1) But if you think it that way, the price has to drop very low. Because what they've sold in the ICO was something like "potential-value". They've said: There are 3 billions and each NEU should be worth 1 Dollarcent. That's a marketcap of $30 Mio.

And yes, there are only 100 Mio of supply on the market right now, but in fact there are > 3 billions ready to transact. The supply is already there and growing every day because of staking. And nobody knows if they are security-experts to protect it. Nobody knows if they won't say any day, true or untrue: "Sorry we got hacked" - after a dump to 1 sat. They assert that they've sold 100 Mio Neu for $1 Mio. That's a lot.  

2) They want to make money with it. They've invested already money in it. They have or had a strategy to get rich out of it. In my eyes it's a stupid strategy but it's fore sure not a non-profit-strategy. ;-) And you can be sure: If they don't see any potential for profit they'll let it die.

3) It wouldn't be that hard to make a fun-currency for a company. I mean: This is already highly centralized. It's not a decentralized Crypto-Currency. And if for example Facebook wants something like that, they are able to develop and implement it in 1 month. But they won't agree to be the money-maker for the Neucoin-Scheme. And Game-Devs... maybe small ones could accept some BTC for implementing Neu. But they won't accept Neu for implementing it if they can't sell it without crashing the price or if it's already without any relevant value.

4) If this should go widely used it would bring much attention on the people behind, how they've managed the ICO and the launch, how professional they are and how transparent etc. Also this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=944933.msg12338641#msg12338641
...isn't good PR if you want that people download software and paying at least a little money for something they produce out of nothing. They can't handle this thread. How should they be able to handle the mainstream-press?


5) It seems they are not very skilled regarding the tech. I mean... why should they be successful with 1 1/2 year of developing and then show up with something that doesn't bring any innovation? I can't see more in this than in several 500-Dollar-marketcap-Coins. The differences are the huge premine and that the money-backing. I mean, under the line that's what they use as argument. Without that, what would be there? Just a very little project with a focus on tipping and gaming. If you do some research you'll find several projects with a focus on that.

What they promise is, that there will be value out of itself, out of growing because they could "buy growth". But that's not enough. And I don't believe that they can buy growth, because real professionals most likely won't agree with the project.

************

If I would have believed what they've said months ago... and if I would have bought into the ICO, I would be really angry. Because even if I would have trusted them because of their plans and transparency-promises and thought they would be highly skilled in coding the ideas... I don't see anything like that. What I see is a manipulated ICO, a manipulated market on the exchanges, a non-existing-Blockexplorer, zero distribution, zero transparency and near to zero communication or explanations. And because I know that all of that is very important, I would see it as a risk for my Investment. The reason is very simple: I believe that it's impossible with a launch like this, to turn it into something that could go mainstream. I would want see professionality and with such a premine: Transparency. They should be transparent about every single transaction, for what it is used for and so on. But they don't publish a Block-Explorer... that's a (bad) joke. ;-)
 

I really can only speculate about the question what exactly they believed or what strategy is behind.

Regarding the price: It's not that they don't want it to rise. It's more that they don't need that. If we think it this way: 1 NEU = 1 Dollarcent, the Crypto-User (like we are here) would like to see it rise... if it would go to 2 cent it would be 100% in profit about the price.

But: What the Neu-Group would see: More demand and they would meet that demand. They would sell, so the price wouldn't rise much. I believe that's also the reason they've chosen the 100%-interest-rate. The Investor shouldn't think about profit in price, but profit in interest rate. With other words: The price could stay the same, because if there is growing demand the Neu-Group will sell into it, but if you stake you make about 100% profit in supply in 1 year or more because of compound interest.

And you should trust them and the "non-profit-foundations" in that way: "Nice, they have a growing supply, that's a lot of potential to grow to mass-adoption", because they say that they'll distribute it for the best of the project... buying into games, tipping over Facebook or whatever.

In fact there would be two markets (that's what they most probably want)... not completely separated because that's impossible, but nearly. We are in the Crypto-Scene, watching charts and trade for profit, monitoring a blockexplorer and so on. But they don't focus on this market. They want to sell it besides the market to a public that would use it, but without understanding it. For the non-crypto-public the price wouldn't be very important. The ususal user would hold 300 NEU for 3 Dollar or something like that and if the price would go down, he wouldn't recognize that or don't care about it. He just would tip with it etc.

But they would meet every demand in every way... on the exchanges and through easy-to-use payment methods besides the Crypto-World. That would be a constand pressure on the price. And the initial-seed and angel-investors would dump 2% every month and at the same time they also would have an increasing Neu-supply, because of the high staking rate.

Under the line it would be (in best-case, if successful) a money-machine out of nearly-nothing for a few people. The Crypto-User is needed to bang the drum for it, to stake it and protect the network, without thinking too much about concerning scenarios and that it's in fact a ponzi because they wouldn't run out of supply for many-many-many years... If successful it would be like selling sand in the desert. And they would have a lot of control about it all, including the price. They're already doing that. Above 1 cent they'll sell more... if it goes down they withdraw some supply of the market. So it won't have much volatility.

