Is wide distribution valuable ?

[Pk880058]

I do not think wide distribution is needed, but to avoid the opposite is quite desirable (why would you trust in a coin which is 90% holded by only one person?). Of course with massive adoption wide distribution will be achieved to some extent (or my idea of wide distribution is wrong?).

Yes, avoiding the opposite is my goal.
When I say wide, I don't mean 100% equal and also I don't mean fair.
Wide means that majority of small holders hold 90% and minority of big holders hold 10%.
Each small holder should not have more than 0.00001% of coins. If any holder has more than that, he is considered major holder and counted towards 10% cap.

Distribution is bad when minority owns more than 50% and has power to take it all from majority through dumping or disruption of network.

Big holders from minority will work hard and invest into coin development.
Passive majority will sit idle, but serve as guarantor of distributed ownership preventing pumps by taking profit selling during pump attempts and buying during dump attempts.

The problem with current coins is that there is no proof of wide distribution.
Many accounts could be owned by one person just to fake wide distribution.
Which is why I suggest to conduct crypto census after convincing everybody to participate because that proof will be valuable and give incredible boost from new investors. Those coins who cannot prove will be left behind.

Of course, if those 10% rich devs or investors abandon the project then coin will die, which is why census can bring value only to long standing coins with good history of development like BTC, NXT, etc.

I don't like this idea.
Can't a crypto coin be developed in which there is a fair and equal distribution
Is there any disadvantage of it

[1715669844]

1715669844

[1715669844]

1715669844

[1715669844]

1715669844

[odolvlobo]

...
Distribution is bad when minority owns more than 50% and has power to take it all from majority through dumping or disruption of network.
...

Nobody has the power to take your bitcoins from you no matter how many they own.

Can't a crypto coin be developed in which there is a fair and equal distribution

No. There is no such thing as a fair and equal distribution.

[duphash]

...
Distribution is bad when minority owns more than 50% and has power to take it all from majority through dumping or disruption of network.
...

Nobody has the power to take your bitcoins from you no matter how many they own.

Can't a crypto coin be developed in which there is a fair and equal distribution

No. There is no such thing as a fair and equal distribution.

They cannot take away my bitcoin, but they can sell their huge stake and take away value of my bitcoins.
And, obviously, I care only about value of my wallet, I don't care about number of bitcoins in my wallet.

I agree that there is no fair distribution, but disagree that there is no equal distribution.
All it takes is to collect passports data and give each person equal share.
I am not suggesting that this is needed, I just state my disagreement.

[teukon]

I always thought that having wide distribution has huge benefit to a coin, especially PoS coin.
But recently someone told me that it has only slight benefit.

I thought that widely distributed coin will not have risks of pumps and consequently dumps.
Some debate that AUR was widely distributed and dumped.

I object saying that it was initially pumped only because of poor initial distribution before airdrop and also did not have useful features.
If it had same qualities as Ether or NXT and was not allowed to be traded before airdrop is finished then it would not be pumped dumped.

All else equal, an asset with many holders is far preferable to one with few.

A new currency's "pump-and-dump" is not something to be feared or suppressed.  Instead, it is a mechanism for moving towards a healthier and more stable distribution.

[teukon]

Can't a crypto coin be developed in which there is a fair and equal distribution
Is there any disadvantage of it

"fair" is subjective.  In my opinion, a 100% pre-mined coin is fair.  The creator of such a cryptocurrency has the best claim to the coins.  No-one is forced to buy any of them from him.

Rather than lament the absence of a cryptocurrency with an initially uniform distribution across all 7.3 billion people on this planet, I appreciate the incredible amount of work, resources, risk, and patience that many have put into these projects.  That I am free to join or leave any of these projects at will is already more than fair as far as I'm concerned.

The key disadvantage of a fully equal initial distribution is that it would be unstable.  Some people would be keen to acquire more while many others would not care at all about their coins.  Market volatility akin to a violent chemical reaction would ensue, ultimately resulting in a Pareto distribution.

[inashed]

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

Ok, did anybody try really wide distribution without any scam ?

There is clam, where any person that has more than 0 bitcoins at block 300,377, Litecoin at block 565,693, or Dogecoin at block 218,556 was given ~4.6 CLAM. 

The problem it is inflationary, and if I remember every minute an miner get get some amount close to 4.6 CLAM, so you can almost double the amount of clams you have compared to other starters by by mining once.

[bonker]

I always thought that having wide distribution has huge benefit to a coin, especially PoS coin.
But recently someone told me that it has only slight benefit.

I thought that widely distributed coin will not have risks of pumps and consequently dumps.
Some debate that AUR was widely distributed and dumped.

I object saying that it was initially pumped only because of poor initial distribution before airdrop and also did not have useful features.
If it had same qualities as Ether or NXT and was not allowed to be traded before airdrop is finished then it would not be pumped dumped.

its success how it can be based on your plan then only it make some sense to distribute them otherwise in most of the time we cannot know which will be the best idea to execute them.

[guoyu78]

Does having a wide or short distribution has anything to do with to do with pump and dump? I don't think that is possible. And distribution is not really something that any one can control. You can't control, everyone is free to buy as much as they want to buy and hold and you can't tell them what to do or maybe stop them from buying because you think that the coin is not properly distributed, nah it doesn't work like that. If the market cap of a coin is small then it is easy for it to her pumped and dumped.

[Kimonoe]

I always thought that having wide distribution has huge benefit to a coin, especially PoS coin.
But recently someone told me that it has only slight benefit.

I thought that widely distributed coin will not have risks of pumps and consequently dumps.
Some debate that AUR was widely distributed and dumped.

I object saying that it was initially pumped only because of poor initial distribution before airdrop and also did not have useful features.
If it had same qualities as Ether or NXT and was not allowed to be traded before airdrop is finished then it would not be pumped dumped.

its success how it can be based on your plan then only it make some sense to distribute them otherwise in most of the time we cannot know which will be the best idea to execute them.

with broad distribution, of course there are many investors who hold it, so it will be more difficult to influence their minds to be in line and do what we want. so that the market will look healthier