As in : What was your moment when you noticed "Hey, this could really be awesome as a full-fledged hobby, this is something that I can have a lasting interest in ?
My main Hobbys are primary Movies, Film & Cinema, as well as Manga & Anime.
Fair Disclaimer : This is going to be way to long, I don't really expect anyone to read through all of it. More than anything I wrote that for myself, I just felt an itch that I needed to type that all out for once.
For me it was when I first watched Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) and Die Hard (1988). I had watched them both within the same week for the first time.
But before I can talk about that, I have to go back a little further.
Up to this point I had only watched Disney Cartoons (Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Goofy), Disney Movies (pretty much ALL the animated Disney classics + some Pixar, I guess). Parallel to watching a lot of Disney stuff, I also read many many Disney Comics starring Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Goofy, Pluto and Many More (Here in Germany Disney Comics are pretty famous and well known).
And I watched A LOT of Anime (Shonen). And I mean a lot. My biggest Anime fandoms where no doubt Pokemon, Digimon, Dragon Ball, One Piece, Yu-Gi-Oh, Detective Conan and Inu Yasha. Of all these Animes, I had also read the Mangas. Later on, when I started to read more manga (including reading rough scanlations online) and watching anime subbed online, I got into Naruto, Shaman King, Hunter X Hunter, Bleach and Death Note. AND - what's important - even before I watched real movies I was pretty damn big on CLAMP X/1999, Cowboy Bebop, Hellsing, Gantz, Trigun and a couple more I don't recall (Speed Grapher, Trinity Blood ?) ... So more mature stuff was not unheard of to teenage me.
I also was a huge Nintendo Fan : Super Mario, Yoshi, Donkey Kong, Mario Kart, The Legend of Zelda, Metroid, Star Fox, Pokemon, Kirby, F-Zero, Super Smash Bros. - you name it, but this is a whole different story altogether. I only ever owned Nintendo videogame hardware though and I exclusively played major Nintendo IP's. Never had a PlayStation, never wanted one. Yeah, I guess you can say I had picked my side.
Anyway, back to films :
The only live action films I had watched up to that point were superhero comicbook adaptations (DC Comics & Marvel Comics). I still watch those to this day, and I like them well enough, but I always knew and always felt that thes were just adaptations of a much bigger comic-universe and that there was verd little intrinsicly cinematic about then. Of course, with the advent of the Jaggernaut that is the MCU that has changed to a certain degree.
It's kinda hard to say why I was so wild for the Donner / Reeves Superman films, the Burton / Keaton Batman films, and yes, also the Schoemaker films (I know, I know ...) or the Raimi / Maguire Spider-Man films ... I don't exactly know why. Funnily enough I never really got into the DC Comics and Marvel Comics, which are the source material to these films. And neither did I ever really get into their cartoon adaptations. I am not sure why, wrong place, wrong time I guess. Plus I was effectively preoccupied with Anime.
Anyway, I suppose I was daunted by the sheer amount of material. I was always a kid who liked order and oversight in and over his collection and hobby. I didn't understand the publication history, multiple concurrently running series featuring the same hero, story arcs being spread out over up to 4 or 5 series, crossover events with other heroes, never knowing which crossovers are actually important. Add to that the fact that each issue in germany combined like 2 or 3 us-american issues, sometimes combining issues of different series into one german issue running under the brand of the main hero it featured, which made it all even more confusing. I tried to get into american superhero comics multiple times, bought quite a few issues and even read a couple of stories I really liked. But it just never clicked.
Then there are of course collected editions if story arcs or certains character runs by singular authors and artists (called graphic novels), but then there are also One-Off Standalone / Spin-Off / Elseworld stories and graphic novels. And last but not least, there are these company wide major mega crossover events that tend to reset large chunks of the universes and characters continuity. Supposedly in order to create new entry points for new readers, but I don't know ... To me, that made it even more confusing. Besides, I like to get a full story of a character I like. I don't want to be told basically "yeah, you know kid, basically 80% of what we have published until now doesen't count anymore lol".
