Use-case of the QNT token?

Quant Network & Overledger forum Forums Technical discussion Use-case of the QNT token?

This topic contains 5 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by  tempus 11 months, 4 weeks ago.

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • Author
  • #402


    Lately i have been interested in QNT. I have missed the beginning of a small pump and decided NOT to FOMO in but take my time to do some research.

    I truly love the idea of a software piece that connects the different blockchain with each other. The idea is brilliant. Instead of trying to connect blockchain through first layer (the interloperbility of Ark or Icon, maybe even ADA), QNT uses a second layer, an OS, that connects with the different kind of chains. This way it can distribute information/data through different sets of blockchain, making it one hell of a secure system. NEATO! Right?

    Yes, the OS sounds amazing and it is exactly the right steps the whole cryptosphere needs, it will help spur adoption. But…

    Then you got the QNT tokens. For my understanding, the whole reason for the QNT tokens is so you have acces to the OS and can create Mapps or use the Mapps (like the decentralized amazon, which is amazing). The QNT tokens don’t validate things or make things more secure through, since QNT isnt a blockchain but essentially a second layer (software piece, an OS). So, whats the point of having the QNT tokens? The token seems to complicated things, especially for enterprises. And how much must an enterprise hold to gain acces to the OS? Won’t that limit the total amount of enterprises that will use QNT? There is less then 10 million QNT tokens out there.

    Ofc. you could say, they can make the amount needed for running the OS FIAT based (say $100, so 75ish QNT). Why not use FIAT then for acces! Whats the point of the token if it only acts like FIAT but with limited supply? You could say ‘but QNT tokens will be used to swap between other crypto’s’ but that exact same thing FIAT already does. Also a swap between blockchains (in this case the ETH network and let say XRP) isnt that easily done. You would need an exchange then. Now QNT is going for a DEX, so they do have that coming, but it seems they are building use-cases AROUND QNT, instead of having it be the main use case. QNT tokens doesnt seem to offer better security or faster payment.

    So…why not just use FIAT instead of QNT for the system? And have something like ‘loopring’ in the background (for swapping between crypto’s, just go directly from XRP to ETH to BTC etc.). Why create a new token and built such things around it? Storing data on several blockchains is one thing, but swapping value between users is another thing since wallets and the crypto market comes in to play then. Ofc. they could just create a wallet that contains multiple crypto’s and do the swap, but you still won’t need QNT token for it. By using QNT as the middleman, it seems to me you complicate the proces (and it seems to be that it would be detrimental for the OS).

    They easily could create a monthly subscription for the OS and technical help. This would give the devs the needed funds and this is also the way enterprises are known to work. Big enterprices won’t be going to IDEX to buy a million QNT for example. And sure, they could OCT with the devs, and buy some of their QNT, but that complicated things in my eyes.

    I really like the idea of QNT, i really think they hit a sweetspot for adoption, but i just don’t see the use-case for the token besides making things more complicated then they need to be.

    My ‘problems’ are:

    WHat is the use case of QNT and what makes it different from directly using FIAT? Can’t FIAT just replace QNT tokens and make things easier for both enterprises and consumers?

    How are they going to use QNT to buy other crypto’s within the system? If they are going to create their own DEX, how are they going to create a multi-blockchain driven exchange while still being decentralized? Since no one has done that before (as almost all DEX are within a certain eco-system, either eth, neo or stellar or something like that).

    Wouldnt it be easier to have a multi signature holding wallet for all the different chains, have people/enterprises send their crypto to their ‘QNT wallet’, and have the exchanges be done this way? Just remove the QNT token and deal directly with the different crypto?

    I would love to hear the QNT community thoughts about this, as i am eager to learn more about the QNT overledger, but currently am hesitating to ‘invest’ in it.



    I don’t have all the answers and the team is understandably hesitant to spill all the beans before they launch the store / ecosystem, which is expected first half of 2019. This is because the competition (if you can really call it that) are also in the building stages of their solutions, so no point in giving them free insights ;-). Personally I think the launch of the store might be very soon. Quant has been overdelivering so far on all technical goals afaik.

    What we do know at this stage is that they will be using the QNT Token as a Licensing Mechanism, which after reading about it, looks like a very innovative way of licensing software, which actually has many benefits over paying traditional licensing fees for enterprises. More on this here:

    I think that you will find that many people familiar with the project and team are very optimistic that Overledger most likely will have great demand and a Token structure that benefits all stakeholders, including investors. Quant has an entire team of internal and external technical, lawyers and economists currently working on the token structure.

    As for the exchange, I believe they didn’t say they would be building one themselves yet, they said that they can facilitate cross-chain atomic swaps and that they’re thinking of providing this as a service for developers and enterprise to use in their applications OR about creating a true decentralised exchange. And they’re looking to apply for an FCA License in their Sandbox to get the regulatory approval to do this. Technically, I see no reason why they could not do it themselves, given that every chain can be connected to Quant and Quant has Treaty Contracts capability.

    Up to you if you want to invest. Only thing I’d suggest is that you look deeper into it. Can just speak for myself, but the deeper I dug, the more excited I got, and every week that goes by the Team amazes me more.



    Thank you for a well thought reply


    Update from Gilbert Verdian on tokenomics (Source)

    “To summarise:

    – We have an Enterprise and Community approach to the utility of the tokens.
    – Each developer and enterprise needs to hold QNT as a license to be able to develop and publish mApps
    – End-users will also need to hold QNT to be able to run mApps and access the Overledger ecosystem.
    – Charging for the use of mApps is up to the developer or enterprise on how to do it but they can charge using fiat or in QNT, so users can pay for the use of a mApp with QNT and it can be one off, a recurring subscription or in-app. The QNT amount is spent.
    – QNT is also paid for the amount of volume that is transacted through Overledger for read and write transactions.
    – Gas fees for permissionless blockchains can be all handled by the developer or we can help manage that for them.
    – This is all handled in our Treasury which will have a payment processor engine to facilitate this.
    – We’ll have more detail published in January”


    Also this:

    Gilbert Verdian:

    We’re also making it cheaper to pay for the service in QNT rather than fiat to further power the ecosystem



    What I believe would be great: If usage would also lead to destruction of supply.

    Some examples:

    Factom: Factom uses a two token system. Factoids are the system currency that is paid by the network to secure the network (similar to mining). Entry Credits are pegged to 1/10th of a Dollar-Cent and are created by sending FCT to an EC-address what also leads to destruction of those FCT. Practically that means: Somebody wants to buy Entry Credits for $1000, so FCT for $1000 are burned to create such EC’s. Result is: The price of FCT can be seen as backed by the usage of the system.

    Binance: Each quarter of a year, Binance uses 20% of the profit to buy back BNB and destroy/burn those.

    LGO (also an exchange): Similar to Binance

    Quant is different of course and I already believe that the current approach of will do a good job to give QNT real value, because I have near to zero doubt that it will really get traction and be used. But if it would be possible to implement something like a burning-mechanism – that would be even better.

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.