Hang on.

That wasn't the proposal that the investors in NXT were offered and it is disingenuous to suggest that it was.

A developer wanted to raise enough capital to complete an experimental project in cryptocurrencies, namely an evolution of the blockchain idea to support more complex transactions than simple currency transfers.

He decided what level of capital he needed (as it happens quite a small amount) to complete the project and made a public offering in exchange for said investment.

The project could have been a flop and gone nowhere. It could have been a scam and the "developer' could simply have run off with the money. It might have turned out to be work in progress that didn't get completed till 2015. It could have been successful in technological terms but garnered no market interest. Any of these things could have occurred.

As it happens, the developer honoured the agreement and also made good on the timescales for implementing early feature sets which were part of the original plan, not an easy thing to do.

It's not his fault that the rest of the world became interested to the extent they did and placed a high valuation on the asset. He had no responsibility to anyone but the original investors with whom he entered into an agreement. Nor can it be the fault of the original investors who took the risk of capitalising the development effort at the time, not knowing how it was going to turn out and simply responded to the offer.

So who do you want to blame now for the "scam" ? The rest of the market that gave it a valuation ? The current developers ?

This idiocy about "distribution" is nothing more than a desperate scramble to rationalise lost opportunities when in fact no such rationalisation is needed. Everything about the original launch of NXT was conducted with complete integrity and in good faith by all parties concerned. I am not a primary stakeholder. I bought some next on the open market after reading about it's technology specifications which I found intriguing.

The same opportunity is still available to anyone right now. It's only 6 months old which basically makes anyone investing at the moment an "early bird" relatively speaking.

You are correct. They paid a very small amount of money and made a huge gain. That's the reason why people take risks, because there's potentially no limit to the return on speculative ventures.

What your job is (to support the emotive claims in your report) is to demonstrate where the ethical flaw is in this.

You haven't done that.

Nor have you made any material appraisal as to the commercial viability of the technology that NXT network currently represents. The reason you haven't done it is because:

a) your too lazy

b) being an opinion piece, it's not a priority of this report to do any balanced investigation of any of the content you cite

I again re-iterate my last request. Please take this nonsense down before you drown in criticism and become the subject matter of your own agenda.

The problem with your "analysis" is that it's inconsistent and superficial. Nor are you a recognised authority on the ethics of cryptocurrency launches, hence the criticism of your presenting it as a "Wiki" because it leads people to believe that you are. In fact you're a self appointed one.

The inconsistency arises from the comparisons made from one coin to another without placing these in the appropriate market context. The implicit scope of your 'market domain' is basically the current 'coin' community (bitcointalk readers) whereas all these assets would be more fairly compared against a common background of the global market at which they're targeted.

Take your criticisms about distribution for example. When one coin is compared with another then, yes there are measurable differences in the context of the current market. On the other hand if the scope of appraisal was a proper global market domain then these differences pale into insignificance. ALL initial stakeholders of ALL cryptocurrencies amount to less than 1 thousandth of 1 percent of potential market participants. The investors of any cryptocurrency that's successful in such a market stand to make many thousands of percent of a gain whether the primary stakeholders number in the 10's, 100's or 1000's.  So the comparison is one of degree, not of principle as your appraisal alludes. Nowhere in the report is this perspective considered or even acknowledged.

On top of that you go on to use highly emotive language in amongst the descriptive content without even stating that this is your opinion or presenting any balancing historical background as to the basis for the various coin policies which in many cases is absolutely viable.

You have implicitly maligned many hard working developers who act in good faith without even consulting them or presenting an alternative context to your own for their coin launch policies. The irony of this is that many of them have thought these issues through to a far greater extent than this analysis could even be bothered with.

Please take this piece of propaganda down. It's is a badly researched opinion piece disguised as a 'guide'. A disservice to investors and one that should be taken with a huge grain of salt by anyone having the misfortune to stumble upon this mis-labelled rant.

Thanks.

