CoinMarketCap.com - Market Cap Rankings of All Cryptocurrencies!

[dance4x]

Mastercoin should definitely be included on coinmarketcap. It's a well-known project. The developers have been interviewed on multiple occasions on Let's Talk Bitcoin. It's been written about in Bitcoin Magazine.

[1713954516]

1713954516

[1713954516]

1713954516

[1713954516]

1713954516

[bizz]

wtf? where's nxt?

[Oldminer]

Please add Lottocoin 

[Zubilica]

Can Lottocoin be added ?

http://lottocoin.org/
http://lottocoin.org/blockexplorer.php
https://www.facebook.com/lottocoins
https://cryptocointalk.com/topic/2167-lottocoin-lot-information/
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=368707.0
http://www.reddit.com/r/lottocoin
http://topbitcoinsites.com/lotto-coin-altcoin-thats-a-game/
http://coinbomb.biz/lottocoin/

https://github.com/lottocoin/lottocoin

Exchange : https://coinedup.com/OrderBook?market=LOT&base=BTC


Regards.

[niothor]

So, did we finally get rid of the coin that wasn't actually a coin ?

[DarkEmi]

Added sorting options as requested.

Hello,

We are the first exchange for Mastercoin (the "on top of bitcoin" altcoin), www.masterxchange.com, which by capitalisation is currently around the 5th coin

We have made a JSON API that retrieves prices & trades :

https://masterxchange.com/api/trades.php returns the 500 last trades
https://masterxchange.com/api/orderbook.php returns the 500 best ask orders and the 500 best bid orders
https://masterxchange.com/api/supply.php return the total number of mastercoins in existence

Hope this is enough for you to include us on your site. If you need additional data or options please let me know.

Regards,

Emilien

I'm looking at the trades API and there seems to be very low volume (50 trades in 4 days).  Is that right?

We launched ~3 days ago, and manual trading systems are still quite active with mastercoins.

Right now there is really few trade the order book is still just building up.

[cycloid]

Good call on removing NXT ... what total load of sh#$. 

Thanks

[aggster]

can we add applecoin

[coradan]

Hide currencies is another way of market manipulation... The best would be to give as much information as possible and then people take their decisions...  Free decisions are the most important!

I think the best solution would be to add the Nextcoin with a tag saying: 100% generated or 100% premined!

[hilariousandco]

Good call on removing NXT ... what total load of sh#$. 

Thanks

Next is still there. Maybe the block explorer was down.

[Serafim]

Good call on removing NXT ... what total load of sh#$. 

Thanks

Next is still there. Maybe the block explorer was down.

No. Just have a need for such phenomena in humans. Normally for the new market values.

[Thorgrim]

Is it just me, or does Nxt belong with the Ripple's of the world?  The coin appears premined and controlled by the devs, thus propping up the price per coin. 

Yes, the more research I do the more I am disturbed that they are having any success at all. I thought people were smarter then this.

The coin is not premined. It is 100% created and given to the stakeholders. Basically the same effect as 100% premined. So people rip on other coins for having small premines while NXT is 100%

Further mining for fees is biased towards those who already hold coins with those with the most coins having the greatest chance at mining success.

In order to get some NXT you pretty much have to buy it form the stakeholders and they are not selling cheap.

I thought the whole idea behind mining was so that those not fortunate enough to be highly bankrolled could have a chance at controlling some of a potential successful currency.

There are plenty of BTC millionaires who mined BTC in the beginning and never forked over cash to take a position.

Every PoS coin will fall into the same concerns you have at some point. For example, years from now some kid that never mined any PPC will only be able to get them through purchase since mining eventually fades out. Would you delist PPC at that point?

The point of the charts isn't to provide some level of validation on whether a coin is legit or scam - if it was this thread would be 100% chock full of shills and trolls trying their best to knock coins off the list or fluff them up.

If you look back at my prior posts in this thread my main issue with NXT on coinmarketcap was that it is only on one exchange and that exchange only trades NXT/BTC. I also had the same issue with Dogecoin when it was only on coinedup.

