CoinMarketCap.com - Market Cap Rankings of All Cryptocurrencies!

[Taylor05]

Gliss should be impartial, and that means seperating the coins based on what actually happened and in this case, Dash had a premine or at the very least, **Significantly Fastmined**. You've mentioned Monero, but Monero has never had any of it's core parameters changed so Dash and Monero cannot be compared in the slightest.

You are correct. Dash and Monero cannot be compared in the slightest. Dash, as a fork of Litecoin at the time, suffered some issues that were related to the Litecoin code by a programmer new to the code base. It took a day or two to diagnose and fix and much longer to get a working explorer to figure out that so many blocks were created before the difficulty adjusted. There is no proof about the intentions of the developer. Monero on the other hand had code intentionally inserted with no other purpose than to make the built in miner inefficient at launch so that the developer could take advantage. Monero is the only coin being discussed here that was provably and intentionally manipulated by the developer to give themselves an advantage.

Personally, I think this is a very slippery slope. If we start trying to define new categories like "launch issues", "fast-mined" (which most PoS coins would fall into), "insta-mined", or other categories like "dishonest developer" - all categories with very subjective definitions - you'll end up in a slug-fest between competing coins trying to get their competition labeled. Thank you coinmarketcap for deciding to stay above the fray.

[farfiman]

The Fact is... Evan,  nearly 16 months ago put the question up to vote on whether or not we should burn the coins or relaunch the coin once it was discovered there were some technical issues with the launch.   We, the whole community at that time voted no,  leave it be.  I'll contact our Dev team and foundation board to chime in to explain this in more detail via PM.

Of course the community voted no (how many voted?)- they had all the instacoins- either by being part of the instamine or buying them very cheaply off others that were. If it was decide to burn them or relaunch they would lose their advantage.

[bigrcanada]

The Fact is... Evan,  nearly 16 months ago put the question up to vote on whether or not we should burn the coins or relaunch the coin once it was discovered there were some technical issues with the launch.   We, the whole community at that time voted no,  leave it be.  I'll contact our Dev team and foundation board to chime in to explain this in more detail via PM.

Of course the community voted no (how many voted?)- they had all the instacoins- either by being part of the instamine or buying them very cheaply off others that were. If it was decide to burn them or relaunch they would lose their advantage.

Sir.... I think this is completely disrespectful to the administrator of this thread Gliss.   Please carry this conversation on either Dash thread on any other thread you see fit.   This has been a disruptive dialogue by a very select few and frankly... We are all getting sick of this behaviour.  Please respect Gliss and move this else where.

[iCEBREAKER]

The Fact is... Evan,  nearly 16 months ago put the question up to vote on whether or not we should burn the coins or relaunch the coin once it was discovered there were some technical issues with the launch.   We, the whole community at that time voted no,  leave it be.  I'll contact our Dev team and foundation board to chime in to explain this in more detail via PM.

Of course the community voted no (how many voted?)- they had all the instacoins- either by being part of the instamine or buying them very cheaply off others that were. If it was decide to burn them or relaunch they would lose their advantage.

Sir.... I think this is completely disrespectful to the administrator of this thread Gliss.   Please carry this conversation on either Dash thread on any other thread you see fit.   This has been a disruptive dialogue by a very select few and frankly... We are all getting sick of this behaviour.  Please respect Gliss and move this else where.

Coinmarketcap should let people know that Dash was unquestionably instamined, whether the "community" voted for it or not.

Where are the results of this legendary pro-instamine vote, BTW?

bigrcanada, you need to be supervising the crew of screw-ups you hired instead of wasting time on the internet.  Do your investors know how much time you spend attacking people who criticize Dash?  Your bitterness will come through in the wine, and perhaps even Yelp reviews of the winery.

[bigrcanada]

Mr.  ICEBREAKER... For the sake of being a professional.  I'm going to PM you a response to this.  Your behaviour and character is deplorable.

[farfiman]

The Fact is... Evan,  nearly 16 months ago put the question up to vote on whether or not we should burn the coins or relaunch the coin once it was discovered there were some technical issues with the launch.   We, the whole community at that time voted no,  leave it be.  I'll contact our Dev team and foundation board to chime in to explain this in more detail via PM.

Of course the community voted no (how many voted?)- they had all the instacoins- either by being part of the instamine or buying them very cheaply off others that were. If it was decide to burn them or relaunch they would lose their advantage.