If you (we all) are not concerned about what they stake, and the increasing supply they have out of nothing... they would have time to sell/distribute it. If there is more demand they sell more, if less demand they hold it and their NEU-supply grows. We should just think: Nice, that's potential. But for them it's money if there is increasing demand... because they'll sell. Forget the "non-profit". Yes, they'll distribute some millions with tipping and they would pay Game-Devs with it if somebody agrees to get paid in NEU. But as long as the Crypto-Community would have complete trust, they wouldn't have any time-pressure.

But there are too much issues. Investors won't ever trust that way. And nobody wants to feel just used to make little profit and they would sell sand in the desert if successful. It's a ponzi... and even if there would be some success and the press would pay some attention.. it would be outet as what it is. There can't be mass-adoption. Everybody can imagine the headlines about the "CEO" behind it and the design. It's arrogant and naive to believe that nobody ever would analyze it very deeply. And they made huge mistakes... they would have to be completely transparent, as promised. But they're showing very clear that there is too much to hide.

And... let's say they'll go on with it and the price will be stable because they keep it stable, and let's also say they get some non-crypto-user in and nobody cares too much about the critics. The internet doesn't forget. If there should be more attention in the future, more people will read about how they bought the own ICO, looking into the blockchain, reading this thread, thinking about the design, about the lack of distribution, the lack of transparency, broken promises... they can't ever hide that. So they shouldn't ignore that, but that's what they're doing.

Also speculative: I belive that some who were involved know too much what's concerning and maybe anticipated that this is a project to lose credibility. If a highly skilled Dev has some optimism about Crypto in general, seeing a great future in Crypto, he won't take the risk to lose his credibility in a project that has so many weak points. I can't know the reasons but if I were a Dev I wouldn't agree with something like this. I would fear that it would fail right in the beginning and I would also fear going mainstream, because I don't believe that it's legit in a legal way. There is too much manipulation. And obviously they don't have that highly skilled Devs. I mean, there is a lot of complaining about technical issues.

What everyone was or is expecting... also very speculative. There is not much defense. If everybody who is involved would feel all right with this, they would communicate it and defend it more. There are a lot of big Investors who gave their names and... they could show up and communicate what they see in it and what the normal investor should see in it. It wouldn't need discussions here... they could write blog-articles or whatever. But I don't see anything like that. So, I believe that they don't feel very good with this. But I can't be sure about that. Maybe they're still believing in a great future and that FB-User will tip each other and World-of-Warcraft or something like that will implement it... I don't know. I don't understand why they gave their names and money... if they really gave money. Never saw more than the 4000 BTC.

It's not easy to compare it with other projects, because so far it's hard to say which projects will be successful... they're all in the beginning, even BTC is. I believe that Crypto in general has a lot of potential but it's unpredictable if the "Google" of Crypto is already there... or the "Facebook" of Crypto. But it won't be a ponzi-scheme and it won't be a central-bank-system like Neucoin. I believe, Dash has some chances. It has a public and skilled team, ongoing development proven over years, and it has a better distribution (there is some instamine). It has constant volume so far... it's pretty stable I would say and with a good potential. But that's what I believe, it's really unpredictable because there is so much innovation that something like ETH or a network like Supernet could make the "older-fashioned" projects irrelevant.

Paycoin: I didn't follow close enough to give a good overview. But there were tons of lies to bring people into it and the team behind it dumped it into oblivion. I never understood what was the strategy because it was... kind of irrational out of everybody's perspective.... a lose-lose-situation. Many lost much and those who made money out of it don't sleep very well and the "irrational-mastermind" is still on the flight as far as I know. There are SEC-Investigations and... you can read the complete story here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=857670.0;topicseen

But that are a lot of sites to read. I hope for a book or a movie. ;-)

That's not possible, because of the network. Staking keeps the Blockchain rolling. So they have to stake.

But if we would say, there would be only 0.1% interest rate (just for a calculation-example) and we say they start the project like they did:

3 billion in total
100 mio for the market

2.4 billion "growth-foundations" to distribute the supply.

And let's say the ICO was sold and really in public hands, they could distribute 2.4 mio over time and various ways - like they say. If the public would trust them, without fear of "team-dumping" or that somebody would hack them or whatever, they could distribute it, if they see demand and could hold if not - they could distribute without time-pressure. They could tip little amounts wherever it's possible, pay those who would like to implement it and a Game-Dev would see more value in it, the chance would be higher that he would accept NEU for his work and so on.

They also could control the price, because it would rise with a growing demand = user-growth and they could sell more. They would act like a central bank and over time the growth-foundations would distribute the billions and it would become a decentralized currency.

If it would be really successful the price would explode because there wouldn't be much inflation and I believe that they don't want that. It's a tipping-currency and they don't want too much volatility.

Interest-Rate is also needed to motivate the user to stake, and that's like Proof-of-Work for Bitcoin. So there has to be some more interest-rate.

They could have chosen a lower interest-rate... like 20% and decreasing or just 6%. But it's also the huge premine that makes it complex. That's an issue in itself I believe. Because if they want to give the people some intention to keep their coins and stake, for the best of the network, they have to chose an interest-rate that makes some sense for the usual investor. But with that huge premine --> they will stake always more. That's really a problem at every interest-rate.


