So you're saying the price is 6x what it was when the fashionably hatted DruggedOnCoins YouTube personality started pumping the coin for no reason other than he thought his group was whale enough to manipulate the price with buys, buy walls, and oaths to hold till 100 or else send the coins to a burn wallet?

6x is pretty good considering the pump started on zero new development information.  Last time, on April 29, at least the price jumped on some actual development information, and found a floor at 10x for the next couple of months.   That's when the extremely dishonest fashionably hatted DruggedOnCoins YouTube personality posed as a huge whale and pretended there was some substance as to why the price should start rising steady to 100.  When it turned out that the substance was this new idea that there is a "community" behind the coin (and not a pump and dump group), then the price started deflating as it became more and more obvious that there was a pump and dump group calling itself a "community", meaning, there was absolutely no substance behind the recent price rise. 

So now, the market is trying to find a bottom as all the hyped hot air is finally exhausted from the conversation.   

The question is, did this hurt the coin long term, or, did it resurrect a coin that was going to die anyway for neglect, and lack of development attention?

The charts you see are usually pegged to BTC.  If the chart is flat and BTC is going up, it actually means the value of the coin is going up in pace with BTC. However, the market does not think the value of CHC should go up at the same rate BTC without significant new development.  So CHC is still around $.47 where it was a week ago. 

The math says that if he had an extra 50k coins to play with at .06, he could make a $million selling them at an average of  $1.2.  The price was well above that for days, up above $6, for a short time...plenty time to cash in on the buy support, on the buy walls, on the "movement", on the "community". 

If he had 29k coins, he could have liquidated 10k at 6$ and made the million. 

Either of these holding metrics have slipped through the lips of the DruggedOnCoins YouTube personality. 

Multiple witnesses are reporting that the hatted DruggedOnCoins YouTubePersonality said, twice, that he bought $5000 worth of CHC at .06.   That's enough to buy what, 80 masternodes?  

That's enough to cash in for a million and still have 29k coins.

So what's important is his trading record at Cryptopia.  That's the only angle that's going to prove anything, and very easy to do.  

Look and you'll see "scammer" is not part of my vocabulary.  Neither is the name of the hatted DruggedOnCoins YouTube personality.  My evidence is  the YouTube vids he has put out.  Have you watched them all? Neither have I. Are you saying i need to go back, find where he says and does these things, and post the hour/minute mark on the vid where he says and does them?

For example, when asked what his CHC holdings were, or to at least prove/show his holdings, he called that "private" and doesn't want to risk getting hacked. So there's no way to really indicate one's CHC holdings without risking a hack attack? It doesn't compute.  So no, there is no transparency, and so, you have no evidence to support your assertion he is up front.  If he has since shown evidence of his holdings let us know, but at this point we need to see his time-stamped order book from July 3, two days prior to publicity, up past $6, and back down to $.50.     If he held enough CHC to start 29 masternodes, all is well.  Instead, things he has said suggest he sold off some 1/3 somewhere along the way. That's not "a little bit" that he advises.  Now, at one point you had to show him your holdings to get into his #slack.  But he does not hold himself to this standard to get into the confidence of a what, 350k subscriber base?  

 The mere fact that his channel would blow up from 20k to 350k makes it an opportune environment, through live chat, to run a serial pump and dump operation in the name of pump-and-hold.  He admits to the pump part, and SAYS he holds.  He said he held 29k CHC. The pump started at $.06. Around the peak he continued to make that claim.  Later he indicated he had 20k CHC, having lost some "in the fight".  It does not compute.  How do you lose 1/3 your position when you put more capital on buy-walls on the way down? Just the opposite, you should be gaining coins.  So if he's dumping even 1/3 his holdings into the FOMO he generates, that qualifies as fraud.  

I'm just holding him, and you who defend him, to his own standards, and calling out the non-computing aspects of his narrative.  The DruggedOnCoins YouTube personality called out another YouTube personality, Trevon James, for selling out.  Said he would spit in his face.  Turns out Trevon was a bag-holder going all the way back to April 29, buying one day after the peak of a huge two week, 50x run-up.   So he was holding these bags, probably around $.08,  two months prior to the DruggedOnCoins pump.  Trevon then made bank at $6+ without any reference to what was going on in the DruggedOnCoins world.  No connection. No club. No club membership.  But he get's called out.  The point is, the DruggedOnCoins YouTube personality was very much pressing his live viewership to hold at any and all prices, high, or low, or else be ridiculed as a panicking "noob".  