Sir.... I think this is completely disrespectful to the administrator of this thread Gliss.   Please carry this conversation on either Dash thread on any other thread you see fit.   This has been a disruptive dialogue by a very select few and frankly... We are all getting sick of this behaviour.  Please respect Gliss and move this else where.

Coinmarketcap should let people know that Dash was unquestionably instamined, whether the "community" voted for it or not.

Where are the results of this legendary pro-instamine vote, BTW?

bigrcanada, you need to be supervising the crew of screw-ups you hired instead of wasting time on the internet.  Do your investors know how much time you spend attacking people who criticize Dash?  Your bitterness will come through in the wine, and perhaps even Yelp reviews of the winery.

I actually agree with him- This shouldnt be the place for the discussion. If Gliss wants to do the right thing he can follow the talk and evidence in the other threads. I'm done here.

[innocent93]

Given the debate here, it's probably best to take the significantly premined mark off of Dash until we can figure out a more appropriate solution.  I agree that instamine is not the same as premine.

I see a few options here:
1) Change label to "Significantly mined around launch" or something among those lines
2) Make an instamine label
3) Not care about tracking instamine

I'm preferring #3 because "instamine" is not a well defined term and can be applied subjectively.

I think (2) is the best option because that can be objective. PoS coins that had a period of PoW should also be flagged with this. I think the definition should be based on what we collectively recognize as fastmine or ninjamine or instamine or fastmine. We can take some thoughts from the article written by whoisthelorax here. He defines it as "Obvious and proveable scammish behavior such as self evident instant mines, super quick block halving, unannounced premining activity, or premines that represent unusual amount of coins. Most statistics tend towards unfair early adopter benefit. Very little benefits long term, fair usage."

With DRK I think it is easy to to see that it represents an unusual amount of coins and that the "block halving" was super quick. The block reward went from nearly 500 coins for the first day and a half, and then it was less than 50 coins, and now 16 months later the block reward is less than 5 coins. I have made my own analysis of the first 4500 blocks to show what I mean.

For the first hour of Darkcoin mining there were 67500 DRK mined. If you only started mining on day 2 after block 4500 you would have to mine for 136 hours for there to be the same DRK created. That is nearly 6 days. If you are mining today it would take you 23 and half days for the same DRK to be created.

For the second hour there were 514040 DRK mined. If you only started mining on day 2 after block 4500 you would have to mine for 292 hours for there to be the same DRK created. That is more than 12 days. If you are mining today it would take you 178 days for the same DRK to be created.

For a cryptocurrency to be fairly launched it cannot have the same amount created in one hour that will be created in 6 months a year later. This is not good and must be marked so that those who visit CMC know!

[iCEBREAKER]

Yes, in general, instamine is not necessarily the same as premine.

But in the case of Dash's first 24 hours, they are the same.

DashHoles are using the scammy ambiguity of the initial launch to hide what is, for all other intents and purposes except strict formal logic, yet another premine.

[innocent93]

But they went ahead with the scam launch code, knowingly or otherwise.

You are deceiving us sir. You must read the comments on the article you link.

Apologies if I misread what you wrote, but I tried to be quite clear in my article that the developers of Bytecoin, who introduced the slowdown, are very unlikely to have relationships, financial or otherwise, with the current set of developers who've been responsible for bringing Monero to popularity.

I'm pretty sure that the Bytecoin version of this was pure evil, and that it was used not just to get an advantage in mining, but to fake the entire blockchain.  I wouldn't touch that one with a 10 foot bitcoin.  But, while I don't own any more Monero than is in transit from my hardware to the exchange, I don't think that same thing applies to Monero (because, first of all, there was no premine, and second, I know quite accurately who made the profit from the crappy miner, and I know that none of us were Bytecoin developers.)

It's possible that the initial fork-er of Monero, TFT, was complicit.  But he's also out of the picture, and while he might have had a week of fun mining, he wouldn't have gotten much more than that.

I do not have any Monero but you must be careful not to lie or to be deceptive. I lose a lot of respect for people like you when I see this.

[BlockaFett]

Given the debate here, it's probably best to take the significantly premined mark off of Dash until we can figure out a more appropriate solution.  I agree that instamine is not the same as premine.