Maybe a solution could have been, if technical possible (I'm not an expert): Different wallets with different interest-rates. That the growth-foundations would stake, would keep the blockchain rolling and protect it, but with only 3% interest rate (just a number), but all public users would stake at 100% but decreasing. They would sell 100 Mio and it would become to >200 Mio after one year just out itself ("public-staking") and they could use their billions to invest in games and distribute it with tipping and so on and they could sell, if there should be much user growth.

It would need some time to figure out the best solution for various scenarios, but the current design is suicidal.

Every project is in development. But you can't compare it to Ethereum. I have no idea how it will turn out with ETH but it's a fact that it's a very innovative project, a complete new Cryptocurrency, not just a fork of another one. And I'm not a coder but I'm really sure that there are many Devs out there who would develop in weeks what the Neucoin-Team did in 12 or even 18 months. Maybe you know what they have done to need so much time, but I can't see that.

But I agree, that it would only have potential about huge user-growth. And I see one scenario how Neucoin could have some use. But just as something like a fun-currency, without any focus on value. More like a "thump-up-button" with tips or as virtual-virtual-currency in an online-game or something like that. On a real and free market it's kind of irrelevant, because it's own economic-design is suffocating.



I doubt that. But... who knows. Maybe it will find it's niche as tipping-currency or whatever. But without any focus on the price or profit. Because if there will be that huge user-growth we can't know, just speculate about it. Some may be optimistic, I'm pessimistic. But what we know for sure is: >200% inflation for the free market every month because of staking. 100 Mio are on the market, and the total supply is already at:

3,083,031,065

In a few days 83 Mio new Coins just out of staking = 83% inflation for what's currently on the market and sold in the ICO!

Just to see what I mean... hours ago:






Let's think about that... there are ways to distribute it, that's for sure. But you have to expect that all those Coins they distribute (however they would do that) will reach some day the exchanges. Let's say they tip it over Facebook... it would be only a question of time somebody makes a business-model out of it to collect some of it and dump it. If they would distribute only 50 Mio and somebody would find a way to collect just 5 Mio and dump it, the price would crash. 5 Mio at the current price = 175 BTC.

And what they can't: Distribute as much as they stake. That won't happen. The supply they're holding will grow with compound interest and every serious Investor will fear that. I don't see any reason to trust them. I don't see any reason to trust in their professionality. There were several hacks in Crypto and there were several scams with the strategy to claim being hacked (Sorry, we got hacked. Bye)

But even if nothing like that would happen the next 12 or 24 months... if they distribute it, the supply on the market will stake also with compound interest which means, that the Neu-team stakes their billions but can't bring them on the market, because the supply on the market will increase already with >100% per year... my calculation is about 175%. The 100 Mio on the market right now (and they're holding most of that as well) stake... and in about 8 months there will be 200 Mio just out of that and 6 billion the team will hold and stake it to 8 billion in 12 months.

I'm not sure if everybody understands the problem... and my english is not good enough to explain it more properly. The problem is:

The more they would be successful in distributing the supply, the more will stake with compound interest on the free market --> exponential. That would be more than enough for any theoretical demand. But at the same time they're staking their billions as well... what will they do with that? What would happen is: The market would inflate itself and that would be enough to bring the price down. But they have to inflate it, too. Because:

1) they want to sell it, they want to make money with it.
2) If they would stop with that the distribution would get worse and that will be recognized.
3) The more user-growth there would be, the more the public would recognize all the issues

It's a trap for all. And it's paradox but true: It's also a trap for them... because they won't be able to handle that. Even in best-case and without thinking about lack of trust, lack of professionality, possible fraud or hacks. There is no scenario to handle the inflation.





That's wrong. With that design they've chosen they will be dominant forever. It's a very simple calculation: Let's say there will be a time with 3 billion on the free market. Just for a calculation - in one year:

There will be about 8 billion in total (staked out of the existing 3 billion with compound interest).

3 billion on the free market
5 billion the team and their investors will hold

Year 2 and the next 12 month:

3 billion will stake with compound interest and more than double
5 billion will stake with compound interest and more than double

So... if they won't bring their billions to the market any time soon, they'll always hold more and at the same time the market won't run out of supply because of the inflation out of itself and it will be a constant pressure on the price. The interest rate will bring always and ever and in every scenario the value down.


If they would've chosen a much lower price but with a supply of 1 billion... so there would be more distribution, it would also stake with compound interest on the free market, the other 2 billion would stake with compound interest in their wallets... so they couldn't distribute anything more.

If anybody can show me a possible scenario in which this project will survive and hold some value, I'm very eager to hear/read it.


And, just for example: If there would be a normal interest-rate, let's say with 6%, there also would be some problems, but there would be at least some possibility to distribute it. And even if there wouldn't be any interest rate they wouldn't run out of supply any time soon. The price goes down with just 100 Mio (without self-buying it would be already much lower). But there wouldn't be so much time-pressure... and they are under time-pressure.





With a constantly dropping price it will be hard to get new users in. If they lift the price up... they'll stake everyday millions they are unable to distribute, so either way... it's a trap for all. They are losing, Investors are losing... there is just one way to make profit: Speculation on the possibility for a short-time-pump because they're holding >99% and are able to pump it. But I doubt that it will happen, because they would have costs in BTC and it would involve some risk for them because experienced Investors will recognize market-manipulation and the (non-existing) distribution and step back.

