Monero seems to be quite unstable. What's wrong with the price?
Actually, it is remarkably stable since start, no large pumps and dumps along the way. Mean average price rising since may. What is the total range of XMR trading ever, including all outliers? I gather it should be about 0.00039 - 0.01110. If so, these are only 28x apart from each other  For any other coin, it's more. With Bitcoin, the range is 0.001 - 1,236; difference being 1,236,000x.  I'm interested to know your source for 0.001. Lowest price I've seen documented is 0.003 on Bitcoin Market in April/May 2010 (EDIT: which is the earliest data I have. Do you have earlier, Risto?) roy Sirius has told in multiple occasions that he sold 5000 (or 5050) bitcoins for $5, making the record for the floor price. |
|
|
|
Just out of curiosity, why am I the only lucky person with an asterisk by their name?
I do not know. If risto checks in we can find out, otherwise ill ask him later. I used asterisk to denote who is the last one added, otherwise I would have forgotten it. It serves no other purpose  |
|
|
|
I made a distribution with more resolution for Monero yesterday. I am thinking of doing the same for Bitcoin - just using statistical methods, and the constants: * Satoshi 980k * 1 million holders * 620 $/ BTC * current number of bitcoins. So not using any richlists, blockchain dumps etc.It will be interesting to compare |
|
|
|
Whats the bechmark for being a VIP of Monero, 500, 1000, etc?  Typically it starts when the power law takes hold ie. you are "better than" 97%. With XMR, you need 1000. Go get some! |
|
|
|
Perhaps we can go deeper to the mystery of the 400k guy? To have a 25% share of the coins at any time, it requires that he would have needed to have 25% of the hashpower uninterruptedly from the beginning to the end, AND the opportunity cost of such power would've been 100s of BTC. The only realistic way to do it would have been a privileged miner with much lower electricity cost that that of the others.Or he would have bought 25% of all the new supply in the exchanges (which is ludicrous, since many miners don't sell, so 1 guy would have bought like half of the coins brought for sale, from day 1 on...) If you ask me, it is more likely that the biggest holder now is found in the 140-280k XMR range. It just gets too difficult and not profitable enough to actually corner 25% of the supply. With such resources (100s of BTC) you have other things to do... This way logic can be applied. |
|
|
|
It is POSSIBLE for mods to merge the threads. We will see if they will.
Yes, It would be good to have everyone receiving the updates! Also cAPSLOCK, if 2 days go by without anyone donating, you should bump, and give new titles to the donators |
|
|
|
Also for somebody to have amassed 280,000 coins, that could only have happened as a rather static percentage of the new inflation (there has been no way to generate or buy them for cheaper in such a quantity - Bitcoin did have this window open for Satoshi but Monero hasn't had it, and will not have it). This means that his stash would have been bought at the average price of at least 0.0025, and would have cost him at least BTC700, probably even BTC1,000 or more.
I followed monero from the otc time and probably the first ten pages of the thread. AFAIK there were little to no buys over the counter with more than 10000 xmr volume. Even otc it was very hard to aquire reasonable amounts of xmr. I cannot speak for the OTC in freenode (?)/ IIRC. Maybe some powerful miners would have the possibility to get a six digit amount of xmr - but to buy them would be quite complicated.
In my deduction, I also read the threads and saw that the sums traded in OTC were so small both in XMR and (especially) BTC terms that nobody could have amassed a 6-figure holding by means of that alone. However I heard from a second-hand source that Monero has a wealthy backer, whose fortune has amounted up to 25% of the coins prior to the previous bubble about a month ago. It follows naturally that the acquisition of such a fortune and the bubble (or: divestment and the bust) may be related. Even my meager purchases last week have been connected to the price rise and they were not 6-figure amounts Even if such an entity still exists, I don't find the situation problematic. He has paid the full price, of BTC or electricity, for his holdings, and to get the same percentage of the total amount as Satoshi has of BTC (~900,000 XMR), there is still the need to buy the rest at the full price. I know that some of the brightest minds of Bitcoin, and of the world, are currently in buy-only mode concerning XMR. They have done the math and will leave the selling to the miners. One of the purposes of this thread is to show you, how little is actually needed to reserve your seat in the VIP-area, should this coin take off. |
|
|
|
If such data is available, the "market price"*"volume"*"time" -table across all exchanges and methods would be much appreciated, eg. in 0.1 log-units brackets: week 17 week 18 week 19
0,01000
0,00794
0,00631
0,00501
0,00398
0,00316
0,00251
0,00200
0,00158
0,00126
0,00100
0,00079
0,00063
0,00050 3000
0,00040 10000
0,00032 15000 5000
0,00025 10000 5000
0,00020 10000
|
|
|
|
rpietila, did you update the bitcoin wealth distribution recently?
