've built, the low fees and even customer support has been great (live chat). I've also had huge success with BNB and the IEO coins. Crypto.com is something I would never use. They've had their shenanigans since they created Monaco Coin (copied off Tokencard TKN - now called Monolith). After burning all the money from MCO and shafting the "investors", they just made a new coin... People who stake it to get their card are only feeding the ponzi (the same VISA cards from Binance and Monolith are completely free).
https://etherscan.io/token/0xaaaf91d9b90df800df4f55c205fd6989c977e73a Monolith’s TKN. Non-custodial smart contract wallet connected to a Visa card. In app swaps and both DAI and ETH purchases directly from fiat cards no/low fees. TKN has a proportional claim on the Community Chest, where card top up fees go in various tokens including aDAI - Aave’s interest bearing DAI token. OG early 2017 ICO that actually built their product. Main issue preventing wider adoption is the price of gas.
Exeedme and polkamarkets have a website and a white paper that anybody can make in 1 day. TKN and Bistox Games I cant even access the sites because it says that it’s not available in my country.
Exeedme , Polkamarkets , TKN.com , Bistox Games and many more.
Live and learn i guess haha, I got got by Confido back in 2017, that was a legit scam, even said what it was in the project name lol Only reason I was so against APPC was because that was ICOd late in the bull run and alot of the prior projects had already crashed hard HMQ, TKN, MGO, tried to warn him with my mistakes!
Their protocol is used by TKN, doublespin, games.bistox.com, exeedme, polkamarkets & more. Do you all really think there would be this much hype over nothing? I haven’t even mentioned off chain.
Okay, time to check out some names for my next investments!!! * DVC: DragonVein. Like, fuuuu, that's a really awesome name! * CHONK: Chonk. That just makes me giggle, totally a great investment. * SOCKS: Unisocks. That's just adorbs!!! * AYA: Aryacoin. Arya is my fav GoT character, so I am in! * TKN: Monolith. Monoliths are always epic. Must have!