Really, I thought about that the last days. I like it to analyze things and I don't have the intention to "write it down" just because I'm a bad-boy who would like it to see it fall. In fact I'm waiting for something that could be big, with high intentions and a lot of potential. But this is kind of irrational.

And in my eyes they should explain it... they're still leading people into this, paying for advertising and so on. In my eyes it's dishonest but maybe I'm wrong and they have a strategy for the interest-rate-issue (and some other issues). But they should explain it to the public, including calculations of possible scenarios.

 

Yes, I believe that they lose money. They maybe made a little profit with the ICO, but it seems that they like it to think big, and most likely they use money the same way. Paid for advertising, paid for articles, paid for design, maybe they even paid salaries for 1 1/2 years of development. And now they try to sell sand in the desert but nearly nobody wants it.

It's really an arrogant behavior and very naive to believe that some big names and money-backing would be enough that people would buy 100 Mio and they stake 80 new millions of that dust in just a few days.

Total supply right now: 3,080,934,921
Top 100: 3,074,747,207 ---------------> 99.8 %

....just about 6 Mio are not in the Top 100... and in 2 days they'll have staked the ICO.


Funny is also: If they would be successful with distributing coins, if there would be a great demand and user-growth and there would be 1 billion (just for example) on the free market, that also would stake with compound interest. Nobody would need to buy anything from them. The team would stake their billions with compound interest and the public would stake what is on the free market with compound interest, and that would be enough to make it worthless.

We are about 7 billion people on this planet, but with that economic design they have to export it to other galaxies...


Hopefully they will give away some more real money to make PR for this. Obviously they have enough BTC and Dollars and it's good to distribute real money.

You don't like conspiracy-theories but the problem is:

1. There are some speculations but there are also some hard facts nobody has denied so far.
2. To say something like: "Recent high activity of Neucoin haters just shows how some crypto groups are afraid of Neucoin." could be a conspiracy theory, right? ;-)

And sure, you are free to believe that some of us posting here, or even all of us, are paid Fudders... because some Dev-Teams out there are totally scared about this promising new project, ready to go mainstream and displace even BTC. But I have some doubts that you really believe that. If that would be the case there would be much more activity. I can say: If I had such intentions I would post also in the Neucoin-Forum... and everytime I would make screenshots and if it should be deleted I would tweet that and post it here and so on. It's nothing what we do here.


And if you're a supporter of Neucoin and glad with your investment, you should do anything to protect the project and your investment. And the best way to do that, would be if you answer on that what you call conspiracy theories with arguments and facts. And you may say that it's not worth it to answer that what you call conspiracy theories. But I assure you: It's part of Crypto. It's part of the CM-job. It's as important as high quality in the tech and a good designed economy.

You also should think about the possibility that some other supporters/investors have questions, but don't ask... or maybe are not able yet to understand some aspects deep enough to ask about it. So, it would be on those supporters who understand and are able to educate others. Just to say something like "It's such a great project with potential for mass-adoption and such a skilled and professional team etc..." but without any arguments and explanations, it doesn't work.

But, it's your choice how you support this project...

But maybe with a higher risk for legal consequences. I can't know what's going on behind, how many real investors there were, how many money they got from those they call angel and initial-seed Investors and so on. But if there should be too many people who lost too much, they could have some arguments to make legal pressure.

Just one little example... an ususal Bittrex-ICO has some terms:

Bittrex will be hosting the Equinox ICO. As a reminder, we are providing escrow for the development team. We are not endorsing this coin or any others on our exchange. Please do your own research before trading. Below are the FULL and DEFINITIVE terms for this ICO; no other conditions are required.

* We will review the wallet before initially adding it.
* We will put up for sale xxxx coins at xxxx satoshis. Any unsold coins will be destroyed
* The ICO will run for xxx days starting xxx and ending xxx
* If success conditions are NOT met, all BTC invested will be refunded through a buy wall.
* Once the ICO is over we will verify there is working wallet, blockchain, and block explorer.
* We will hold the funds in escrow for 3 days - at which time, we will release the funds.
* No trading of the coin will be allowed until the ICO ends and escrow is released.
* ALL SALES ARE FINAL AND THERE WILL BE NO REFUNDS - by participating in this ICO, you are agreeing to the above terms

(That's from 2014, maybe it changed since then.)


And I don't know anything about the legal side to make an ICO like the Neucoin-Team did. And I don't know if they announced definite terms. But I know there were some promises and they lined some things out in their whitepaper. And at least a missing Block-Explorer would be enough that the Bittrex-ICO-conditions would be missed. And there is some more about the transparency-promises, the ICO-Adress and so on. There could be much more as we can know.

And with a launch like last week, that could be anywhere between legal, half-legal, illegal... I would fear those who maybe invested too much. Because even if most of the ICO should be bought by close friends or whatever, there are most probably some real/public Investors who invested not just 0.5 BTC. I saw a post in which somebody said that he invested something about $12k if I remember it right. Let's say there are 5 people with such an amount... that could be a risk, because they know there is money in the background. The chances to get it back may be not too bad. If the team would let drop the price to half of the ICO-price and buy it all back, and then step back - that could lead into some trouble.