Yes, PRESSING.  For example, after the DruggedOnCoins YouTube personality pulled the buy wall at $.90, when Random Tandems group was hoddling together, live, all through the night when the price was dropping to $.50, the DruggedOnCoins YouTube personality entered the chat demanding a wrench.  He wanted the wrench so he could start banning. There were two or three there casting aspersions on the whole operation.  He couldn't get the wrench because Tandems was asleep in the UK and not answering phone.  Notably though, it took quite a while for the group to actually believe it was the DruggedOnCoins YouTube personality, as his manner of speaking was incoherent, as if he was either a troll or, ...was he drunk/drugged?  Eventually he proved his credentials to the group leads, put up $100 of super chat to get a wrench, and soon lost patience when they could not wake up Tandems, the only one who could give a wrench.  The whole episode, very demanding, arrive, demand, lose patience, go.  All to be able to ban nay-sayers.  

So my point is this. Given this full court press, there is no excuse for dumping even 1/3 holdings into the FOMO, or even into the fear of holding bags.  I don't expect him to show anything that would identify anything that could make him a target of attack. But there must be some way he can verify his holdings, when he accumulated them, and how much he held through this "experiment" (his word for it).  Nothing else computes.  

Speaking of experiments, this is perhaps the first time a pump team has appropriated the concept of holding acquisitions no matter what, until some price that can really only be reached in some months or years, if ever.  $100? Really? Hold until price is the same as the current DASH price?  Even this was a moving goal post.  The first target was $5.  The second $100.  At one point he was mentioning $1000.   There is a very good chance he dumped at the first mentioned target of $5 or $6.   Whatever the target was supposed to be, it was always significantly higher.  Yes, this method of PUMP was probably not used before.  When accused of pump and dump, the DruggedOnCoins YouTube personality got emotional, and claimed that if it was a pump and dump it would be on and over within 5 minutes.  Number one, this does not compute.  Plenty of pumps last hours, even days.   The DruggedOnCoins YouTube personality would like us to believe that if a pump is sustained for days or weeks at a time, it can't qualify as a dump.  I disagree.  By experimenting with a buy-and-hold message, it could be possible to sustain a pump longer than it would normally last.  Again, nothing wrong with pump and hold unless:

  A) you sell more than 5% of your pre-pump initial holdings into the intentionally generated FOMO.  

By intentionally generating FOMO through things like $100 target HYPE, it can easily be expected that many will be persuaded to commit much more than 5% on such a bet.   The fact that you think i put in way too much capital at way too high a price pretty much proves that such things CAN BE EXPECTED.   The fact is, he HYPED HARD AT ALL PRICE LEVELS, during this particular experiment where the pump team cloaked itself as the CHC "community", when in fact they just arrived on July 5.  

Scam is not in my vocabulary.  But we could talk about fraud.  

 

yes, it was probably too long for anyone who doesn't take the time to capitalize the first word in any sentences. so i wont suggest you read it, but others might.

I'm for learning, warning, and educating.  

Hyping a coin is an attempt to get FOMO capital into the coin immediately, attempting to get people to short circuit any standard due diligence they might otherwise apply...and to disarm prior holders, cajoling them into continuing to hold.

For example, at one point the hatted DruggedOnCoins YouTube personality told his live audience he would spit in the face of another YouTube personality, if he saw him in the street, for selling his coins out above $6, at the peak. He said if the other YouTube personality apologized and took down the video telling how much profit he took at the top, he may be forgiven.  Turns out the other YouTube personality was a long-time holder of CHC, going back to April 29, who had forgotten about his position until CHC hit the grapevine...at which point he intended to sell immediately, but forgetting to sell immediately, took in another 100% gain when he sold the next day.  Long story short, his decisions to buy, hold and sell were entirely independent of outside advice from the drugged-on-coins YouTuber.  He had no idea he was supposed to hold on for dear life, no matter what, till death do we part.

At another point in the drama, someone on the DruggedOnCoins live chat suggested Linda coin for the first time. At that point the DruggedOnCoins personality consulted a tiny Android device to look at the price chart for Linda, and say "Hmmm".   At that point, just saying "Hmmm", people were already buying it and driving up the price.  The DruggedOnCoins YouTube personality remarked that this is how they found and settled upon CHC in the first place.  At one point, the DruggedOnCoins YouTube personality admitting that they were looking for "shitcoins" when someone in the live chat suggested CHC.  When the DruggedOnCoins YouTube personality noticed Linda's price already jumping he called it off, saying he did not like new coins that haven't been around a while.  About three days later, after instructing the buy wall be removed from CHC, after its first bounce from .50 cents, the pump of Linda became official.   Presumably new coin status did not matter, nor the non-functioning masternode.  Yes, people had been complaining about the masternode nonfunction for about half the life of the one month old coin, but had not got resolution because the coding was actually above the head of purveyor of Linda, who had copy/pasted from 8Bit, made some changes, but unable to see the big picture, was unable to completely debug his changed code. Linda was trying to outsource the fix at the time DruggedOnCoins started his next pump.   All this while some people were reporting a virus in the wallet!  