With manga you have a clear beginning, one series, weekly or monthly chapters, collected volumes (tankobons) and once it's finished a clear ending. Sure it can be long as hell (in the case of One Piece over 90 volumes already), but at least when you read or watch it all you have a complete story. I guess I just always preferred that. Maybe that's why I liked the early Comicbook film adaptations of DC Comics and Marvel Comics : As a way of simplification.
Now, there was a time when I only watched DC and Marvel adaptions out of principle, even though even back then I already knew that some of them where pretty fucking bad. I had a weird obsession with Batman Returns though, which I still have to this day. Probably has something to do with the fact that I was like 10 when I first watched it and really, really liked Michelle Pfeiffers Catwoman, if you know what I mean.
But then my interest in - for lack of a better term - "real" Films started to rear it's head. Films that where originally cinematic.
I had a phase where I was pretty obsessed with the Die Hard and Indiana Jones movies. They proved to be pretty damn good gateway blockbusters. Indiana Jones functioned as a gateway to Star Wars and that whole universe George Lucas had created. By the way : Yes, I watched Indiana Jones before Star Wars. The Indiana Jones films also served as a gateway to ALL the other Steven Spielberg films (the serious ones as well). I was shocked how many movies I had heard of but never cared for were actually Spielberg movies. The unbelievable range from "Jaws" to "Schindlers List" or from "E.T. theExtra-Terrestrial" to "Amistad" or "Minority Report" first made me realize how important the DIRECTOR is.
After that I had a phase where I wanted to be cool and prove to myself I am hardcore enough to watch A LOT of Horror. My idea of Horror though, back then at least, was limited to 90% slasher. So I obsessed over Halloween, Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, Scream, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Hills Have Eyes and pretty much all of Romeros Living Dead (Zombie) films. It was arround that time that first torture porn wave swept over the Horror landscape and I was pretty proud of myself watching Saw and Hostel and talking about them at school, even though I remember HATING them.
During the same time there was the Fantasy craze of the 00's and I got pretty involved with the Harry Potter and the The Lord of the Rings movies as well, but that always remained a secondary interest. I never read any of the books of either series, I have admit to ny great shame. It just wasen't the right time for me to read young fantasy or high fantasy novels. Even though I did like to read as a child and youngster. But when Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings were all the rage I just was preoccupied with different interests, so it kinda fell through the cracks. I do however remember that I liked those films of Harry Potter that I had seen and most certainly all of the The Lord of the Rings films a great deal.
Anyway, after the Spielberg well ran dry I took advice from my friend who was a couple of years older than me. He was like you like Die Hard, well good for you since there's a whole world of 80s balls to the walls action flicks out there. Thusly, the door to Schwarznegger and James Cameron opened.
I probably don't have to tell you that The Terminator movies where my highlight (as well as Predator, which I was pleasantly surprised to learn had the same director as the first Die Hard). After I had seen Aliens, which I loved, I was shocked to find out it was a sequel. So I went back to the first. And so I discovered Ridley Scott. Funnily enough by means of arguably his worst film Alien 3 I learned about David Fincher, who remains one of my favourite director to this day. David Finchers two best works, by the way, are Zodiac and The Social Network, and not - albeit great - Seven and Fight Club, as many would have you believe. That is a fact and nobody will ever convince me otherwise.
Ridley Scott led to me discovering Blade Runner (the Final Cut on my first watch, thankfully) which, for some time, I was convinced was the final word in cinematic quality. I also developed an almost unhealthy obsession with the hard-boiled Michael Douglas starrer Black Rain. I guess it spoke to me because it was set in Japan and I was such a big anime fan.