All this is highly speculative but I really don't believe that it's all absolutely no problem regarding the legal side. And if they think about all that, and about high goals... mass-adoption, hundredthousands or even millions of new user... that would be a hype they maybe should fear because the launch could be shady. Just the transparency-promises they don't hold could be enough. Because it's an absolut important point if you make a decision to buy or not to buy into an ICO.

Even the interest rate, what's mainly an economic problem, could be also a legal problem because if they announce 100% per year but in fact it's compound interest and maybe 130% or 150% or even more... There are a lot of points I would worry about if I would be part of that.

The last 2 days I really believed it could be possible that they could do something like that. Not most probably but possible. That's why I was really eager to see the first signs in which direction they will try to go and today there are signs. Sandrine is posting again, but it's the usual and not very relevant stuff. So it looks as if they just will go on with what they do or not do or try and hope etc.


 

Yes, right. Everybody who steps back from such a freakshow in public is indeed something like a "hero" for crypto in general. I mean, it's alarming what's acceptable and usual in this Crypto-world. Obvious ICO-manipulation, obvious market-manipulation, lies and broken promises... as if they would have the right to make money out of something like that.

They did kind of a good job to let the people accept such a premine. I wouldn't see it as the main-problem (even if I personally see many potential issues with that). The real problem is the interest-rate. If the total supply would be fixed at 3 billion they could say they'll distribute it over time etc. But with the millions they make everyday out of it... that's a timebomb.



Yes, right. I made a little calculation about the price: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=944933.msg12557749#msg12557749

But they can do what they want, they can't control this about the price. They should let it drop and focus on distributing it out of the Crypto-World over Facebook or whatever. Just give it away to as much people as possible to have user-growth. And those people wouldn't sell it, because they don't have knowledge about Crypto. But, it would be also a timebomb because if somebody would find a way to collect it... and dump it, that would show in a few minutes another very weak point of the economic-design and strategy ;-)




If it would drop too low they won't find a way back. Because if it's at 100 sat or something like that... who would buy it if they still stake millions every day and 200% of the market-supply in 1 month.

I really like to think about scenarios and possibilities but I really find no way. My solution would be: Lifting the price to 0.00004, building a buywall, announcing that the project has failed and call it off. After that they could try to restart it in 6 months with a different design... but doubtful that there would be a way back for them.

They've pulled the buywall at 0.000035 at bittrex. It's interesting to see that they own 99,8% or more but obviously fear the market. And they don't want to give out too much BTC.

But where do they focus on? I mean, it's obvious that they're protecting the price a little bit, maybe even want to buy Coins back to get full control back. But the price is no indication and in my eyes it shouldn't be the focus. The real bleeding is what they stake everyday. It's kind of paradox but the more they stake without the chance to distribute it, the weaker they will be. If they focus on that, the time is running. In a few days they will have staked 100 Mio new Coins = the supply of what they sold (or claimed they did) in the ICO. There are several weak points in this project, but that's the Achilles' heel.

And they should think just about one question: In which realistic scenario will it be possible to distribute what they stake?



Yes, the more they give out free the more could possibly hurt the price. But I believe that they're not able to give it because of the tech. I mean, I really did believe that they're at least competent in coding the stuff they want and I don't have much knowledge about all that. But the more I read the more I believe that they're not competent in executing their ideas and strategies into software. They had many delays and all the time it was like "we want to do it right, not rush it out" but now... it's obvious that it's rushed out - after all the time. Nothing seems to be really ready.





That would be pure naivety. I would say they "hoped... that nobody would do that". But they hope too much. There are several points they have some hopes but no plan. They show incompetence, overwhelming, they would like to buy time but on the other hand, time is not on their side.



Yes, maybe. And before, they would've distributed some Coins over 3000 adresses or something like that to make it look better. It surely wasn't the plan that it's all in the Top100. That's also something I really don't understand. They mix the BTC. Why did they forget to spread their NEU?

Or the lack of transparency of the financial side. It would be very important but so far they do nothing to let it just seem that way. I believe they're overwhelmed with it all. They don't know what to do on the market, with the tech, regarding the communication, how to distribute and so on.


It's going to get interesting if they'll survive the next 50 days... They can if they want to, but it also could be possible that one after the other will leave.


Yes, it's interesting to see. Never saw something like that in Crypto before. It's kind of a TV-show with several episodes, leading actors (don't see a hero so far) and I really want to know how this turns out. ;-)

Some of the BTC they withdraw from the ICO-Adress didn't go to exchanges. I followed some transactions and there are addresses with amount. Much smaller than the 1000 BTC they've withdrawn but it's not all to back the price. I also doubt that they need so much because I don't believe that they've sold Neu for 1000 BTC. Maybe something around 100 to 400 BTC.


And what they do depends on what their strategy. They could let the price drop and buy much lower, but maybe they don't want that the price looks that bad or whatever.

I always try to figure out what the strategy could be. The last days I thought: Maybe they're preparing an exit. They were very quiet what's unusual for an project in it's first week on the market. The Sell-Walls on one side and the buy-walls on the other... I thought, maybe they want to cause dumping, buy it all back and leave in silence.

But... today they're posting again. Nothing of relevance so far, but it's hard to figure out any strategy. And maybe the reason is that they don't have a strategy than protecting the price, controlling 99,9% of the total supply and waiting for mass-adoption.