This is a long way of saying that the DruggedOnCoins YouTube personality has ingratiated himself with the concepts of "community", buying and holding, and "movement" in order to disarm prior holders from selling, and to short circuit new comers usual due diligence for fear of missing out.  

Not surprisingly, the DruggedOnCoins YouTube personality has been asked to show his trade book, so the "community" can have a basis for trust, only to be told that is "private" information.   As his influence wanes, he will have to look for smaller and smaller cap coins to pump

Bottom line, if there ever was a CHC community, it needs to repudiate, and dissociate itself from this pump team.  

That said, CHC sits at 10x above the floor where the pump started. Keep in mind that floor was some 10x above the previous floor, jumping in the springtime for reasons i have not researched.  

I think these jumps are an acknowledgement that the coin has potential as a twin (born a day apart) of DarkCoin, which went on to become DASH.  

If the masternode holders of CHC really are a community, they could vote to pay full time executives, and vote to change it's name, and make all the other necessary changes that need to be made to make CHC jump 10x again.  

For the needed name change, i will put my suggestion forth right now:

CHANGE


Position CHANGE next to DASH and this may go somewhere.  

If i never saw the term "hodl" again, i'd be happy.  It was born in the wake of the December 2013 Bitcoin blow-off after going parabolic for a few weeks.  It was a misspelling of "hold" in a thread title started by someone who was admitting he was not a nimble-footed trader, and so, really had no other choice but to hold long term as a strategy.  

Thing is, anybody who enters a position while a coin is starting to take off, or is already going parabolic, is entering as a trader would enter.  And unless a trader continues to trade, well, holding is the only other option.  Not a problem if the position is a reasonably small percentage of one's capital, like, 1-2%.  

Speaking of holding 1%, there's a mock portfolio over at CryptoCompare (https://www.cryptocompare.com/portfolio-public/?id=43976) that looks what would have happened if an equal amount of $10 was invested in the top 100 cryptos on January 1st, 2017.   That is, 1% to each of the top 100.  That portfolio delivered 10x compared to BTC's current 2.7x .


One might have done even better by taking more time to curate the list with in depth research on each coin. But research being time consuming, most people narrow their portfolio down.  There are several examples at that site of people holding portfolios, a little here, a little there, that have done well.  If you're going hold a very narrow group, or even one coin, it should be among the top three, one of which you think has the brightest future. The further down the marketcap list the greater the possibility a coin will sink, and not rise with the rest of the boats in the market.

With the possibility of holding a portfolio and making 3x, 5x or even 10x in a year, why would anybody apportion more than 5% of capital to get a masternode that gives 22%, or 7% ?

Masternodes are the cryptosphere's equivalent of the stock market's dividend stocks.  Check it out on Investopedia. Anything over 4% is considered "high yield", generally the higher the yield, the more volatile (risky) the stock.  The reasons for giving dividends, and the reasons for investing in dividend stocks remain the same coming into the crypto space.   It only makes sense to invest in long-standing, low volatile stocks, that have a good chance of keeping up with the rest of the market to the tune of 4% per year.   It's an alternative way to generate income other than withdrawing 4% per year from one's porfolio, which is intended to grow at more like 9% if fortunate.  

So this is really a strategy for people who have already made a fortune large enough to where 4% represents an OK retirement income.  

Like stock market dividends, crypto masternode annual payouts are subject to change. Further, nodes offering 100% per year should be suspect, as, how can any currency survive when it's supply is inflated 100% per year, not to mention the steady supply paid out to miners!  

Given the competition and volatility of these crypto currencies, it does not make sense to prioritize a dividend (masternode) over several other considerations.  

The good news about volatile assets is if you are underwater, you still may have a chance to get out.  

Long story short, I'm making sure my position is liquid enough to get out at break-even on the next pop.  I would only re-enter as a trader would enter, ignoring long term guesses (or worse, braggadocio) that this coin will someday match the performance of the leader in this (masternode) sector (DASH).  

The best this coin can do is try to mimic DASH's structure (it already does to some extent) and hope to take a small share of this sector (dividend paying sector) if and when DASH catches up to the overall leaders, and goes 10x over the next couple of years. The best it can do is try to mimic, until it is able to pay for and develop new innovation from it's own treasury and wise governance.