Parallel to all this, roughly arround the time I started watching Cameron flicks, I also got balls deep into Quentin Tarantino. I remember I felt so smart and accomplished for having "discovered" Tarantino, I felt like a connoisseur of fine wine haha. What did I know he was mainstream. Well he wasn't for ME at the time. Needless to say, I loved all his films, even the slower paced Jackie Brown. Didn't like Death Proof so much, which was his newest release at the time. Naturally Tarantino led me to Robert Rodriguez, whose films I NEVER liked. Not even the ones generally considered good (From Dusk till Dawn, Sin City). For me he always felt like a pretentious poor mans Tarantino. Anyway, Quentin Tarantinos films taught me, for the very first time just how important a screenwriter and a good screenplay are.
After discovering hard SciFi with Ridley Scott and Christopher Nolan's The Prestige (who of course was on my radar because of Batman Begins and nothing else lol), I finally felt smart enough to tackle Stanley Kubrick who, as I had heard and read on multiple occasions, was supposed to be the best director of all time, or at least one of the very best. So I bought a BluRay set containing all of his films from Lolita all the way to Eyes Wide Shut. And while I am sure HE IS one of the best directors of all time ... for me ... NOPE. His aesthetics, his way of telling a story , everything ... simply not for me. Stanley Kubrick's kino and I would not become friends. Not gonna lie, that made me a little sad back in 2008 / 2009 I think, because I really wanted to like his work. I felt like I was supposed to.
But then I caught - totally by chance - Martin Scorseses Casino (1995) by aimlessly flipping through TV channels at night. It was the last 20 minutes of all things. I think I didn't skip to the next channel because I thought the verbal house fight between DeNiro and Sharon Stone was hilarious (Note : The only thing I knew Robert DeNiro from at this time was Jackie Brown).
Anyway, then came the montage of the whacking with House of the Rising Sun which culminated in the now infamous cornfield murder. It was so raw and brutal. There was no music. There was no style or choreography to the beating. It wasn't "cool". There was no heroic escape nor was there a daring hero swooping in to save the day (note that at this point I didn't know that the Joe Persci character was a despicable gangster in his own right). All of it ... it just felt like I was watching a real mafia killing. And I ... WAS ... HOOKED. I rented Casino the next day and watched the whole thing. Talked about it with the guy from the video store. So he gave my GoodFellas. Mean Streets. The Departed. Raging Bull. The Aviator. Taxi Driver. The King of Comedy. After Hours. Scorsese Scorsese Scorsese.
Now I gotta say I was never big on the crime genre, neither in movies nor television. So I probably would have never actively looked out for this movie. But I found it. And that's that.
While Spielberg made me love movies as a medium, Scorsese and DeNiro made me love the craft of actually directing a movie and the art of acting.
DeNiros filmography led me to the films of Francis Ford Coppola and Sergio Leone. And with these movies I realised why I didn't like Kubrick. While Kubrick was cold and sterile, albeit highly intelligent, Coppolas and Leones movies where more character driven, driven by plot, story and acting performances ... and in general simply "warmer", if that makes any sense. They just felt like their was more blood and life and passion to them, compared to all of Kubricks work.
I first got into The Godfather movies and The Dollars trilogy of course, but over time I came to appreciate, in some cases even love, the smaller, quirkier, more unknown movies of these directiors like The Conversation (a film that taught me the value and importance of sound-mixing), Rumble Fish (my first glance into surrealism / expressionism) or Duck, You Sucker ! which was the first movie that I watched that got a message through to me about genuine class struggle and the futility of revolutions though history. Apocalypse Now made me realize and think about for the first time in my life what philosophy is all about. Once Upon a Time in the West made me understand why people like the opera. Something I never understood prior to watching this movie. When I was watching Once Upon a Time in the West for the third or fourth time it finally struck me, that, by all means, I was watching (and enjoying !) what was essentially an opera on film. And finally, Once Upon a Time in America, which I first saw at the age of 24 or 25, for the first time in my life made me think about topics such as true lasting friendships, the passing of time, missed opportunities, my own inevitable mortality, one-sided love and bitter regrets.