I was wondering about that. Scratching my head why DRK wasn't being massively bought up. It's the only coin I can see that actually has the potential to be upsides with Bitcoin, simply because everyone's going to want to make anonymous transactions sometime and it's trustless. I thought everybody already understood it was trustless but maybe they didn't. Was that why the dip happened when darkwallet came out ? Not the same thing I thought so I held onto my coins.

(Also, there's 4 times less DRK's than BTC in coin supply terms. Not a lot of them around).

It's also going to provide a laundering service to other cryptos because to wipe your tracks all you have to do is buy a load of DRK, transfer to another address, then cash back out to BTC and bingo....Mike's your auntie charlie. Like Butch Cassidy & Sundance jumping in that river. Not even the NSA can find you.

Panic buying.

I bought some Darkcoin a while back thinking it might be a good investment.

But it seems to be going to the moon. What's going on ?

Is it all because Darksend is now working ? I thought that was out weeks ago ?  (b.t.w. I don't need to be convinced. To me it should be marketcap'd somewhere between Litecoin and Bitcoin but why is the market jumping on it now ?)

The big flaw in this whole argument about "distribution" is that it's based more on a toy-throwing-out-of-pram premise than any dispassionate appraisal of the "distribution model".

For example. The argument goes that NxT stakeholders stand to make an X0000000 % gain from their investment and that that's somehow "excessive". Whereas if someone buying a currency that had, say 5000 buy-ins and also made an X0000000 % gain - that would be alright.

The fact is that there isn't anywhere near enough market liquidity in any of these currencies for such gains ever to be realised at the amounts of holdings the original stakeholders had. Thats why it doesn't matter if it's 76 or 7600 original holders - it's like melting 2 big blocks of ice or 20 little ones in a jug of water. It dilutes just the same.

If the envisaged potential market for these cryptos is, say 50 million people, then an initial "distribution" of 5000 doesn't look too great either. That's 0.01% of the market getting the initial stake. Thats the real hypocrisy behind these empty criticisms.

Tell you what IS going to the moon - sooner or later....

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/05/08/winklevoss-twins-to-list-bitcoin-fund-on-nasdaq

Hmmm...

The people with "brains" understand that lack of supply isn't a substitute for market demand.

Dumps go in cycles. That was the first cycle. It will go up now for a while, then down again.

The question is where will it stabilise. The "dump" from 18 went to 12 in an hour, then drifted down to 8500 over the next 2 days or so where it stabilised.

That's true, but there is also some truth in what sixteen digits is saying.

The problem with a massive pump like that is that the dump has left a hell of a lot of resistance to work through at the upper levels. This is the other side of the "volume" coin. The volumes that went in were massive and all those people are at a loss right now, desperate to get out, stuck up at places like 31, and even 34.

CINNI went from 1200 to 38000 Sats in 24 hours.

Some coins never recover from this. Blackcoin didn't, it never again got near it's high and has since traded at about 30% of it. Doesn't mean it won't happen but it's going to take a lot more than a new wallet feature to make it so and probably quite a bit of time (like weeks or months). You never know in the crypto-world though I wrote Blackcoin off at 8000 Sats and then my post came back to haunt me a couple of weeks later So maybe this one will as well.

Just going on current theory and experience.

Jackpotcoin wallet has already got coin control and it works like a dream.

Jackpotcoin is in fact one of the most solid and innovative POS coins around right now and still available at ground level. Check it while CINNI's in its dip.

It was an observation, not a prediction.

I expect it go go up in the long term but not today.

Sophisticated enough to know which way it's nose is pointed 

This mother's goin' down: 3...2...1....

This is not an "investigation", it's a giant rant.

Clueless at best and positively malignant at worst, not to mention lazy.

Whatever the merits of the various currencies concerned, non of them are as much of a scam as calling this an "investor's guide" and dressing it up as a wiki.

It belongs in the dungeons of bitcointalk squabbler threads.

Could send them that article from cryptocoin articles the other day. That was very good press - almost no negatives and highlighted the features well.

Looks like it doesn't want to go down.

That's usually someone wanting out, not in

Will quickly disappear once enough liquidity has appeared at the upper levels for them to dump.