I see a few options here:
1) Change label to "Significantly mined around launch" or something among those lines
2) Make an instamine label
3) Not care about tracking instamine

I'm preferring #3 because "instamine" is not a well defined term and can be applied subjectively.

I think (2) is the best option because that can be objective. PoS coins that had a period of PoW should also be flagged with this. I think the definition should be based on what we collectively recognize as fastmine or ninjamine or instamine or fastmine. We can take some thoughts from the article written by whoisthelorax here. He defines it as "Obvious and proveable scammish behavior such as self evident instant mines, super quick block halving, unannounced premining activity, or premines that represent unusual amount of coins. Most statistics tend towards unfair early adopter benefit. Very little benefits long term, fair usage."

With DRK I think it is easy to to see that it represents an unusual amount of coins and that the "block halving" was super quick. The block reward went from nearly 500 coins for the first day and a half, and then it was less than 50 coins, and now 16 months later the block reward is less than 5 coins. I have made my own analysis of the first 4500 blocks to show what I mean.

For the first hour of Darkcoin mining there were 67500 DRK mined. If you only started mining on day 2 after block 4500 you would have to mine for 136 hours for there to be the same DRK created. That is nearly 6 days. If you are mining today it would take you 23 and half days for the same DRK to be created.

For the second hour there were 514040 DRK mined. If you only started mining on day 2 after block 4500 you would have to mine for 292 hours for there to be the same DRK created. That is more than 12 days. If you are mining today it would take you 178 days for the same DRK to be created.

For a cryptocurrency to be fairly launched it cannot have the same amount created in one hour that will be created in 6 months a year later. This is not good and must be marked so that those who visit CMC know!

My thoughts:

Instamine is entirely subjective - what emission curve constitutes the "insta" aka how do you define "instant" because that means literally "in one moment"?  do you include coins that ever changed block reward - manually or by fast algos? community knowledge / involvement / voting?  Mistake by dev or premeditated?  Dev "instamined" 95% personally or his cat jumped on the keyboard and killed his miner and he got 0.1% and who else got what?  Positions of the stars and planets at the moment of launch?

Premine is entirely objective - pre-mine has a clear *literal* definition: coins solo-mined by the dev before the launch date, easy to *prove* by anyone with a BCT link and blockexplorer.

And the *reason* for marking coins as such is to warn investors of a potential *distribution problem* - which can be for a 1000 reasons throughout the coin's life and is often impossible to know objectively, and requires a hell of a lot of on-going work by CMC to get right - and why?  So Monero can get definitions changed that have been working fine for CMC & it's users, to be more inline with their agenda?  

Thanks Gliss, I uses CMC everyday because I trust your data and it's well presented / easy to use, not someone's subjective opinion on what is good or not - thanks for keeping your impartiality.

[farfiman]

..snip..
My thoughts:

Instamine is entirely subjective - what emission curve constitutes the "insta" aka how do you define "instant" because that means literally "in one moment"?  do you include coins that ever changed block reward - manually or by fast algos? community knowledge / involvement / voting?  Mistake by dev or premeditated?  Dev "instamined" 95% personally or his cat jumped on the keyboard and killed his miner and he got 0.1% and who else got what?  Positions of the stars and planets at the moment of launch?

Premine is entirely objective - pre-mine has a clear *literal* definition: coins solo-mined by the dev before the launch date, easy to *prove* by anyone with a BCT link and blockexplorer.

And the *reason* for marking coins as such is to warn investors of a potential *distribution problem* - which can be for a 1000 reasons throughout the coin's life and is often impossible to know objectively, and requires a hell of a lot of on-going work by CMC to get right - and why?  So Monero can get definitions changed that have been working fine for CMC & it's users, to be more inline with their agenda?  

Thanks Gliss, I uses CMC everyday because I trust your data and it's well presented / easy to use, not someone's subjective opinion on what is good or not - thanks for keeping your impartiality.

To follow your lead CMC should remove ALL asterix of any kind and let the investors do their own research.

[coins101]

But they went ahead with the scam launch code, knowingly or otherwise.

You are deceiving us sir. You must read the comments on the article you link.

Apologies if I misread what you wrote, but I tried to be quite clear in my article that the developers of Bytecoin, who introduced the slowdown, are very unlikely to have relationships, financial or otherwise, with the current set of developers who've been responsible for bringing Monero to popularity.