And so films, my primary hobby as of today, HAVE definitely had a big influence on how I look at the world, who I am and how I think about certain things. And for that, I will be forever grateful.
submitted by Offisium Network Decentralised barter exchange platform May 24, 2018 Introduction to the Offisium Barter Exchange Project: Offisium is building the first decentralized barter exchange, a supply system of liquidity, and asset backed blockchain hub. It’s a cryptocurrency developed to replace the traditional “trade dollars” in the barter trade system. An open distributed system of liquidators which upholds barter trade conduct of all members of the network. It uses a mechanism of a protocol token to make a delegated proof-of-stake blockchain dApp to regulate the barter activities amongst participants. The decentralised barter platform hub allows businesses and individuals to trade their goods and services, for other member’s goods and services. Participants can buy and sell their goods or services as part of a global network. The network will help businesses gain access to a huge potential customer base, which is not accessible to typical competitors who do not use the network or hold and Offisium private key. This also works for businesses in guaranteeing to bring new customers allowing them to grow or to use spare or underutilised cash/goods capacity.
It will provide one of the world’s most innovative blockchain business models by making the barter trade process simple to manage. Unlike all other traditional barter exchange platforms, Offisium also allows for decentralised barter of other blockchains and between multiple blockchains directly without a trusted gateway barter currency. This is achieved using EOS smart contracts, protocol tokens to uphold correct market behaviour of matching transactions and invoices, exchange data for use with EOS smart contracts.
Offisium is a London based Blockchain Startup. A decentralised exchange where goods or services are directly exchanged for other goods or services without using a medium of exchange, such as money.
The modern trade and barter industry includes four major sectors; retail barter exchange platforms (mutual peer-to-peer credit clearing systems), corporate barter systems (who perform larger company barter transactions), counter-trade (usually between sovereign governments and targeted on import & export of commodities), and complementary currency systems (local/community currencies).
Background:
1.Traditional Barter Exchanges (Problem) vs Offisium (Solution)
Offisium is the result of a close study of the current economic affairs. Nowadays we have a fiat money that is used to buy a certain labour (service). If I'm a plumber, I must work a certain amount of time per day and get paid at a rate. For my time, not the value of my work or my labour.
Because people have put a price on the value of what they do. If a doctor is saving lives, the value of his work will surely be bigger than the value of a carpenter who makes tables. So eventually, when we talk about hourly rates, for doctors, plumbers or attorneys, we are not valuing their time, we are valuing their work. And we use the time to derive how valuable their time is.
Offisium tokens value comes from the value of labour. The value of what is produced, whether it is a service, or a product.
This means that fundamentally, the tokens are not only acquired through purchasing them on an exchange, or buying them through an ICO, but also through using them to exchange service value between individuals and businesses. They are acquired by using your time and the value of that time at your work. To pay for another service or good, using your own service or good.
If a doctor needs a tutor to teach his child, instead of paying him with dollars from his bank account (cash). He pays him with his service as a doctor. Provided they are both members of the Offisium Network and both hold Offisium Wallets. The network here serves as a middle man to facilitate the bartering of these goods and services.
The exchange rates between the doctor’s service and the tutor’s service, will vary. A doctor's one hour may be higher in value than a tutor's one hour of work. For this to work, Offisium debits the doctor’s wallet and credits the tutor’s wallet with tokens that they both agreed to, to sell their goods and services for. This is the core concept of a barter system for exchanging value between individuals and businesses.
Offisium is aiming to use interest-free token lines of credits which will allow direct swaps between private key holders. Members may then earn token credits by exchanging goods and services among themselves. Which they can then spend again on the same network. The transactions are recorded in the decentralised ledger which is open to all members. Token credits are issued by the Offisium network members, for their own benefit and therefore considered mutual credits. The only difference this time, the transactions are open and transparent, and decentralised.
