Is wide distribution valuable ?

[CoinBateman]

aurora was simply a shit coin with false promise, it was premined around 50% with the promise of a good distrubution among the users of iceland, which i doubt it ever happened in the first place, and surely was orchestrated in a shady way

it was an huge pump scheme for sucking money from poor icelender, the dump in fact happened before the distribution leaving those that should've recieved their coins with a worthless bag

real good distrubution that happen naturally like with bitcoin, and lasts many years it's a completely different thing and will only help stabilization and dismiss big p&d

You are pulling fairies out of your ass.

Bitcoin was pumped and subsequently dumped albeit slowly for more profit.

No coin with a reasonable distribution is going to pump because its not worth anything.

[Amph]

aurora was simply a shit coin with false promise, it was premined around 50% with the promise of a good distrubution among the users of iceland, which i doubt it ever happened in the first place, and surely was orchestrated in a shady way

it was an huge pump scheme for sucking money from poor icelender, the dump in fact happened before the distribution leaving those that should've recieved their coins with a worthless bag

real good distrubution that happen naturally like with bitcoin, and lasts many years it's a completely different thing and will only help stabilization and dismiss big p&d

You are pulling fairies out of your ass.

Bitcoin was pumped and subsequently dumped albeit slowly for more profit.

No coin with a reasonable distribution is going to pump because its not worth anything.

i forget "that will happen", i was not talking about bitcoin today, but bitcoin distribution in the future will be simply better because bitcoin is a survivor and not a dead coin like aurora

with aurora they rushed and forced it, to the point that everyone dumped before the distribution has taken place

[duphash]

aurora was simply a shit coin with false promise, it was premined around 50% with the promise of a good distrubution among the users of iceland, which i doubt it ever happened in the first place, and surely was orchestrated in a shady way

it was an huge pump scheme for sucking money from poor icelender, the dump in fact happened before the distribution leaving those that should've recieved their coins with a worthless bag

real good distrubution that happen naturally like with bitcoin, and lasts many years it's a completely different thing and will only help stabilization and dismiss big p&d

You are pulling fairies out of your ass.

Bitcoin was pumped and subsequently dumped albeit slowly for more profit.

No coin with a reasonable distribution is going to pump because its not worth anything.

i forget "that will happen", i was not talking about bitcoin today, but bitcoin distribution in the future will be simply better because bitcoin is a survivor and not a dead coin like aurora

with aurora they rushed and forced it, to the point that everyone dumped before the distribution has taken place

What would happen if AUR holders were not allowed to sell it for 2 years and devs had huge incentives to develop features ?

[aakashsangwan]

It is being reflected from your question that you are about to create an altcoin with a wide distribution.
If I'm not wrong then please correct me.

[Amph]

aurora was simply a shit coin with false promise, it was premined around 50% with the promise of a good distrubution among the users of iceland, which i doubt it ever happened in the first place, and surely was orchestrated in a shady way

it was an huge pump scheme for sucking money from poor icelender, the dump in fact happened before the distribution leaving those that should've recieved their coins with a worthless bag

real good distrubution that happen naturally like with bitcoin, and lasts many years it's a completely different thing and will only help stabilization and dismiss big p&d

You are pulling fairies out of your ass.

Bitcoin was pumped and subsequently dumped albeit slowly for more profit.

No coin with a reasonable distribution is going to pump because its not worth anything.

i forget "that will happen", i was not talking about bitcoin today, but bitcoin distribution in the future will be simply better because bitcoin is a survivor and not a dead coin like aurora

with aurora they rushed and forced it, to the point that everyone dumped before the distribution has taken place

What would happen if AUR holders were not allowed to sell it for 2 years and devs had huge incentives to develop features ?

how you can do that? there is no tool to stop someone for selling his coins, he can even sell those same coins privately, in the case that there isn't any exchange, basically impossible

[duphash]

It is being reflected from your question that you are about to create an altcoin with a wide distribution.
If I'm not wrong then please correct me.

You are right.
I'd love to do that. The only question is my capability to do that.
Do you offer any help ?

I have an idea of very fair and wide distribution and I need someone to implement website for that.
It is not going to be country drop or anything like we've seen before.
We can just distribute NXT asset, so no need for another crypto platform development or cloning.

[duphash]

aurora was simply a shit coin with false promise, it was premined around 50% with the promise of a good distrubution among the users of iceland, which i doubt it ever happened in the first place, and surely was orchestrated in a shady way

it was an huge pump scheme for sucking money from poor icelender, the dump in fact happened before the distribution leaving those that should've recieved their coins with a worthless bag

real good distrubution that happen naturally like with bitcoin, and lasts many years it's a completely different thing and will only help stabilization and dismiss big p&d

You are pulling fairies out of your ass.

Bitcoin was pumped and subsequently dumped albeit slowly for more profit.