I'm pretty sure that the Bytecoin version of this was pure evil, and that it was used not just to get an advantage in mining, but to fake the entire blockchain.  I wouldn't touch that one with a 10 foot bitcoin.  But, while I don't own any more Monero than is in transit from my hardware to the exchange, I don't think that same thing applies to Monero (because, first of all, there was no premine, and second, I know quite accurately who made the profit from the crappy miner, and I know that none of us were Bytecoin developers.)

It's possible that the initial fork-er of Monero, TFT, was complicit.  But he's also out of the picture, and while he might have had a week of fun mining, he wouldn't have gotten much more than that.

I do not have any Monero but you must be careful not to lie or to be deceptive. I lose a lot of respect for people like you when I see this.

The Trollero dev admitted to Monero launch code that was crippled. He admitted that here.

The kid found the cripple and exploited it.

The Monero devs should have checked and checked again. There were red flags and people warning them on the launch page. They didn't check, they didn't want to check, or they were covering up the scam code.

What happened between the launch and the kid finding and declaring the scam code is pure conjecture, unless people own up to their deeds. But they can also, of course, lie. So we won't ever know.

Except we know that scam code was there at launch and it was admitted, here and elsewhere. Fact. No deception required.

[arielbit]

Given the debate here, it's probably best to take the significantly premined mark off of Dash until we can figure out a more appropriate solution.  I agree that instamine is not the same as premine.

I see a few options here:
1) Change label to "Significantly mined around launch" or something among those lines
2) Make an instamine label
3) Not care about tracking instamine

I'm preferring #3 because "instamine" is not a well defined term and can be applied subjectively.

how about...

4) significantly instamined

the "significantly" would make it non-subjective. if we look at this graph, there is a "significance factor"

[BlockaFett]

..snip..
My thoughts:

Instamine is entirely subjective - what emission curve constitutes the "insta" aka how do you define "instant" because that means literally "in one moment"?  do you include coins that ever changed block reward - manually or by fast algos? community knowledge / involvement / voting?  Mistake by dev or premeditated?  Dev "instamined" 95% personally or his cat jumped on the keyboard and killed his miner and he got 0.1% and who else got what?  Positions of the stars and planets at the moment of launch?

Premine is entirely objective - pre-mine has a clear *literal* definition: coins solo-mined by the dev before the launch date, easy to *prove* by anyone with a BCT link and blockexplorer.

And the *reason* for marking coins as such is to warn investors of a potential *distribution problem* - which can be for a 1000 reasons throughout the coin's life and is often impossible to know objectively, and requires a hell of a lot of on-going work by CMC to get right - and why?  So Monero can get definitions changed that have been working fine for CMC & it's users, to be more inline with their agenda?  

Thanks Gliss, I uses CMC everyday because I trust your data and it's well presented / easy to use, not someone's subjective opinion on what is good or not - thanks for keeping your impartiality.

To follow your lead CMC should remove ALL asterix of any kind and let the investors do their own research.

No because the 2 defitinions CMC currenlty use are both objective:

* - non mineable - Every coin states itself whether it is either mineable or not = true or false = objective

** - premine - Compare launch date to first block date to see if coins were mined before or after the launch = true or false = objective

"instamine" - First gain consensus from crypto community as what emission curve constitutes 'insta-', then compare 1000s of factors on each coin and come to a value judgement = someone' subjective opinion backed by some kind of consensus on how to define the term = a constant dispute for CMC as they start to try to value-judge which coins were "instamined" or not and lose their imparitality / market as well as having to extend this to all kinds of potential problems to warn investors on, not just the launch = can of worms.

Maybe the reason CMC picked the definitions at the start was becaue they are objectively provable, don't kick up a sh*t storm of personal opinions / spurious accusations, and if they had instead been subjective since the start they wouldn't have gained the trust they have now and be the leading coin compare site.

again...thanks Gliss

[BlockaFett]

Given the debate here, it's probably best to take the significantly premined mark off of Dash until we can figure out a more appropriate solution.  I agree that instamine is not the same as premine.

I see a few options here:
1) Change label to "Significantly mined around launch" or something among those lines
2) Make an instamine label
3) Not care about tracking instamine

I'm preferring #3 because "instamine" is not a well defined term and can be applied subjectively.

how about...