The real question however is, how can a barter economy be a better economy?
We first must agree that; “Any economy is a barter economy” One thing is traded for another, each party to the trade valuing what he gets more than what he gives. Always a win-win transaction, regardless of the items involved. But simple barter without a monetary system is like comparing the performance of a roller skate to that of a Ferrari.
And an economy whose marketplace is not entirely free, but whose prices are distorted by forced transactions via government interference, regulation, "protection" etc., is like a Ferrari with a flat tire and misfiring cylinders. Money is simply the most widely acceptable trade commodity in a "division-of-labor" economy. For some 5000 years that has been silver and gold, especially in coin form, which were arrived at because of their physical properties giving them the functional attributes of sound money: uniformity, ** divisibility*, **durability, and **scarcity (limited quantity) *.
Paper "money" (currency), fulfils well all of these functions except the last. When more "money" can easily be produced without significant cost--as printing press products, or even worse, digits in a computer--those who control its production (and make monopoly laws forcing its acceptance in trade to the exclusion of other media) inevitably fall victim to the all-too-human temptation to produce it to their own advantage and to the disadvantage of everyone further down the distribution line.
The only purpose of legal tender laws is to force people to use something they would otherwise not choose for money if left free to decide. No one must be forced at gunpoint to accept good sound money in trade, at least not until they're brainwashed to the point of believing that paper, not gold, is real money.
Money, like every commodity in the marketplace, has a price. For the money, its price is the inverse of the price of any commodity. This is particularly easy to understand in the international money market where currencies trade against each other. The supply-demand-price curve teaches us that with increasing quantity, the price will decrease at constant demand, or demand will decrease at a constant price.
Flooding the marketplace with intrinsically worthless scraps of paper is not the road to riches. Except for those who do the flooding, spending their zero-cost fun coupons at the price preceding the fall in purchasing power when the market adjusts to the new quantity.
This is why prices continuously increases in a fiat currency system. Only when the market distortions resulting from the easy money misallocation of scarce resources causes the economy to crash so we see actual deflation as cash-strapped borrowers default on loans, banks go belly up, and goods are sold by desperate merchants for whatever they will bring in something a bit closer to a free market.
To sum up, a money-less basic barter economy is incredibly inefficient and paper fiat currency used as a money substitute in the marketplace is either just plain dishonest or rife for abuse by the bankers who control it.
A free market economy based on honest commodity money has proved itself the best system imaginable to date to provide a steadily increasing quality of life for the most people. Therefore, we introduced Offisium as a solution to both problems.
A network of money-less exchange of value, using the most efficient, immutable, transparent and decentralised ledger. The blockchain.
It is possible to argue that a system is not considered barter if there is a unit-of-account. (OFFS Tokens). However, that is an archaic and incomplete definition of the word barter as defined in modern usage. A system of barter implies organised barter, rather than a one-off. Perhaps it is a misnomer for the word to be applied to modern barter networks, but it is generally accepted. Governments totally appreciate organised barter networks.
If the economy is slow and the GDP is down XX% from peak, tax revenues are down XX% from peak too. That is the minimum that can be made up through cashless trading. There is always excess capacity stagnating in the marketplace for a need of national casino chips.
Trade monetises spare capacity and creates taxable commerce. Governments embrace the corporate barter industry, and in some cases even use them. Some key dimensions that determine whether money or barter is better are:
· The separability of money transactions from the enjoyment of the good or service in question, so that financial transactions don't mess up the creation of value.
· The credibility/stability of the money being used.
· The complexity of the economy -- the degree to which workers are specialised and goods are differentiated, making it unlikely that the producer of what you want is a consumer of what you make.
Cash Trade vs Offisium (decentralised barter)Trade: Sometimes, money transactions surrounding a good or service affect its consumption value.