No coin with a reasonable distribution is going to pump because its not worth anything.

i forget "that will happen", i was not talking about bitcoin today, but bitcoin distribution in the future will be simply better because bitcoin is a survivor and not a dead coin like aurora

with aurora they rushed and forced it, to the point that everyone dumped before the distribution has taken place

What would happen if AUR holders were not allowed to sell it for 2 years and devs had huge incentives to develop features ?

how you can do that? there is no tool to stop someone for selling his coins, he can even sell those same coins privately, in the case that there isn't any exchange, basically impossible

You mean they can just sell private keys or futures ?
Yes, that is hard to stop.
It looks like the best way to stop is to create buy wall so that those who want to dump will sell into that wall and founder owner of that wall will remove them from circulation.

[duphash]

It is being reflected from your question that you are about to create an altcoin with a wide distribution.
If I'm not wrong then please correct me.

You are right.
I'd love to do that. The only question is my capability to do that.
Do you offer any help ?

I have an idea of very fair and wide distribution and I need someone to implement website for that.
It is not going to be country drop or anything like we've seen before.
We can just distribute NXT asset, so no need for another crypto platform development or cloning.

Like BCNext once wrote, this idea seems so simple and obvious, but for some reason noone implemented it yet.

Are there other platforms to consider for asset tokens other than NXT platform ?

I need a platform that is accessible from web browser (does not require wallet file), allows me to issue new tokens, has decentralized exchange, does not have present or future centralization or forking issues like BTC has (I recall one pool promising to not use their power for something bad 😀, when govt requires them, they will not have a choice to do something good, so their promise is not worth to trust anyway).

I think QORA, NODE, BTSX have something like assets, but not sure about web access and decentralized exchange.

[Mickeyb]

It is being reflected from your question that you are about to create an altcoin with a wide distribution.
If I'm not wrong then please correct me.

You are right.
I'd love to do that. The only question is my capability to do that.
Do you offer any help ?

I have an idea of very fair and wide distribution and I need someone to implement website for that.
It is not going to be country drop or anything like we've seen before.
We can just distribute NXT asset, so no need for another crypto platform development or cloning.

Well didn't NEM alfeady try to do something like this, a fair distribution? And how did this end?

Look, crypto is used by small number of people. Let's take a number of 1 million for the sake of argument. When this thing really take of and if in 10 years we will have 1 billion users worldwide, don't you think they can argue how those 1 million of early adopters are lucky and how it's not fair that they got into crypto and the rest of 1 billion didn't get in that early?

The point is, is the fair distribution ever possible?

[duphash]

It is being reflected from your question that you are about to create an altcoin with a wide distribution.
If I'm not wrong then please correct me.

You are right.
I'd love to do that. The only question is my capability to do that.
Do you offer any help ?

I have an idea of very fair and wide distribution and I need someone to implement website for that.
It is not going to be country drop or anything like we've seen before.
We can just distribute NXT asset, so no need for another crypto platform development or cloning.

Well didn't NEM alfeady try to do something like this, a fair distribution? And how did this end?

Look, crypto is used by small number of people. Let's take a number of 1 million for the sake of argument. When this thing really take of and if in 10 years we will have 1 billion users worldwide, don't you think they can argue how those 1 million of early adopters are lucky and how it's not fair that they got into crypto and the rest of 1 billion didn't get in that early?

The point is, is the fair distribution ever possible?

Yes, it is possible to distribute fairly. One way is permanent sell order with constant fiat price (or oil or gold price if fiat becomes too volatile). That asset must be redeemable back to fiat that was invested into it. Just like gold standard, but with fiat being in place of gold.

Yes, getting lucky doing nothing is unfair, but, of course, very desirable by most people including me.
Limited time distribution is unfair too because it rewards only those who spent time on forums during specific time frame.

I don't believe NEM was fair at least because it was limited time distribution.
Can I get NEM same way as initial stakeholders after I know it is real and functioning and not scam ? The answer is no and this is why it's unfair. If I buy it, but someone got it for free, he can always sell cheaper than me, so here goes my risk and I don't want to gamble. I am interested in preservation of savings without risk - that is how fair distribution should work. People should have an option to just convert their savings into crypto hoping that it will preserve value just like gold after fiat crash or massive confiscation.

It is unfair to ask somebody to risk losing money in exchange for possible luck.
Distribution should not involve gambling. The goal of distribution is not to make few lucky rich. But, of course, devs who made it possible should become rich and well deserve such reward.

Why is time of distribution always have to be limited ? Why not keep distributing for the same price forever or at least until it becomes mainstream covering at least billion people ?

This is actually what Satoshi intended to achieve, but failed only because of too simple algo that prevented it to be wide and fair.

But I started this topic without word "fair". I started it with word "wide", which is different. Wide distribution solves problem of centralization. Fair distribution solves problem of malinvestment - giving money to less productive people.
Wide does not have to cover more than 1% of world population, but fair does.

