they are run by the exact same team.
so they are basically the same.
I don't care if one has more features and less fees.
it is the SAME team! Same back-end infrastructure. Same company.
just a different skin.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Faulty logic. Your statements lead me to believe you don't know the history of how the two business models came to be as well as you think you do.
I can assure you many others do as I am one of the many others. If you don't that is fine but you personally not caring about the different features doesn't mean they don't exist on one business model but do on the other, making them different. Pools/ Hive Leasing and fees are kinda important. For anyone reading this at current time the fees are currently equal at 0.75% per deposit/withdraw (Date is 12/20/2024). If your only task is trading a token, each model has the same capabilities in that regard and pull from the same information source while also giving a unique experience thanks to the different added features each model has.
Redundancy, see above counterpoint.
Skins, not an identical carbon copy. I was around when Hive-Engine was built and when TribalDex was introduced. I'm aware of the history of both. Less aware of current on-goings. I see no reason for me to continue this debate. All my points have been stated, I feel no need to expand on any of them. I respect your point of view and regardless of what model you use, I wish you success with it.
yeah. I also was around that early on.
You are not listening to my point. You are just talking about the front-ends.
It is best to not continue as you don't listen you just try to state your point over and over.
Same company, same team, same CEX.
Well yeah, thats the debate. You claimed they are "the same". I showed otherwise, front-end is one of the points to their differences. Capabilities and offerings are some others. You see I don't need to prove every aspect is different to show that the two models are different. I only need to point out some key elements which I have already did. You just seem to be stuck on "Same Company" "Same Owners".
Redundancy and faulty logic but I'll expand again one more time. To whom owns/profits from each is irrelevant to the importance of the individual functionality and offerings each individual model has. Functionality is what the end-user is interested in. Pools/ Hive Delegations..... so many differences.
Now for the reason I decided to respond again, clarity. For those who might not know what a skin is as it pertains to such business models.
I've been in the back-end of more than a few skins (Forums/ Poker Clients/ Not HE or TD). Skins can have a standard set of functions, pull information from the same pool, share the same userbase but that don't mean they are identical copies/business models or "the same". With each different offering, each individual skin has it furthers separates itself from the original copy. Giving users a unique experience with functionality and on-site capabilities that can only be found on each individual skin. Which is what TribalDex and Hive-Engine do making them different. Skins that are "the same" mirror in all functional aspects aside from possibly how those functional aspects are presented. Such skins are commonly referred to as Carbon Copies.
sorry the point is its the same people, the same project.
it does not matter what you use or the differences.
you are supporting the exact same thing.
It is one DEX and it is not even a DEX it is a CEX.
run by the same people.
its all the same one big CEX.
when it stops like it always does, they all stop.
No difference.
Obviously if a skin is part of a network when that network or information source goes down, it goes down for all skins. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with this other than you are looking for something to be right about. The two models (HE and TD) being the same isn't going to be that.
Redundancy:
You make no new points or points that help your case.
Please refer to my past comments for further clarity.
exactly. you don't understand my point.
you are talking from a technical difference.
I understand what you are saying you are not understanding me.
You are the exact type of person that prevents mass onboarding.
Reminder of what this debate is about.
Your statement is simply wrong.
When users of WEB2 mass adaption migrate to WEB3 majority of said users won't be paying much attention to who owns what let alone give much care to side chain talk. That education comes after they are hooked if at all. Telling them falsehoods that two apps are the same when different possibilities, capabilities and functions are on each app won't be a good way to introduce them to the place. IMO, telling them what can be done on each individual app, similarities and differences, so they can explore said apps is a much better way of going about things. But I won't be getting into this with you as it might spawn another debate that I'm not interested in or that can be used to distract from our already concluded one. Please do enjoy your day!