The last days they even bought... The Nr.1-Account on Bittrex is constantly growing and I'm completely sure that it's not a normal Investor but somebody from the Neu-Team.

Would like to know where the price would be if they would have really sold the entire ICO and if there wouldn't be any buywalls to stabilize the price.

There are some possible scenarios... depends mostly on what the Neu-Team wants. As I said: I believe that the majority of the ICO was bought from the team. There were 100 Mio NEU and about 4000 BTC. If we would say, just for an theoretical calculation, that there were 200 real Investors with 2 BTC each (average) it would mean: 10% in public hands = 400 BTC = 10 Mio Neu which would be really "out in the wild".

I'm pretty sure, that the buy-walls are from the team. Reason: At this point there are maybe some little Investors, playing a little bit with tiny amounts but if somebody would like to buy at 0.000035 and would invest about 11 BTC he will think about it. It's unpredictable for everybody without insider-knowledge. Some may expect pumping, some may expect that the team could give up, some may expect dumping... I don't believe that anybody would invest much at this point.

So... in my eyes, the buy-walls could have to possible reasons:

1. to stabilize the price
2. to buy it mostly all back


If they stabilize the price and buying time with that, they could have a strategy to come out with something they could publish as good news... whatever it could be. Something that would give the sign that they are still following their own strategy, User-growth and so on. That could be the strategy, but it's also a risk I would say, because they can't fix the inflation- and distribution-problem.

Another strategy could be: To buy it all back what is in public hands. Than they could leave in silence... over time, nobody would care too much because nobody would have lost too much. And to do that, they could motivate the people to dump their holdings. And... They don't do that much to raise confidence the last days. There is no communication and maybe they are also building some sell-walls to cause dumping into their own buy-walls which are lower and lower than the ICO-price...

And... it's really speculative but that would be my guess, because it looks similar on Bittrex and Cryptsy. In this moment: On both exchanges exactly 7.4 BTC (200,000 NEU) on the sellside at 0.000038. I doubt that this is a coincidence.

Buy-side the same picture at 0.000035... > 300,000 NEU.

So, I believe they want to cause people to dump into the buy-walls and they know how much is in public hands. But it also could be that there are just real Investors on the sellside who wants out or one bigger Investor on both exchanges or whatever... hoping that they'll buy it.


Maybe we'll see what's their strategy in a few days. If they'll try to push the project or if they'll stay calm or coming up with an excuse or whatever. It's unpredictable. Maybe they have the plan for something like a restart... who knows.

Yes, you're right... it's a dishonest design and behavior right from the start and they had much time to think about it and to correct it or just call it off.

What's interesting for me is: Dishonesty isn't very rare in Crypto. Naivety isn't rare, incompetence isn't rare. But there are experienced people in the team. They have obviously good connections. And nobody was able to anticipate what would happen? To calculate scenarios from best- to worst-case and find out that it makes itself impossible and irrelevant? They are surprised that there is a Block-Explorer before they were able to spread the supply? They want to grow and don't think about the pressure that would be? I mean, you and me and some others are looking a little bit into it... but how would it turn out if it's really about big money and if blockchain-experts analyze the ICO and if journalists digging deeper?

I doubt that anybody made much money out of it so far. Therefore I don't believe that they've sold much to the public... maybe they even lost money in this. And I don't see any possible scenario to turn it... Maybe they'll buy it all back and say that there was too much FUD and leave. ;-)

I don't mean the direct communication and what they really did. What I mean is the concept what they line out in the strategy-paper.

They're not anonymous.
They have "big names" in the boat.
There is money-backing.

They announce a total supply of 3 billion
They bring 100 Mio to the market
At the same time they assure potential investors that there won't be any uncontrolled dumping
They say, the huge supply will be used for the best of the project --> user growth, paying those who'll implement it and so on

They say they will be very transparent about all transactions and investments they'll make.



And sure, they are not transparent and I would have some concerns about security and a large group, because I always expect differences... I would have some concerns about the "Oh sorry, we got hacked - possibility"... one of the oldest tricks in Crypto to run away with the money and so on.

But the psychological design isn't that bad if you read it. And I mean just that, without the delays and direct communication and shady pasts and so on. They have answers to most of all possible questions before anybody asks openly. I believe they focused much more on the psychological-strategy than on the economic-design and the tech. And I believe, what they also forgot: The psychology in their own group. It's nearly impossible that they're united.

The key-problem is in my eyes: If they would be completely honest, completely transparent, highly skilled regarding the tech, they still couldn't handle the PoS-Rate/Inflation. And always they would've to explain this lack of any distribution and so on.

The design itself leads into dishonesty.

I don't see any scenario that I would buy this. The reason is pretty simple: If it would go down to 100 sat, just for example, I would ask myself: Who dumped? Was it the team? That would be a safe sign that there isn't any hope left for a higher price. I would expect more dumpings, because they have enough. If the price would go down because all of public investors would sell... why should I buy it?

And you should ask yourself who really tries to doom naive folks. If I would be part of a team that starts a project there would be a Block-Explorer ready before launch. I would be transparent because I know that a project like this one wouldn't have any chance without fully transparency regarding the financial side and the design itself. But I never would be part of a central-bank-inflation-project, because I wouldn't like it to sell my credibility for nothing - and I'm a little light without any plans.