An easy, yet interesting example of this, is sex: its value to those involved changes drastically if it's paid for. When something has this property, we say that its value to the consumer is not separable from money transactions. For goods like this, the classic arguments suggesting that trade with money yields more efficient outcomes fail, and barter is likely to be better.
Less racy examples include personal letters, a friendly conversation on the phone, birthday parties, etc. These goods and services are more efficiently provided through a mechanism of trading favours and informal mental accounting, and in fact, that's what we see in the world. The more one's “use value” of something is negatively affected by the knowledge that there is an explicit, monetary quid pro quo, the more we would expect it to be bartered rather than bought and sold.
Effective trade with money also requires a stable currency. Whether it is something natural (like gold) that's used as a currency or something printed by a government (like dollar bills), the people involved need to have beliefs that rationalise accepting it in exchange for things of real value, like effort, work, labour, danger etc.
They should believe that they'll be able to buy things of value with it in the future. That, in turn, means they should believe that many others will have similar beliefs.
When there is uncertainty about these things, the uncertainty reduces the value of money and introduces a friction into monetary transactions. The uncertainty can come from not trusting the people who print the money: if I think they'll print a ton of it later and devalue the bills I'm currently getting; a dollar is not very valuable to me.
In the case of gold, it can come from not believing that the people I'll trade with in the future (perhaps different people from the ones I'm trading with today) will regard it as valuable. And the same can be said about Bitcoin.
A functioning currency requires a social setting that is cohesive and stable in certain ways, and when that's absent, barter offers a clearer path to efficient transactions. Of course, money has one main, vast advantage over barter: it overcomes the problem of the double coincidence of wants.
Suppose Ann can do a favour for Bob every day; Bob can do a favour for Charlie every day, and Charlie can do a favour for Ann every day, and nobody can do anything for anyone else.
There is no scope for bilateral barter in this situation. But if a favour costs a dollar, then Ann can buy a favour from Charlie for a dollar; Charlie can use the dollar to buy a favour from Bob, and Bob can use the dollar to buy a favour from Ann. Nobody needs to worry about whether everyone in the cycle is doing their jobs -- they just trade a favour for money in their bilateral relationships. Favour flow around the cycle efficiently with a minimum of explicit coordination.
Note that in this example, nobody values money in itself -- it is just paper: people only value favour. But money is the instrument that enables us to coordinate the flow of favour around the cycle.
Thus, in a complex economy, it is very rare that the person you want to get stuff from wants whatever you produce. (For example, the people who make burritos at Chipotle have little immediate use for the algorithms or economic analyses that some of us produce.)
Indeed, the kinds of cycles that are present in the real economy are very long. This is intensified when people become more specialised in their work, and as goods become more differentiated. Thus, assuming that we don't have the non-separability and currency stability problems outlined above, money beats barter by a long shot for the trade of specialised goods and services among a large number of diverse agents.
This brings us to question the difference between cash payments and a barter exchange of value. The answer is in what we call "Value”.
Nobel Laureate Al Roth published an article titled "Repugnance as a Constraint on Markets"2 where he explored the notion of associating cash Payments with Repugnance.
“One often-noted regularity is that some transactions that are not repugnant as gifts and in-kind exchanges become repugnant when money is added. The historical repugnance to charging interest for loans seems to fall into this class too, as do prohibitions on paying birth mothers of children put up for adoption, and perhaps prostitution.
That is, loans themselves, and adoption, and love are widely regarded as good things when given freely, even when their commercial counterparts are regarded in a negative way.
Similarly, in Massachusetts and California, it is legal to sell human eggs for fertilization but illegal to sell them for research purposes, although it is legal to donate them for research. And widespread outrage in Britain greeted the decision to allow sailors recently released from captivity in Iran to sell their stories to news media: after two sailors had done so, the remaining sailors were no longer allowed to receive money for interviews offering money is often regarded as inappropriate even when not repugnant.