Do you care to comment on how NY-proposed rules will affect bitcoin in a short or longer term? Do they even matter?
I hope that eventually some jurisdiction will dedicate itself to people with larger possession of bitcoin (say, 20-100 BTC and above) and provide better rules, taxation, etc.
The bitcoin wealth distribution does not materially change if the price remains constant. |
|
|
|
Monero seems to be quite unstable. What's wrong with the price?
Actually, it is remarkably stable since start, no large pumps and dumps along the way. Mean average price rising since may. What is the total range of XMR trading ever, including all outliers? I gather it should be about 0.00039 - 0.01110. If so, these are only 28x apart from each other For any other coin, it's more. With Bitcoin, the range is 0.001 - 1,236; difference being 1,236,000x. |
|
|
|
The presumed reason for the lengthy Monero emission process is to ensure a wide and fair distribution. Won't 20% of Monero owners end up with 80% of the currency, as per the Pareto principle, regardless of how long the emission process lasts? If so, then why not speed it up and get it over with? Have there been any studies of length of distribution and volume of emission that would validate the current Monero plan?
Actually the likely result is 1% owning 50% of it, as is the case in both the Case A and Case B in this thread (!). And with Bitcoin (!). This to me is the proof that the plan is working. With <insert your favorite shitcoin here>, it is not so. And the reason is that they have wanted to do it quickly, to get all the coins, and be able to soon conduct a pump&dump. With Monero, you cannot do it. |
|
|
|
I started a new Monero Economics thread for the reason that I am very interested in it but don't find the time for reading the generic Monero thread, or always even this thread... |
|
|
|
I can define a unit called the wachtwoord which is 160 BTC. Right now 1 wachtwoord is already trading @ $100k USD (625*160). Capiche?
In this case one wachtwoord should come to the next Malla party, since the unit's worth is higher than the threshold BTC100! |
|
|
|
Case B - 13,200 holders: min max avg #ppl tot.xmr
17
16 100 000 - 215 443 142 600 1,2 165 745
15 46 416 - 100 000 66 189 2,5 165 745
14 21 544 - 46 416 30 722 5,4 165 745
13 10 000 - 21 544 14 260 12 165 745
12 4 642 - 10 000 6 619 25 165 745
11 2 154 - 4 642 3 072 54 165 745
10 1 000 - 2 154 1 426 116 165 745
9 464 - 1 000 662 291 192 329
8 215 - 464 307 726 223 179
7 100 - 215 143 1 816 258 976
6 46 - 100 66 3 632 240 412
5 22 - 46 31 3 632 111 589
4 10 - 22 14 1 816 25 898
3 4,6 - 10,0 6,6 726 4 808
2 2,2 - 4,6 3,1 291 893
1 1,0 - 2,2 1,4 87 124
Largest holdings: 1. 137,000 XMR 2. 80,000 XMR 3. 65,000 XMR 4. 50,000 XMR top holding: 137,000 XMR top 10: 20,500 XMR top 100: 2,150 XMR top 1000: 270 XMR # of holders: 13,234 avg holding: 167 XMR == 0.75 BTC == 473 USD median holding: 46 XMR half of the coins belong to 150 people. The big differences in the scenarios are: - possible presence of a megaholder - total number of holders I lean towards the interpretation that this scenario is more realistic. It is already possible to buy XMR from several exchanges, and the $500 average holding seems realistic for an altcoin. (Bitcoin's average holding is about $8000). Also for somebody to have been amassed 280,000 coins, that could only have happened as a rather static percentage of the new inflation (there has been no way to generate or buy them for cheaper in such a quantity - Bitcoin did have this window open for Satoshi but Monero hasn't had it, and will not have it). This means that his stash would have been bought at the average price of at least 0.0025, and would have cost him at least BTC700, probably even BTC1,000 or more. I don't say that it's impossible that someone has done it, I just find it more likely that there is only 1 six-figure holding, about 10 holdings that are between 20k-100k and 10 more holdings in the 10k-20k range. So truly, now it is possible to make up if you were late from Bitcoin. Just take the 100:1 leverage (or more) I will write about the XMR:BTC ratio concept more soon! |