I don't know what you want to say with "it's not your first time".

Thank you for your honest statement and for the further insight!

Regarding the Testnet: I didn't know that. Just today I've read about a testnet, about Invitation-Mails to all who bought into the ICO and I asked myself: "How did they manage that nobody will figure out that there (most likely) never was much public investing?"

So, thank you for answering that question. ;-)


Inflation: It's still a mystery to me. I think it's one keypoint. Even if they would do anything right, it would be very hard or even impossible to survive the first 2 years with that design. I mean, they've planned that. In their strategy-paper they say this:

If 100% of all NeuCoins were mined continuously for the ten years following launch, the total supply of NeuCoin tokens would exceed 150 billion (growing over 50X). The estimate of 100 billion coin supply after ten years is based on the assumption that the percentage of coins being mined starts at 100% and linearly declines to 50% by year ten.


And one obvious question is: In which scenario does it make sense to inflate a Currency so extreme? And I believe, we have to think very big if we want to understand what their strategy is (or was). Let's use Facebook as example. FB has about 1.3 billion User. And let's say, Facebook would implement Neucoin and the FB-User would like it and they would tip each other. What would that be? It's what the Neucoin-Team say: It would be microtransactions. It wouldn't be much about value. FB-User wouldn't buy it on Bittrex or any exchange. There would be an easy way to buy it... maybe something like shapeshift or whatever. They would buy it directly from the "Neucoin-Company". And they wouldn't care too much about questions if the price is at 0.00004 or 0.0004 or 0.000002. It would be something like the "thump up - button".

At the same time, the Neucoin-team would have enough to meet every demand. If there is much, they have enough. If there is not much, they could just hold it. But the thing about it is: They would sell it if there should be greater demand. It wouldn't be those who bought into the ICO or now on an exchange. They would sell it to the people if it would be successful and they wouldn't have too much intention for a much higher price. It's about tipping and in the end there would be > 100 billion. Every FB-User could have 100 NEU and tip with that like they press the tump-up-button.

What I want to say with that (and yes, it's speculative): The inflationary design is needed if you believe in huge User-growth and if you want to make money out of that... What does it need for a "tipping-cryptocurrency" to reach the masses? It has to be fast and it has to be easy to use. It should make some fun but before all: You need people who bang the drum for your project, right? And that's the ICO-crowd. They compare it with Bitcoin and tried to make people believe that those who are early could get rich like the BTC-early-adopters. But it's not their strategy I believe. They would sell it and especially because it's not about trading but masses of users they wouldn't have much intention of volatility. They would always have enough of the dust to meet the demand and fix the price at 1 or 2 or 3 Dollarcent and get rich of it.

Maybe that's the strategy... As I said, it's speculative but that could explain the exponential inflation. Because they would always (!) stake a lot more than the public/market.

But if this theory should be right, they made a huge mistake. Because it's a do-it-or-die concept. At least the first two years it would be highly doubtful to grow that much to distribute just what they stake, because the first year it's just a cryptocurrency that would need public-Investors who bang the drum for it. But they wouldn't do that if they don't see any chance for profit. Investors step back if they see that they could invest 1 BTC and the Neucoin-Group stakes that in minutes. They stake in 2 weeks what they claim to have sold to the public.

And maybe they did believe that there would be a hype right from the beginning. And I have to admit: The psychological design is not that bad. They made some things right. They did a good job to raise trust. Because most of the people would think: Okay, they're all public, they're known, they're professionals... they won't scam. And that's right I believe. I don't believe that this is a "run-away-with-the-money-Scam". But they have too much to hide and they made too much mistakes on the way I don't understand. Maybe they are not skilled as Devs. Maybe they can't be transparent because they don't have the money-backing they claim. I can't know that, but there is the fact that they're not transparent. And that's a great mistake. And I don't understand the problems they obviously have with the tech... the delays. Maybe it's just because they have not much experience in Crypto or whatever.

Like you say: "I think back then there was some excitement but that just all faded, and people became disenchanted (at least for me)."

But the biggest mistake is the PoS-rate. It's a dead end because it lowers every chance to survive the first year. They could do everything right, but this project is kind of irrelevant for Crypto-Traders/Investors because of it's inflation. And even if I would trust them that they won't take the money and run away with it... They would have to inflate the market to grow. That's an important aspect for a user-growth-strategy. They would sell it like dust, just cautios enough not to damage the price. At the same time they wouldn't run out of supply because they produce it like dust. So, why should I buy this? To be excited about it and bang the drum for it? ;-)

The problem they can't handle is: It's visible. It's naive to believe that they would be able to grow without some questions about this business-model. In fact they should fear to go mainstream, because if there would be much attention... what would be the feedback about it? Those who are cricital here are most likely like me, little lights in Crypto. But if real Journalists would look into this and ask questions about it... what would be the result? Take a look at http://coinfire.io how they've helped to shred the Paycoin-Scam. What would they write if Neucoin would be big? What would they find if they analyze the BTC-Blockchain, if they analyze the Neucoin-Blockchain... it's not distributed right now, what's obvious a problem for them. But I'm sure they had the plan to spread the supply before they come out with an official BE. Didn't they expect that there could be a richlist before they come out with an official BE?