 If you read the book "Positioning:The Battle For Your Mind" by Ries and Trout, you'll see that humans have room in their brains for only about THREE brands in the same category.  Coke, Pepsi and ... can you even remember the third most popular brand?

Now there are three in the masternode sector that come to the popular mind, DASH, PIVX and ...?

So Chaincoin has a lot of work to do to even hope to position itself second next to DASH. Yes, according to Ries and Trout's book, that is the strategy Chaincoin must adopt to have hope of getting a share of this very competitive dividend+coin-mixing market.  

Since it is not now on track to get there, i'm out as soon as Chaincoin get's lucky and benefits from the next bull run in the cryptoverse.  

Chaincoin is a legitimate coin that is currently being smeared because of the unfounded aggitation of a recent pump and dump team, that came and moved (a pun on the term "movement") on to Linda and Crave, proving it doesn't really give a damn about fundamentals.  If Chaincoin came out simultaneously with Bitcoin, Chaincoin would probably be number one right now. It's that good.  The book "Positioning" explains why even better products can have a hard time catching up to leading - legacy - brands.

If the pump and dump team had moved on to DASH, then CHC would be positioned next to DASH, as it should be, from a marketing perspective.  Instead, CHC is positioned next to Linda.  

Seriously, the whole masternode meme was used and abused, taking advantage of the current craze to get into passive, compounding income.   Masternodes eliminate the counter-party risks of putting capital into operations like Bitconnect. But unfortunately, masternodes don't eliminate the risk of holding the lagging brands in an otherwise hot sector.  Masternodes don't eliminate the risk of entering a position anywhere above the rock-bottom, proven "base" of a coin's trajectory.  If you enter in even 50% above the base, what is the point of hoping for 7% or 22% per year, when there is more to be made (or lost) just dealing with the volatility?

So i'll be out if ever CHC pops to my break even, and try not to waste any worry on it in the meantime.   Imo, it all depends on what DASH does over the next 12 months (assuming CHC does nothing about it's fundamentals).   As such, i am really invested in DASH, hoping there is a correlation, and hoping that translates into a volatile pop for CHC apart from the synthetic pump we just witnessed.  





  

Well said.  Very well said.  There must be a treasury and optimal balance between miners and nodes.  Miners work hard (besides being a vital part of the "community"), and it does not seem fair to split (so close to 50/50) the proceeds just because someone has more capital to sit on. I say that as a node holder. Node holders should be most interested in how to increase the USE of this coin for mixing services, following an increase in the general use of the coin.  They can best do that by becoming educated voters in how the treasury will be used.  

Yes, CHC, a congenital twin of Dash (born same day or day apart) had every opportunity to grow like Dash in this laboratory of competing chains.   Everyday, it has the opportunity to learn from Dash, and what propelled it to stardom.  Born with the same basic genetics, CHC is well positioned to compete with Dash, if it can start to get it's act together.  It can't all just fall on the shoulders of a couple of volunteer devs.  

Think of it this way, this is about software...about competing software applications and platforms. The worst thing that could happen is this software be seen as "legacy".   It won't be good enough just to copy, but copy it must. After copying enough to avoid becoming "legacy software",  there must be some innovation as well (research and development), and that is expensive, hence, the need for a treasury.

 There is a need to narrow down what would have the most long term impact at this stage of the game, copy it, and gradually increase R&D and marketing as a rise in price affords it.  

I'm watching a YouTube right now, someone giving a speech about DASH.  With 14k views, it's called "DASH Is The Best Cryptocurrency in The World! ($1000 DASH By 2018)".  Everybody should watch it.

Most notably, at the 21:40 mark, he says, "...And i believe, in very short order, what you are going to see is other cryptocurrencies that mimic our system are gonna come to dominate the field. I'm saying it right now. "  

Suncontract,

  I've checked your early replies regarding using local power grids to accomplish the electricity swap but am still unclear exactly how this is accomplished. 

  Yes, i have heard of selling extra electricity "back to the grid", which generally means selling it back to the local utility monopoly, presumably at their price. If the price you sell it to them is the same as the price you buy it from them, then that seems fair enough. 

 If local utilities have a monopoly, why would they allow their grid to be used to sell electricity peer-to-peer at a lower cost? There is much talk of cutting out the middle-man, but they will still need to be some kind of middle man in any case, yes?

 So what is going to motivate local utilities to allow you to sell electricity THROUGH THEM at either a lower, or higher price than the price they are currently offering?

  Of course, they will need to be integrated with suncontracts.  Will they be receiving a "cut" of the action? 

TIA