4) significantly instamined

the "significantly" would make it non-subjective. if we look at this graph, there is a "significance factor"

Nice Graph Ariel, maybe CMC can start to analyze all coin emission curves and try to figure out which is instant or not, and explain fairly in each case why it happened, and how much of a threat it is, to keep their impartiality and maintain the trust level they worked hard to achieve.

Just FYI but look at the Monero price chart - the more you and the other goons try to bully CMC to change their own definitions for your gain, the more people dump.  It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic - why don't you leave Gliss alone and go develop your own coin please...

[farfiman]

..snip..
My thoughts:

Instamine is entirely subjective - what emission curve constitutes the "insta" aka how do you define "instant" because that means literally "in one moment"?  do you include coins that ever changed block reward - manually or by fast algos? community knowledge / involvement / voting?  Mistake by dev or premeditated?  Dev "instamined" 95% personally or his cat jumped on the keyboard and killed his miner and he got 0.1% and who else got what?  Positions of the stars and planets at the moment of launch?

Premine is entirely objective - pre-mine has a clear *literal* definition: coins solo-mined by the dev before the launch date, easy to *prove* by anyone with a BCT link and blockexplorer.

And the *reason* for marking coins as such is to warn investors of a potential *distribution problem* - which can be for a 1000 reasons throughout the coin's life and is often impossible to know objectively, and requires a hell of a lot of on-going work by CMC to get right - and why?  So Monero can get definitions changed that have been working fine for CMC & it's users, to be more inline with their agenda?  

Thanks Gliss, I uses CMC everyday because I trust your data and it's well presented / easy to use, not someone's subjective opinion on what is good or not - thanks for keeping your impartiality.

To follow your lead CMC should remove ALL asterix of any kind and let the investors do their own research.

No because the 2 defitinions CMC currenlty use are both objective:

* - non mineable - Every coin states itself whether it is either mineable or not = true or false = objective

** - premine - Compare launch date to first block date to see if coins were mined before or after the launch = true or false = objective

"instamine" - First gain consensus from crypto community as what emission curve constitutes 'insta-', then compare 1000s of factors on each coin and come to a value judgement = someone' subjective opinion backed by some kind of consensus on how to define the term = a constant dispute for CMC as they start to try to value-judge which coins were "instamined" or not and lose their imparitality / market as well as having to extend this to all kinds of potential problems to warn investors on, not just the launch = can of worms.

Maybe the reason CMC picked the definitions at the start was becaue they are objectively provable, don't kick up a sh*t storm of personal opinions / spurious accusations, and if they had instead been subjective since the start they wouldn't have gained the trust they have now and be the leading coin compare site.

again...thanks Gliss

It isn't just a 1/0 situation as you are presenting it. There is a grey area ( something like legal but stinks).
If CMC will just use the "objective" "true/false" standard then they are missing the point in helping investors.
A 3rd category could be used but again- it will be hard to decide the criteria.

[BlockaFett]

..snip..
My thoughts:

Instamine is entirely subjective - what emission curve constitutes the "insta" aka how do you define "instant" because that means literally "in one moment"?  do you include coins that ever changed block reward - manually or by fast algos? community knowledge / involvement / voting?  Mistake by dev or premeditated?  Dev "instamined" 95% personally or his cat jumped on the keyboard and killed his miner and he got 0.1% and who else got what?  Positions of the stars and planets at the moment of launch?

Premine is entirely objective - pre-mine has a clear *literal* definition: coins solo-mined by the dev before the launch date, easy to *prove* by anyone with a BCT link and blockexplorer.

And the *reason* for marking coins as such is to warn investors of a potential *distribution problem* - which can be for a 1000 reasons throughout the coin's life and is often impossible to know objectively, and requires a hell of a lot of on-going work by CMC to get right - and why?  So Monero can get definitions changed that have been working fine for CMC & it's users, to be more inline with their agenda?  

Thanks Gliss, I uses CMC everyday because I trust your data and it's well presented / easy to use, not someone's subjective opinion on what is good or not - thanks for keeping your impartiality.

To follow your lead CMC should remove ALL asterix of any kind and let the investors do their own research.

