There are too many other alts, there is also the massive coin total and the fact that the coin doesn't have any significant social media presence/PR or any obvious plan for increasing it's value.  In alts things move quickly and coins also get forgotten quickly.  If a coin is silent or has too low a profile it gets left behind and doesn't last long.

You need someone doing just PR for the coin - to keep it in people's consciousness via social media etc. - absolutely vital given the pace of altcoins where even an hour is a long time and silence is taken as a bad sign.

I think having a maximum coin supply of 8 billion is a mistake.  I think ELT should transition to POS after 500,000 blocks (roughly one year) that should ensure that it doesn't end up worthless.

I don't understand the morons who keep coming to every launch and then complaining about Dedicated Pool.  Dedicated are the only ones that seem to get their shit together at launch and have things working over and over again.   Yet, these idiots keep coming on and saying that they are stealing coins and crap like that, just because they actually have their pools working.  I always stick with Dedicated Pool on launches because I know I won't have to worry about the pool working.  They always get it right.  There's a reason most people at launches use them, so don't complain if you were too stupid to figure that out.  Instead of accusing Dedicated of stealing coins go and find the person that stole your brain:)

Anyway I agree we should do whatever is best for the coin as long as it is made clear so that there can't be any FUD about it.  For example the VAULT could be renamed the Mjollnir promotion fund or something similar to make it's purpose clear.  Maybe even incorporate a certain percentage of all mined blocks in future to go towards the fund whilst ensuring that too many coins are never put onto the market at once.  Also I hope the aim is not to auction all 250,000 Mjollnir in one go as that would kill any value.  If that is what how a superblock would be used then I am opposed to it.

I spoke to Bittrex and they say that they do not list coins for money.  They will advertise coins and if the developers are willing to pay for advertising, have working wallets etc and illustrate their support for the coin by doing this they will list.

So could be an honest mistake.  I'm beginning to wonder myself now.

The self delusion is hilarious.  They didn't find extra coins but the found the POTENTIAL for extra coins.  These could easily be mined in secret and dumped using the ANON functionality.  Read the rest of the Poloniex thread where they clarify their concerns.  There is no reason to have even the potential for extra coins unless you intend to use it.  This coin is dead.  Accept it.

Get real.  It's not recovering.

No the coin is dead.  Nobody will touch it now whatever you do with it.  Remember Asiacoin?

No.  The developer assumed Poloniex would list them without checking the code.  Poloniex rejecting them sabotaged the plan.

Well caught.  You could have just run with it and made some money but have taken the ethical stance which takes balls:)

Fantastic:)

That's different.  It's only manipulation if the news is false and intended to affect the price.  I don't see how you relate the two.

Good I think it might take longer for MNR to succeed but it will be on the basis of honesty and fairness and not for the gain of exchanges/whales who will use the coin for their purposes and then kill it.  Also I think it is fine to auction off coins (for a fair rate) as long as the money/BTC are used for legitimate promotion.  Alternatively maybe we could give some coins to do a job, e.g. a new PR person for the team, promise them the coins and hold them in ESCROW for a certain period.  This would give them incentive to really work on promoting the coin (and not just sell them), the greater their success the greater the value those MNR will hold.  Just an idea.

I think the vault funds should be used for PR/raise awareness of MNR to regular users NOT paying to get listed.  Paid votes are unethical and I don't think we should support them.  Just my opinion but I have written a bit more about how they hurt crypto in general here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=652222.new#new

Part of MNR is the ethical nature, lack of premine etc.  Why hamper that with paid listing?

I think it would be better to use the funds raised to promote the coin and raise awareness.  I don't think paid listings are ethical.  Let's raise the MNR's awareness to the point where Bittrex want to list it for free.

We have all seen blatant examples of market manipulation by what are termed "whales" on crypto exchanges but I have growing suspicions that some of these "whales" may be the exchanges themselves engaging in activity which whilst not necessarily illegal is certainly unethical and representative of unfair market manipulation.   