I don't understand all that. The point is: If they would hold every promise, and if they would be skilled regarding the tech and economy and experienced in Crypto and not so greedy... it could work out. They could have started with 1 billion and a 10%-inflation per year, let the market find a price for it, being transparent and so on... it could be a successful project. It could be interesting for public Investors. I believe that Sandrine could be a good CM if she could be open about what's going on and all that.

But now... they're tipping 200 Users, buying the dumps, are very quiet, disperse the ICO-BTC to multiple addresses... and it looks like fraud.

One question is: Was the ICO really sold to the public and was it really a legit launch?

The problem is, if you look at the distribution:

Top 10.......2,967,553,562.06368923 NEU   96.72 %
Top 100.....3,062,105,550.67083359 NEU   99.8 %
Top 1000...3,068,146,816.34814405 NEU   100 %

Where are the 100 Mio sold in the ICO? It's not in Top100-1000. There are only about 6 Mio Coins. That's the staking of 20 hours.

They say:

Hi @takla : approximately 1000 people took part in the presale: https://blockchain.info/address/3MrNuksZ1VePU3dGiSQFiouWerJUJgDkfH
http://forum.neucoin.org/t/investors-in-neucoin/1341


And yes, there are > 1000 transactions. But I looked into it and it's nearly always the same... the BTC went a long way over multiple addresses, and often very fast. There were some big transactions but also very small transactions had a long way before, were splitted before etc.... it's hard to figure out where they came from. And: Why did so many Investors believe it's necessary to send their money through the entire Blockchain instead of sending them directly?

And: If there were about 1000 people who bought the pre-sale, how can it be that they're all in the Top100?

Did they all transact their NEU to the exchanges? If you take a look on Bittrex (Distribution) the answer seems to be no. There isn't much, I would say < 10 Mio, maybe < 7 Mio. And on the sellside are only 498,372 NEU.

If so many would have transacted their NEU to Bittrex I would expect a lot more on the sellside. It's very unusual that there isn't even 1 Mio.


I doubt that there is a lot more on Cryptsy.


And if we look at the official forum. It doesn't seem that there are so much User, right? There are a lot of links and it's visible how often they were clicked. And it also counts clicks of those who are not registered as User. One example, the Thread about the presale:

Hi there!

As promised, here are all the important details about our presale:

It will begin on April 28
100 million NEU to be offered in exchange for BTC
Price starts at $0.01 per NEU and increases by 1% per day
Presale ends after 60 days or when the 100 million tokens have been sold
The presale will happen at www.neucoin.org 69
http://forum.neucoin.org/t/neucoin-presale-to-start-april-28-and-earn-free-neucoins-now/467


Until now there are just 69 clicks on the link to the pre-sale.

If there were about 1000 User who bought the pre-sale I would expect some more clicks than just 69.

And if there were about 1000 User who bought the pre-sale I wouldn't expect to find all the Coins in the Top100...



If I think about all that, self-buying would be my guess. But if that should be right, there is the question "why?". Possible answers:

1. Because otherwise it would have failed
2. To have full control - also about the 100 Mio. And that's just about 3% of the initial supply (3 billion).


My guess is: They saw that there isn't much demand. They recognized that there are not many Users on their forum, not many views on the Mainpage or the Wiki, not many action on Twitter and so on. It wasn't the hype they had expected. So they bought it themselves in three days to let it seem as if there would be much demand, as if it would have been possible to sell more than just 100 Mio.

And than, most likely the plan was to distribute it over the exchanges... with control about supply and price.

But it doesn't seem as if there is a lot more demand now, right? It doesn't seem as if there is more action on their forum... Somebody starts a topic "Serious question" and after 12 hours it has 61 views and 3 replies... that's not very much if there are at least 1000 Investors and after the launch it should be much more... now it's on the exchanges and visible for all.

Or their official Twitter-Account: https://twitter.com/neucoin
The first tweet is over a year ago, but just 819 follower.

Sandrine (CM): https://twitter.com/SandrineAy
joined in 2012, but just 1083 follower


Just for example: https://twitter.com/NeosCoin

It's a high-quality and honest project but without much marketing/PR, still under the radar... more like an Insider-Tip. But it started in August 14 and has more follower than this Mainstream-Neucoin-project?

Weird, right?


So, if I should be right with my guess, that there wasn't enough demand to reach the ICO-terms and that there was selfbuying of those who already owned 97% of the total supply (now more because of staking)... it was a failed ICO.


And what's a fact: Now the Top100 are sitting on 99.8 % of the total supply, staking the hell out of it and everybody who sees that, steps back. And the group behind it, including those they call "angel-investors" and "initial-seed-investors", are in summary 50 people. Not that hard to figure out who is in the Top100. Not many public-investors I would guess. ;-)



And if you think about that... maybe you'll also find an answer to the questions: Why isn't there an official Block-Explorer? Why isn't there much communication? What are the 12 people of the core-team doing? And they started working on that 1 1/2 year ago? What's there? A badly designed forum? A peercoin-fork? A Homepage and a Wiki? That's nothing... Every little 100 Dollar - marketcap-Coin has that.

The only innovation I see is the incredibly high staking-rate and zero distribution. If that's what they've wanted --> mission accomplished.