Currently the only thing that prevents me from putting all my retirement savings into crypto is gambling risk. Remove it and you will see flood of money into crypto instead of useless gold, GLD, SLV, stocks, etc.

[odolvlobo]

The problem with wide ditribution is that you are giving it mostly to people that don't want it or that think it has no value.

[jaberwock]

No distribution(if for distribution you mean pre mine) is better, the big holders always will have the temptation to manipulate and dump the coins as soon they reach an exchange

[Amph]

The problem with wide ditribution is that you are giving it mostly to people that don't want it or that think it has no value.

basically 99% of the people around the world, who will dump at the first opportunity, i'm still wondering if those same people will ever embrace something like bitcoin, if they do not believe in it

and when bitcoin will be big, it will be too late for them anyway...

[Mickeyb]

The problem with wide ditribution is that you are giving it mostly to people that don't want it or that think it has no value.

That's why I asked, is it even possible to achieve fair and wide distribution? When you have 95% of the people that will dump it as soon as possible. I guess the human nature is responsible for the 80%—20% distribution of wealth in the whole world no matter are we distributing fiat, bitcoin or something third. And this phenomenon is true since the early ages until now.

[duphash]

No distribution(if for distribution you mean pre mine) is better, the big holders always will have the temptation to manipulate and dump the coins as soon they reach an exchange

The goal is to not have big holders who are not interested in the future before token achieves wide distribution and adoption.
If we are talking about devs then tokens should be released to them gradually over time so that they will not be big holders before maturity of their work and success of wide distribution. After distribution is wide and token is adopted it is safe to give them big % because they won't be able to manipulate.

For distribution I don't mean only premine, I mean at any point in time. Distribution can be bad initially, but very good later. Again example is permanent sell order which distributes over time with very bad initial distribution.

This is how NXT distribution was supposed to work, but big holders got greedy and do not sell at constant price causing pumps and dumps. They are the ones who have power to achieve wide distribution and they are misusing their power for other goals.

[duphash]

The problem with wide ditribution is that you are giving it mostly to people that don't want it or that think it has no value.

That's why I asked, is it even possible to achieve fair and wide distribution? When you have 95% of the people that will dump it as soon as possible. I guess the human nature is responsible for the 80%—20% distribution of wealth in the whole world no matter are we distributing fiat, bitcoin or something third. And this phenomenon is true since the early ages until now.

If people buy token for 1 NXT they will not dump it much below 1 NXT, right ?

[Hazir]

We can't have a perfect distribution. I guess the closest to being good is bitcoin distribution. But if are talking about altcoins created some years after that
I see huge disproportions and backscene shady movement all the time. Distribution of a coin is not a feature it is a upshot of coin being good or bad.

[duphash]

We can't have a perfect distribution. I guess the closest to being good is bitcoin distribution. But if are talking about altcoins created some years after that
I see huge disproportions and backscene shady movement all the time. Distribution of a coin is not a feature it is a upshot of coin being good or bad.

Do you have any proof that "we can't" ?
It's convenient statement for early adopters, but is it true statement ? I doubt.
Prove it.

People give failing examples of distribution all the time (BTC, NEM, NXT, BTSX, AUR), but each one of them did not do the right thing, so those examples don't prove anything. There are millions of ways to fail, but we need one to succeed.

As for bitcoin distribution, even if it's currently the best (which I doubt), it's still not good enough and, unlike NXT, it cannot even get better due to weak algo. From my perspective bitcoin is dead and those merchants who bet on it investing into software that accepts bitcoin payments are fools. BTC rate may still fly for some time, but I would never keep my capital in it or do any development for it. I use it solely for quick conversion from fiat to NXT and ICOs.

[duphash]

The problem with wide ditribution is that you are giving it mostly to people that don't want it or that think it has no value.

It needs to have non-0 value. That value will derive from redemption or useful digital services.
No, I would not give it to people for free to dump. If they got it - they know the value and won't dump.
It will cost them something, nothing will be given for free. Giving for free is the source of all problems.
The only dumpers will be those who lost belief and sell at loss, which won't be significant to worry about.

[duphash]

The problem with wide ditribution is that you are giving it mostly to people that don't want it or that think it has no value.

basically 99% of the people around the world, who will dump at the first opportunity, i'm still wondering if those same people will ever embrace something like bitcoin, if they do not believe in it

and when bitcoin will be big, it will be too late for them anyway...

"too late" is the problem, this is the source of unfairness. Why do they have to buy at price much higher than early investors ?
It does not have to be that way. There are many other places on earth where people can gamble if they want to. Why force them to gamble just to own some crypto ?

Bitcoin will never be big. When I read that it's best to not transfer bitcoin for several days due to some Chinese miners relying on other miners for hashing disrupting network operations without evil intent, I can only laugh. Bitcoin network is so weak that even after 5 years of maturity it has disruptions of basic functionality.