Concerns about the monetization of transactions fall into three principal classes. One concern is objectification: that is, the fear that putting a price on certain things and buying or selling them might move them into a class of impersonal objects to which they should not belong. The sociology literature has shown a longstanding interest in how the introduction of money changes many kinds of social relationships and their meanings.
A second concern is that offering substantial monetary payments might be coercive, in the sense that it might leave some people, particularly the poor, open to exploitation from which they deserve protection.
A third, the concern, sometimes less clearly articulated, is that monetising certain transactions that might not themselves be objectionable may cause society to slide down a slippery slope to genuinely repugnant transactions. Experience suggests that ideas about the inappropriateness of certain kinds of transaction, even when this inappropriateness falls short of outright repugnance, can constrain market design.
- Offisium’s Decentralised Barter Exchange:
The barter system itself doesn’t have more specific weaknesses than any other human-driven system. Wherever humans are involved, there is an opportunity for scammers and cheats who are looking to take advantage of the system.
This is true for business and every other interaction between people. You can create official smart contracts and smart transaction receipts for bartering in the same way you do for business deals on the blockchain decentralised ledgers.
It merely involves an alternate form of payment (transaction). One might say that a weakness is how much more creativity and effort is needed, compared to walking into a store and exchanging cash for what you want.
However, we see this as a bonus because it forces you to network more effectively, build stronger relationships, and opens more opportunities for a decentralised transparent and trustworthy future.
Being connected adds that much more value to the barter, over simply paying a cashier and walking away.
- How is an Offisium Transaction Invoiced?
The invoice is raised just like any other transaction on the blockchain and is reflected in the open ledger. The outstanding is squared off by making purchases from the same account and booking invoices for the purchases made.
If it is a direct (10M) transaction, it is advisable to make the transaction back to back, so the outstanding does not stand there for too long. In case of buying and selling through an exchange, there are multiple transactions and outstanding is taken care of time to time.
Business owners love bartering because it saves them cash; It moves excess stock or idle inventory and fills up their downtime or spare capacity. Chances are you have conducted a one-to-one barter deal in the past and the outcome was a win-win. However, while these direct barter deals can be effective, they lack flexibility, which limits how often they may occur. The challenge with a direct one-on-one barter is you might want something that one business has but they may not want what you have. By creating a Crypto Currency of traded Offisium tokens, you can barter-trade conveniently with up to millions of Offisium network wallet holders worldwide.
Offisium creates a flexible, secure and fully accountable way for businesses to barter their goods and services with businesses all around the world. This makes it one of the largest B2B, B2C, C2C, C2B and B2C networks with Millions of participants who hold an Offisium Wallet and who will be effectively using barter to Gain new customers, who generate increased sales income. Move excess stock. Free up cash and Increase profits from the introduction of new business. Trading Offisium Tokens for the goods and services you sell and this value is recorded electronically on the blockchain and in your wallet.(Just like you do with a bank account).
You then spend your credit balance (or draw on your interest-free line of token credit) on goods or services from any other Officium Network member. This offers completely flexible trading because the purchase can be from the same business that purchases from you. You spend with anyone locally, nationally and internationally. You can sell now and buy later or buy now and sell later. You can use the interest-free line of token credit as working capital, even before making a sale.
Officium Network brings a solution to the current issues of Cash/Liquidity problems within a certain business. Most businesses if not all of them like to keep cash flow. And most startups fail due to cash flow issues. Being an Offisium member and having a line of interest free token credit, not only will allow you to start your project. But also pay for it back using the value of what you do. You could pay the network back by selling us your products too. This is also an opportunity for blockchain developers who have spare work time who could pay back the network by choosing to work for the network and help it grow in their own spare time.