One small market is not a very good representation of the value of a coin. In order for the market caps to reflect closer to true value you need an un-manipulated market and you need liquidity. It is far easier to fix the price on one market when you don't have to worry about arbitrage from other markets. Especially when the only exchange is owned by a stakeholder of NXT. It is just common sense.

The 100% minted to start and POS for fees is a side issue.

Maybe there is a compromise for this problem. Perhaps an astrix or notation disclosing that it is only traded on one proprietary exchange?

Kind of silly to compare coin values when all the other top 15 competitors are listed on at least 3 exchanges and those exchanges don't exclusively trade just one coin.

[kisa2005]

Hi folks, this I initially posted as a separate topic but this thread perhaps a better place. With regards to some coinmarketcap shortcomings here I suggest possible ways to address them:

1. Market Cap is shown for all (pre-)mined coins, even if only a tiny percentage actually available for trading

-> e.g. for someone to push their newly designed coins to the top of the league, it would suffice to release a tiny percentage of them into the market, causing price squeezes due to shortage of supply. One could argue nothing wrong with that as the price is determined between market participants aware of supply shortages. However, the ranking in the league table vs coins with wide circulation is misplaced.

Suggestion -> supplement with a new ranking based on Traded Market Cap or a similar statistics (over a certain period across all available exchanges), e.g. Traded Market Cap (24h) = Traded Volume (24h) x Weighted (by volume) Average Traded Price (24h)


2. The prices on less liquid exchanges are sometimes "manipulated", in that off-market transactions for small volumes are enacted

-> e.g if the market with reasonable size bid / offer for a certain coin is at $1.50 / $1.55, someone might sell tiny amounts to lower bidders at $0.50 without risking much. Yet such transactions come on record and distort both price and market cap history charts.

Suggestion -> for each coin introduce some reasonable minimum treshold trade size which is required for inclusion of that trade into the price and market cap statistics.


3. The % change in Market Cap is shown over the 24h period, e.g. every minute we look at % change to a different reference point.

-> e.g. even though 24h change might be interesting, the observed % change is then not comparable to the observed % change value several minutes or hours ago. This is irritating and gets substantially magnified when prices are volatile, or being manipulated as per above.

Suggestion -> use % change to a fixed time point of a day, such as 0:00 GMT. Perhaps this has been already discussed, so apologies if the community already actually agreed on the existing format.

 

[KeyserSozeMC]

Why don't you remove NXT? It's a scam coin

[Liga]

Why don't you remove NXT? It's a scam coin

because people (including me) are intrested in its price, scamcoin or not (not saying it is)

[odin99]

gamecoin on http://coinmarketcap.com/ now

[porcupine87]

Hi folks, this I initially posted as a separate topic but this thread perhaps a better place. With regards to some coinmarketcap shortcomings here I suggest possible ways to address them:

1. Market Cap is shown for all (pre-)mined coins, even if only a tiny percentage actually available for trading

-> e.g. for someone to push their newly designed coins to the top of the league, it would suffice to release a tiny percentage of them into the market, causing price squeezes due to shortage of supply. One could argue nothing wrong with that as the price is determined between market participants aware of supply shortages. However, the ranking in the league table vs coins with wide circulation is misplaced.

Suggestion -> supplement with a new ranking based on Traded Market Cap or a similar statistics (over a certain period across all available exchanges), e.g. Traded Market Cap (24h) = Traded Volume (24h) x Weighted (by volume) Average Traded Price (24h)

Let's see:
the trade volume of Bitcoin might be something like 70 000 the last 24hours(0.5% of the total supply). That's not much, sure, because many people use it for long time storing or trading. Now there is coming Quark, which gets traded with 2000btc (5% of the the total supply), because it is so new and every one waits for the big dump or pump. -> it will get over proportional high listed at coinmarketcap.com. And you have the problem, that 20% of Bitcoin are owned by Satoshi and he might never spend it. So should the total supply be decreased?
-> I think, this is no good idea.

