Repeat - only problem is that I am now doing manual work that was never the idea. Yes, it's what all great leaders do when they fail in organizing something. No, reminding about it constantly is not fun.

Probably the mixed success of this one is not boding well for next year's contest. I will likely start a thread in December nevertheless.

Amount of effort is not really bigger than anticipated. The thing that I personally do it is very much not what I wanted. 

But let's keep it going 

I made the adjustment to the "new rounds" (so that the disqualified players do not disturb the scores of rounds started after their disqualification).

I see your point in that it would be nicer to you to have all previous and future scores recalculated once someone drops from the game. We are not changing the rules to cement the scores, but I also don't feel like recalculating them every time. Since the rules stipulate only the final scores, it feels permissible to me that the exact scores will be determined only after the contest has ended, according to the rules. Would this be OK for you?

We have now 6 entries in the game.
- 15 months that are evaluated.
- 15 predictions outstanding (of whose orange numbers you want?)
- 6 predictions yet to come, 3 of which the deadline is today

They both have almost identical levels (well the votelist has base metals instead of "wad of green toiletpaper" ) Perhaps David can copy some of the design elements to the official votelist to make it look less official...

You are all children, or at least not monetary economists 

The issue is not a fantasy about everybody having as many "credits". That existed long before I learned to read. The issue is to build a monetary system whose currency gains so much value in the market spontaneously (as Bitcoin has done) that a part of the value creation can be used to further boost its adoption (as Bitcoin has not done due to the lack of mechanism for such).

10 XMR is the minimum fee. This nominally corresponds to 1000 XMR holdings, although you can be much smaller or bigger if you like.

It has 6,200 votes, so nominally 620,000 coins (about 20%).

Personally I believe people have on average "underbought" votes to save money and disguise their total holding. The MEW membership's share of the current emission is likely 30-40%.

Funny enough, we had a longish discussion about it. Since I am the creator of both some important parts of the MEW and the Community Hall of Fame, I can decide that the MEW votelist ranks higher in precedence. It is a sign of an ongoing commitment, not only of one-time donation.

MEW is the place where it will be discussed. So that we can make sure if the coin owners actually prefer this or that.

The ones who do not believe in the viability of one of the choices, are likely selling their coins anyway. So it's better that a good project continues with the majority (instead of the minority), which also makes us hopeful that a great number (instead of a small number) of new ones will join, leading to increased (instead of decreased) adoption, compared to current situation.

Which side is the majority, I don't yet know. I - as well as many hopefully - has not locked in his own opinion yet.

Unless we make a significant new low (below $266 would qualify), we have just made a multi-month double bottom, an incredibly bullish signal, way more bullish than the 1-month double bottom at $2 in 2011.

QFI:

Immediate answer: Yes.

Just willing to restate my points:
- No, I am not advocating changing the total number of coins;
- No, I am not advocating higher inflation;
- Yes, I am advocating that inflation is more evenly spread over time;
- Reason I do this is that fully mined coins have a hard time finding buyers if there are growing coins also available (don't be confused with pumps - that's something that cannot happen with XMR anyway anymore).

Reading my posts in this short thread might be enjoyable and insightful.

1st year is 39%, after 4 years it is 86%.

I would much rather see us at <50% for 3-4 years, because a fully mined coin when there is no meaningful adoption (10s of millions of users at least) is likely to be superseded by a fork of the same, which is perceived as "more legitimate" since it is "not premined".

I don't think inflation is "good" but I find it hard to retain legitimacy in the view of the future generations without it. Crypto is not gold. Gold cannot be forked, crypto can. And has. And will.

Per user, Bitcoin's marketcap is about $5,000, which is not exactly a huge figure given that the median is probably <$1,000. It has about 1 million owners, unchanged from late 2013.

If adoption goes to 10 times what it is now, likely also average investment goes higher, leading to 10+ times price growth. Otherwise the math does not add up.

And since we are in a Monero thread, and Monero's marketcap just declined to less than 1/1000 of Bitcoin's, the same numbers apply, but there is (even) more room for growth.

Without GUI, adoption will remain sluggish. With sluggish adoption, not only will price be pressured, but more importantly - and this is a coin killer - the emission will run its course to the point that XMR will considered to be a "community premine" despite all our good heroic efforts.

Since changing the emission also can be considered to be a premine of sorts, we are between a rock and a hard place with (yet) no solutions that would have the unanimous support of everybody.

I can also be wrong concerning the future perception of "community premine".

The threat was (likely intentionally) issued at a time when me and several other large holders were online in the trollbox. I don't know if the other holders sold, but if they did, it was likely in anticipation of a bigger drop (which never materialized, so they bought back at a loss).

What I do remember for certain is that most of the bid side was pulled instead of being sold into, resulting in <50 BTC of bids at the lowest point instead of the normal ~300 BTC and high of >600 BTC. It builded up in minutes after seeing the initial flashcrash to 0.00280.

By the way, contrary to what many think, the higher lows trend has not been violated daily vwap-wise. The last low from August was 0.00305 and lowest during this bottom is 0.00310.

There is no need for the members to run any software. I might be providing them an excelsheet but the amount of functionality is so minimal that they can reconstruct it in 5 minutes typing to a blank sheet. Or do totally without. The explanation upthread makes it clear that all the members have to do is to submit their bids and asks once per day (or less if they don't want to participate in market making), and for that any channel that can verify their identity is OK.

No. The rules allow for this. He just gets zero points for those rounds. (He also has several submissions from the earlier rounds that are scored normally even if new ones are not submitted.)

Bitcoin has about 1 million and the marketcap per user is $5,000. Now if we think Monero has the same marketcap per user (which is very far-fetched), it should have 1,000 users.

Monero downloads typically measure in 10,000s per week. Poloniex alone has 5,000 distinct speculator accounts. MEW has 60 members a week after inception while membership costs 10 XMR at least and is only really possible for BCT accounts.

By getting back to marketcap per user metric, 5,000-10,000 users ($500-$1,000 per person) is reasonable. If all exchanges are considered, the number might be 10,000-15,000. Probably not more though.

I don't know of anything that Quark has accomplished, so it's not a comparison. Auroracoin had a much bigger pump, but is equally dead now.