Offisium transactions are similar to a credit/debit card transaction. There are several Point of Sale tools available to process transactions, including the back-office of our website (which is a bit like online banking), A smartphone app (Offisium app) as well as traditional methods. Offisium’s website provides real-time statements so you can reconcile all transactions. Offisium is a 100% trading system exchange. Every client agrees to buy and sell at 100% full Offisium barter using our tokens. There are practical exceptions to this rule such as property purchases, or £100,000+ capital equipment purchases with a minimum 20% barter component through Offisium.
Offisium will be hosting local, national and eventually international networking functions every month and regional Trade Shows. Our users are encouraged to participate in these functions in order to meet other business owners and promote their own companies. It is a great way to build up your business contact base.
Offisium token is called “OFFS” and is the trading currency that Offisium clients use to transact with each other. Barter transactions on the network are accounted for the same way as your cash transaction, therefore you claim Tax back on purchases, just as you do now. The tokens will be used as utility tokens.
To be continued...Offisium is awaiting the full public disclosure of its Whitepaper and Roadmap. [
[email protected]](mailto:
[email protected])
submitted by Gateway Casinos & Entertainment (Gateway) is pleased to announce that it will re-open select properties in Ontario as part of the province's Stage 3 guidelines. That includes Innisfil’s Gateway Casino, which will open on Saturday from 10:00am - 2:00am. However, Casino Rama remains closed. Whether you’re looking for hotels, homes, or vacation rentals, you’ll always find the guaranteed best price. Browse our 2,563,380 accommodations in over 85,000 destinations. Book now at Getaway - Gateway Casino London in London, ON. Explore menu, see photos and read 73 reviews: "Not a lot of great menu options but the food available was good." Those who have been trespassed and/or self-excluded from Gateway Casinos Thunder Bay or any Ontario gaming property may not visit, participate in promotions and/or redeem offers. Offers do not apply to employees of Gateway Casinos & Entertainment. October 6, 2020 – Gateway Casinos & Entertainment (Gateway) is pleased to announce that it will re-open select properties in Ontario as part of the province’s Stage 3 guidelines. Beginning on Thursday, October 8, locations in Woodstock, Clinton and Hanover will re-open and all other Gateway locations – except for Casino Rama Resort – will re-open on Saturday, October 10. Those who have been trespassed and/or self-excluded from Gateway Casinos Woodstock or any Ontario gaming property may not visit, participate in promotions and/or redeem offers. Offers do not apply to employees of Gateway Casinos & Entertainment. Casino Rama Resort is Ontario’s only First Nations resort casino, offering a complete entertainment experience with over 2,200 slot machines, more than 85 gaming tables, 8 unique restaurants, a world-class 5,000 seat Entertainment Centre and luxury 300-room all-suite hotel with spa and health club facilities.
Her finder du de anmeldelser jeg laver til GamersLouge.dk af mange forskellige spil til Wii U, Xbox og PlayStation. Most of the content is related to games i... See our written review of Norwegian Escape on Cruise Fever here:https://cruisefever.net/norwegian-escape-review-my-favorite-things-about-this-cruise/Norwegia... Odlo is a leading international premium sportswear brand that offers outstanding products to people sharing our passion for a healthy lifestyle .#Odlo #TheAr... Try dashlane for free: https://www.dashlane.com/jaredowenFor premium - use the code "jaredowen" for 10% offBuckingham Palace is in London and its the home t... SUBSCRIBE TO GET NOTIFIED OF NEW DOCUMENTARIES!Documentary about the Seven Seas Explorer cruise ship, and about the engineers, designers and constructors rac... Making a reservation in Opera Learn how to create an app for free in 3 easy steps with Appy Pie’s App Builder. Buy Android Apps & Games And Earn Life Timehttps://youtu.be/cruQu0wblA4*** ... The Pawn Stars Were FORCED To Kick This Customer out of The Gold and SIlver Pawn Shop where Rick Harrison, Chumlee, and Corey Harrison work!Let me know what ... Huge thank you to Royal Caribbean for sponsoring this video. We'll be spending 7 days on board the largest cruise ship in the world: The Symphony of the Seas... Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.