I don't hold any NXT, but I've been following NXT for the past two weeks or so and noticed something I don't really get.

How come there are such large jumps in trading volume for NXT? Last week, there has been a period of it being at around $400,000-ish every day. This morning I'm pretty sure it was in the $30,000 range and now it's at $150,000. For comparison, when NXT was at $400,000, NMC and PPC, the two biggest "secondary" alts, were at $800,000-$900,000 trading volume and the market was quite calm in general due to crash recovery, holidays, etc. Right now, the market is booming and both those have trading volumes well over $3,000,000, with NXT, as mentioned, being way lower than before. Didn't watch other alts too closely, but I guess it's reflected there as well to an extent - at the very least I think it's the case for those coins traded on BTC-e.

I don't have any proof and can't find any historical comprehensive source on altcoin performances right now, so my memory might trick me on this one. Still, though, how is that possible? That, including the whole distribution mode of NXT, kinda scares me to buy in.

My source for data is coinmarketcap.com, by the way.

Again, could you PLEASE add that NXT and MasterCoin can NOT be mined?

The fact that several premined/instamined coins have this fact listed, while those don't have it and, on top, are (in my opinion wrongly, at least for MasterCoin) listed in the same league as PPC and NMC makes your list look less credible than it used to. It doesn't matter where you or anybody stands in the whole "NXT/Ripple/MasterCoin is a scam" debate or if you call it premined/instamined, not mined, whatever; it's a fact those coins are distributed differently than your usual coin, which has to be indicated in such a list, especially it's clearly indicated for other coins as well.

Also, again: for what reason is MasterCoin up there with NMC, PPC and even NXT? Look at the market volume, it's definitely not up there if you define a "big market" using PPC and NMC; and a comparison by market cap is impossible due to the modes of distribution. Innovation as a sole criteria is questionable, since AnonCoin, ProtoShares and lots of others are innovative as well.

After your post, I took my time to look more properly into the way NXT generates coins, especially what "forging" is supposed to be.

Interestingly enough, the current NXT thread uses the term "mining" several times (though stuff like their FAQ on the wiki makes it clear that "premined" is indeed not fitting). Instead of calling people who, thus, misunderstand the way NXT were available from the start "trolls", you should probably call out to whoever is maintaining the NXT thread.

Next, I'd like to inform you about the official NXT wiki linked in the thread, which contains the following statement regarding "premining":


I'm not too deep into the technical aspects of cryptocurrencies yet, but isn't that, on a technological level, the same as an instamined coin? Where's the technological difference to that? If it's the same, then why make a difference in regards to terminology to the other coins in the opening post, which are described using that term? And before you tell me "because NXT is not mined": couldn't I simply create a new crypto, make it 100% premined (thus making classical mining obsolete) and say it's not mined? How would that differ?

Last, forging does not generate new coins, but recycles those already available. You are free to watch their information video on how NXT is "mined" for that.

tl;dr: the way coins from NXT are available right from the start does not differ from the way any instamined coin is available right from the start, as far as I understand it. Thus, the coin should be described with the same term describing other coins which have some coins instamined. You guys are free to correct me on this issue. Still, even if I am wrong, there has to be a clear statement which tells someone looking at this list that NXT was at one billion coins right from the start, especially to clear up possible confusion and misunderstandings about its current, potentially misleading market capitalization.

Doge definitely has more than "some support by community" right now. It might (and most likely will) turn out to be useless financially in the long-run though, so I agree it's at least debatable.

I actually wasn't aware of an attack just 48 hours ago, could you provide a source?


Since it's revival, there's a mixing service under development. That's definitely more than most clones have, which should be at the very least mentioned.

---

Also, the list is lacking FedoraCoin (DogeCoin clone):

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=380466.0

Some stuff that should be changed, in my opinion:

• you have to add that NXT was premined. It's noted for pretty much all other premined coins but NXT and that's simply misleading. The fact it's only traded on its own exchange should be noted as well, in my opinion. As far as I know, MasterCoin also never was mined and isn't traded on any exchange besides its own.
• please remove MasterCoin from being on the same level as NameCoin and PeerCoin. That's just bull. The trade volume is closer to IFC, DOGE, etc. than NameCoin and PeerCoin by a LONG shot and the market cap cannot be compared to either. I'm not too deep into mastercoin, but as far as I'm aware of, there also hasn't been any notable media coverage either to justify it being placed on the same level as PeerCoin and NameCoin. Personally I'd also remove NXT from there for the same reasons, but it's at least somewhat debatable. MasterCoin is not, though, and simply doesn't belong there.
• StableCoin should definitely not be "Purgatory", with all the innovation and development it received since its revival.
• Doge should be at least a "Major Alternative", in my opinion (as of now) even on the same level as NameCoin and PeerCoin. The market is huge, despite being a "joke coin". It also received major media coverage in the past weeks.

I disagree. DogeCoin will probably not survive in the long-term due to the short life of memes.