No because the 2 defitinions CMC currenlty use are both objective:

* - non mineable - Every coin states itself whether it is either mineable or not = true or false = objective

** - premine - Compare launch date to first block date to see if coins were mined before or after the launch = true or false = objective

"instamine" - First gain consensus from crypto community as what emission curve constitutes 'insta-', then compare 1000s of factors on each coin and come to a value judgement = someone' subjective opinion backed by some kind of consensus on how to define the term = a constant dispute for CMC as they start to try to value-judge which coins were "instamined" or not and lose their imparitality / market as well as having to extend this to all kinds of potential problems to warn investors on, not just the launch = can of worms.

Maybe the reason CMC picked the definitions at the start was becaue they are objectively provable, don't kick up a sh*t storm of personal opinions / spurious accusations, and if they had instead been subjective since the start they wouldn't have gained the trust they have now and be the leading coin compare site.

again...thanks Gliss

It isn't just a 1/0 situation as you are presenting it. There is a grey area ( something like legal but stinks).
If CMC will just use the "objective" "true/false" standard then they are missing the point in helping investors.
A 3rd category could be used but again- it will be hard to decide the criteria.

I think what might be useful is if you and the other Monero investors / devs / sockpuppets would stop trying to bum-rush CMC to change it's definition as part of your futile 'Dash is a SCAM! - Monero is the next Dash = Buy Monero!!!'  campaign.  You have your lead Dev FluffyPony a few pages back claiming it is correct to keep the Dash 'premine' tag and then run off when I asked him for proof 6 times.  You guys are an utter disgrace, please, staaaahp.

[Lebubar]

Gliss should be impartial, and that means seperating the coins based on what actually happened and in this case, Dash had a premine or at the very least, **Significantly Fastmined**. You've mentioned Monero, but Monero has never had any of it's core parameters changed so Dash and Monero cannot be compared in the slightest.

You are correct. Dash and Monero cannot be compared in the slightest. Dash, as a fork of Litecoin at the time, suffered some issues that were related to the Litecoin code by a programmer new to the code base. It took a day or two to diagnose and fix and much longer to get a working explorer to figure out that so many blocks were created before the difficulty adjusted. There is no proof about the intentions of the developer. Monero on the other hand had code intentionally inserted with no other purpose than to make the built in miner inefficient at launch so that the developer could take advantage. Monero is the only coin being discussed here that was provably and intentionally manipulated by the developer to give themselves an advantage.

Personally, I think this is a very slippery slope. If we start trying to define new categories like "launch issues", "fast-mined" (which most PoS coins would fall into), "insta-mined", or other categories like "dishonest developer" - all categories with very subjective definitions - you'll end up in a slug-fest between competing coins trying to get their competition labeled. Thank you coinmarketcap for deciding to stay above the fray.

So much this...

Here the important word is : INTENTIONALLY, which make no doubt about Monero SCAM. Something intentional was made to give benefice of few over the others.
You got it... while other people are denying:

There was nothing wrong with the history of Monero. It's one of if not the cleanest coins and launches in history.

Just lol..

[arielbit]

Given the debate here, it's probably best to take the significantly premined mark off of Dash until we can figure out a more appropriate solution.  I agree that instamine is not the same as premine.

I see a few options here:
1) Change label to "Significantly mined around launch" or something among those lines
2) Make an instamine label
3) Not care about tracking instamine

I'm preferring #3 because "instamine" is not a well defined term and can be applied subjectively.

how about...

4) significantly instamined

the "significantly" would make it non-subjective. if we look at this graph, there is a "significance factor"

Nice Graph Ariel, maybe CMC can start to analyze all coin emission curves and try to figure out which is instant or not, and explain fairly in each case why it happened, and how much of a threat it is, to keep their impartiality and maintain the trust level they worked hard to achieve.

Just FYI but look at the Monero price chart - the more you and the other goons try to bully CMC to change their own definitions for your gain, the more people dump.  It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic - why don't you leave Gliss alone and go develop your own coin please...

we are presenting ideas in how to label your scam coin in CMC, you are simply derailing the thread with your useless rant..bigrcanada is already saying "proudly instamined"

as i said earlier there is a "significance factor" and it can be sub categorized like..

 Dash    $ 15,935,866    $ 2.99    5,321,001 DASH ^inst

the "inst" can be clicked and a pop up graph shows this..




so.. at the bottom of CMC there will be

* Not Mineable
** Significantly Premined
^inst Significantly Instamined

this way instamined scam coins won't be CMC resistant.
 

[BlockaFett]

^ Just lol +1