|
|
|
100 000 - 215 443 142 600 1 165 745
46 416 - 100 000 66 189 3 165 745
21 544 - 46 416 30 722 5 165 745
10 000 - 21 544 14 260 12 165 745
4 642 - 10 000 6 619 25 165 745
2 154 - 4 642 3 072 54 165 745
1 000 - 2 154 1 426 116 165 745
464 - 1 000 662 291 192 329
215 - 464 307 726 223 179
100 - 215 143 1 816 258 976
46 - 100 66 3 632 240 412
22 - 46 31 3 632 111 589
10 - 22 14 1 816 25 898
5 - 10 7 726 4 808
2 - 5 3 291 893
1 - 2 1 87 124
|
|
|
|
So if you are going to bring that Napster size market into your crypto-currency, you are going to need your wallet client integrated into social networking.  BTC already has the QuickCoin, which can send your bitcoins to anyone of your FB friends without them needing to do anything in advance. |
|
|
|
Reminder for everyone: on top of OP of each "officially sanctionned" sister thread, there is a banner linking to other threads. Soon, a Monero subforum will be necessary The banner looks nice, but like the intruder said, I would like to keep this one a little personal to me, like I have had several threads before. |
|
|
|
Yes, have seen you many times there. But you seem to be trying to control the Monero economy by opening new moderated threads where you control who talks what
I have nothing against anyone, but deep down looks like rpietila is trying to pump Monero
1. I know what place in Monero holdings I am most likely occupying. And the ones above me are not economists, so it is only my responsibility to speak out concerning topics that I find interesting and beneficial. 2. It is true that since I own only BTC and Monero, these are the only two coins I have incentive to pump. I know it is hard to swallow for shitcoiners  |
|
|
|
- Assumption that the distribution follows power law for the highest 3% of the holders (it does if we are talking about general wealth) - the power law distribution has the property that the owners of 100-200 coins collectively own the same number of coins as the ones owning 200-400 coins etc. But their number is 2x higher (because the other group was 2x richer), and the density is 4x more (because not only there was 2x the number of people, but also the bracket is in absolute terms only half the size);
i dont know if this assumption is right, because nobody knows how much others are holding. have you something to read for me about the power law? When talking about wealth distribution in general, it has been found that the wealth of the highest 3% conforms to the power law, so that there are 1/2 the number of people that are twice as rich, until at the top there is a single person. In the world this holds true until we get to the 10-billionaires. There the trail ends, even though according to the power law, 100 times richer people should exist. It is most plausible that they have hidden the wealth. If the number of people went to less than half when doubling the wealth, most of the wealth would belong to average people. If the number of people were more than half when doubling the wealth, most of the wealth would belong to the ultra-rich. Wikipedia:"power law" For it to be realistic to apply power law to coin holdings, we need to assume that there has been enough time and liquidity for everyone to balance their holdings to exactly the amount that they wish. I think this assumption is realistic, since the exchanges have been available almost since the beginning, and there has been lots of liquidity and price action there. What is more difficult for me to estimate is the number of holders. But as long as the power law distribution in the higher end holds true, even doubling the number of users has no large effect on the top, as evidenced by the example distributions. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
