Which comes first? The title of this entry: 'which comes first...
' is really meant to mean this: Does marketing precede system fluidity, or does system fluidity precede marketing? We will address it in another form - something you often hear, read, or perhaps even feel yourself: "I will think about adding more money when some of my OutXchanges are processed.
" As we learned in the last entry, this is an incorrect way of thinking through what is happening.
We could rephrase the question to something more appropriate: "When the reserves added by marketing's efforts to bring more revenues becomes enough for at least one of my OutXchanges to be processed, then I will receive money.
I might add more funds.
" The idea here is to realize that what is REALLY being said is along these lines: "When others market, so new money (reserves) comes in, then as enough new reserves are added, my own OutXchanges will be processed in turn.
I will then receive at least one OutXchange out of those fresh reserves.
When I do receive that OutXchange (or more than one), then the reserves will be depleted until/unless I decide to add some more money to replace, in part or full, that amount of depleted reserves.
" If we view the statement in that way, then we see two issues emerge quickly.
The two main issues a) If you are allowed to consider keeping out (or returning) reserves used to process your own OutXchanges, then others are allowed to consider this as well (and they will).
This is fine, of course, but the system has to control some of that volatility.
They need to do that by ensuring that OA/DXD fees are paid from IB at least most of the time, by absolutely everyone who is able to list OutXchanges.
The system is not based on 'cycling' same funds, though that is possible whenever marketing is moving along well enough (there is far more e-currency/currency reserves than DXG available, system-wide).
b) More importantly, we are back to the 'which comes first' argument.
It is easy to imagine that marketing is moving along, drawing fresh subscribers to the system who are eager to get going and build up their holdings, etc.
But CAN marketing do that well when the system is NOT already fluid...
? No; not really.
Marketing is slowed to a crawl when the system is slow.
Marketing finds it very, very hard to draw new subscribers during slow periods; perhaps only 5% of the usual number of new subscribers is reachable.
At that rate, according to the 2005 standards, it would take about 20 months to accomplish what normally can be done within any single month during regular operational speeds.
So, when thinking about that...
it means that you are waiting up to 20 months or so to be able to receive OutXchanges, before you decide to add fresh funds (and really, you are not considering adding fresh funds at all if your OutXchanges are being processed before you return some amount out of that total back into the system, such as only 50% or 25%, etc).
In that context, the issue is rather interesting.
Interesting Issue It becomes more of a question along these lines: If we assume that you are not 'afraid' of the system generally, because you know enough to realize what makes it slow and quicken, then you must realize that what you choose to InXchange and what you are waiting for to be OutXchanged are entirely unrelated.
All too often, folks feel that the money they receive from OutXchanges is actually some of their own money, BACK.
It looks that way: if I had $1000 in E-Gold, and InX'd it, and then later received an OutXchange for $500, then I could well think absent-mindedly that I am staring at $500 of my OWN money, back in my E-Gold account.
And therefore, I am just waiting for the 'other of my own $500 originally-transmitted dollars from E-Gold' to be 'returned' back into my account.
...
Remember: the money you receive from OutXchanges is probably NEVER, EVER the same exact dollars you yourself put into the system.
This was generally never the case, and never will be.
So, what ARE the dollars you receive...
? Other peoples' dollars, which they themselves added to the system.
That assumes that folks are adding money to the system.
And folks generally don't add money to the system when the system is slow.
And marketing basically cannot do anything about that, either.
Waiting for OutXchanges So really, you can wait for your OutXchanges to happen FIRST, and then do what you would do anyway: InX to your IB to at least cover OA/DXD fees from there if not also buy Digots, or reduce CL, or set up for adsXposed, etc.
But it will cost you a lot more to wait to add funds.
You could have been earning in the meantime by InXchanging now.
You will get your OutXchanges later anyway, and at least your InX'd funds would have been earning in the meantime.
If you just wait for OutXchanges FIRST, then you can have a long, long wait.
Because everyone is generally thinking what you are thinking.
That whole philosophy to how the system operates is FINALLY changing, by the way.
DXInOne is starting to ensure that everyone InX's on a schedule if they wish to both gain AND to keep their gains as they go.
What does that do? It sets up what has to happen anyway in order to get the system fluid again: 'to control volatility at the OUTPUT end of the system, FIRST, volatility must be controlled at the INPUT end.
' That is, we can fix OutX delays by FIRST fixing InXchanging delays.
It cannot work the other way around.
Enough has to be InX'd before OutX's can fly through.
Marketing cannot do that if the system is not already fluid enough to 'sell' to the public.
So: to answer the 'which comes first issue' ...
you cannot just choose to wait for your own OutXchanges to happen BEFORE you choose to InXchange, because what you are really doing is to say that you will not put in (up to all) of the money you get back UNTIL others ADD MONEY OF THEIR OWN TO THE SYSTEM.
And they will not really do that until...
? Until the system is already fluid.
That means 'us.
' We are the ones who have to first control the fluidity before the system can become marketable.
DXInOne just implemented standards to ensure this happens.
What does this mean? The system WILL be made fluid again, BECAUSE we have to InXchange on a set schedule - on the clock - no matter what.
Whether there is rain, sleet, hail, snow, tempests, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, or outright shine: We have to InXchange on a schedule.
Monthly.
That means that DXInOne can COUNT on a 'monthly income' in order to determine what can be processed, or accomplished each month.
There is not a system alive that can avoid volatility on an ongoing basis without having a consistent income.
DXInOne is finally ENSURING the income, and this finally ENSURES that OutXchanges get processed for all involved.
Those who don't do their share to be part of the solution (InX'ing to IB to cover discounted OA/DXD fees) are also NO LONGER going to be part of the 'imbalance' problem (accruing DXG that they can list for OutXchanges for any size of money they have built up over the years).
That is: ONLY the active Members get to earn DXG into circulation.
Therefore, ALL of the DXG created into circulation is proportionately backed by hard reserves.
Therefore, the system will be fluid enough for marketing to be able to TOP OFF THE DIFFERENCE.
The next question on the agenda, therefore, is this: "What is the purpose of cycling funds throughout the system?"