The most blatant examples of this are seen on the largest exchange (by volume) - I don't think I need to name them.  Time and again we have seen coins rise and then when the coin has most going for it they reach said exchange and (after a short pump) they start a steady decline in value. 

It should be noted that this exchange accepts paid votes (in BTC) for listing new coins.  This is a practice that is suspicious at best and rife for abuse as it allows coins to be listed on the basis of wealth rather than actual popularity. 

It also means that there is an incentive for the exchange to support new coins to the detriment of older more established ones.  Here is what I think may be happening:-

1. The exchange accepts payment votes to list coin X.
2.  As payments come in to list X, the exchange uses those BTC to slowly buy up X at cheap rates.
3.  Over time the price of X starts to rise as demand and sales rise.  This accelerates as X rises up the voting list on the exchange.
4.  Once X is actually listed there is an inevitable rise in price and demand. 
5.  Once people start buying and selling at higher prices the exchange steps in and starts selling their large volume of coins (purchased very cheaply) at prices which significantly undercut regular sellers yet are still high enough to make them a significant profit.
6.  The price starts to fall and people start panic selling leading to a downward spiral in price.  Now the exchange either lets the coin die by keeping their BTC or they start buying up again from panic sells and repeat the process.
7.  Once the exchange has milked the coin sufficiently they keep their BTC earnings, the volume on the coin dies, as a significant source of buys has been removed from the equation. 
8.  The number of free coins is significantly greater than demand.  This leads to loss of confidence in X as the price continues it's downward trend.  Human psychology then exaggerates this further leading to a dwindling "perceived value" for the currency.
9.  The coin takes a long time to recover if it ever does from the artificial buy pressure generated by the exchange being removed - if it ever does recover.
10.  By this time the exchange is hard at work on the next coin(s) - Y, Z, etc. for which the same process has begun.

Now I don't have any proof of any of this.  Just hunches but it all fits the behaviour of coins on the exchange.  I'm talking here about coins that one would expect to be certain to succeed with good developers, innovation, plenty of real demand and community support. 

Yet their behaviour on this exchange seems to behave exactly in this manner.  At times it might seem consistent and expected (bad news, poorly implemented hard forks etc) but there is an alarming counter intuitive yet consistent pattern where coins with improvements i.e. good news continue falling in value. 

As soon as some good news appears a huge number of coins appear to get dumped on this exchange and lower the price.  I have also noticed large amounts of buys and sells of the same value going up simultaneously and being taken down and moved simultaneously or at rates that would be impossible to do for an end user. 

These issues suggest that there is some internal party behind these orders.  Like I said I don't have proof but I would suggest we are all vigilant and look out for suspicious activities on all exchanges. 

Whilst exchanges are vital to any currency the fact is it is far too easy for a bad actor to manipulate markets and act dishonestly.

One thing that would definitely help to reduce (but not eliminate) this behaviour would be for us as customers to insist that exchanges NOT take paid votes.  They only benefit the exchanges and as I have suggested create a big opportunity for unscrupulous parties to manipulate the markets in their own favour. 

Furthermore we should also insist on openness regarding why exchanges list coins when they haven't been voted for as well as proper external auditing of exchanges to weed out those that are taking part in unethical behaviour.

We should also know who this faceless people behind these exchanges are and what if any business history they have.  Have they been involved in any fraud etc.  What is there general track record.

I am open to other people's suggestions for how we can combat this kind of behaviour if it is happening and their general views on the matter.  I believe an open and fair market benefits us all.  Cryptocurrencies will only be hampered in their success if market manipulation remains endemic as I believe it may be.

Thanks and apologies for any spelling or grammatical errors I may have missed.

Right have sent another 4000 to the vault.

GBC currently at no. 42 on Allcoin, please vote for it here:
https://t.co/cfGnPPRJOG