2. The prices on less liquid exchanges are sometimes "manipulated", in that off-market transactions for small volumes are enacted

-> e.g if the market with reasonable size bid / offer for a certain coin is at $1.50 / $1.55, someone might sell tiny amounts to lower bidders at $0.50 without risking much. Yet such transactions come on record and distort both price and market cap history charts.

Suggestion -> for each coin introduce some reasonable minimum treshold trade size which is required for inclusion of that trade into the price and market cap statistics.

This was only with the new exchange "coinedup" an issue. When you make a sell order at 0.50$, you will sell at the best price which is $1.50, which will be the last traded price. All exchanges work like that. If not, this is a bug.

3. The % change in Market Cap is shown over the 24h period, e.g. every minute we look at % change to a different reference point.

-> e.g. even though 24h change might be interesting, the observed % change is then not comparable to the observed % change value several minutes or hours ago. This is irritating and gets substantially magnified when prices are volatile, or being manipulated as per above.

Suggestion -> use % change to a fixed time point of a day, such as 0:00 GMT. Perhaps this has been already discussed, so apologies if the community already actually agreed on the existing format.

That might be a good propose. I would change it like that: On the top you can change between dollar and btc. The same could work for percentage change week, day,hour,15min. And please, as an parameter in the url.

[kisa2005]

1. Market Cap is shown for all (pre-)mined coins, even if only a tiny percentage actually available for trading

-> e.g. for someone to push their newly designed coins to the top of the league, it would suffice to release a tiny percentage of them into the market, causing price squeezes due to shortage of supply. One could argue nothing wrong with that as the price is determined between market participants aware of supply shortages. However, the ranking in the league table vs coins with wide circulation is misplaced.

Suggestion -> supplement with a new ranking based on Traded Market Cap or a similar statistics (over a certain period across all available exchanges), e.g. Traded Market Cap (24h) = Traded Volume (24h) x Weighted (by volume) Average Traded Price (24h)

Let's see:
the trade volume of Bitcoin might be something like 70 000 the last 24hours(0.5% of the total supply). That's not much, sure, because many people use it for long time storing or trading. Now there is coming Quark, which gets traded with 2000btc (5% of the the total supply), because it is so new and every one waits for the big dump or pump. -> it will get over proportional high listed at coinmarketcap.com. And you have the problem, that 20% of Bitcoin are owned by Satoshi and he might never spend it. So should the total supply be decreased?
-> I think, this is no good idea.

Thanks porcupine for your clear example. Still, some complementary metric to adjust for the market cap validity would be helpful.

[Gliss]

Added sorting options as requested.

Hello,

We are the first exchange for Mastercoin (the "on top of bitcoin" altcoin), www.masterxchange.com, which by capitalisation is currently around the 5th coin

We have made a JSON API that retrieves prices & trades :

https://masterxchange.com/api/trades.php returns the 500 last trades
https://masterxchange.com/api/orderbook.php returns the 500 best ask orders and the 500 best bid orders
https://masterxchange.com/api/supply.php return the total number of mastercoins in existence

Hope this is enough for you to include us on your site. If you need additional data or options please let me know.

Regards,

Emilien

I'm looking at the trades API and there seems to be very low volume (50 trades in 4 days).  Is that right?

We launched ~3 days ago, and manual trading systems are still quite active with mastercoins.

Right now there is really few trade the order book is still just building up.

Alright.  I'm a little hesitant to put to up a coin with such low volume but I suppose I can average all of the prices for now until volume picks up.

Maybe there is a compromise for this problem. Perhaps an astrix or notation disclosing that it is only traded on one proprietary exchange?

Kind of silly to compare coin values when all the other top 15 competitors are listed on at least 3 exchanges and those exchanges don't exclusively trade just one coin.

If you click through on the price link you can see all of the exchanges on which it is traded.

Hi folks, this I initially posted as a separate topic but this thread perhaps a better place. With regards to some coinmarketcap shortcomings here I suggest possible ways to address them:

1. Market Cap is shown for all (pre-)mined coins, even if only a tiny percentage actually available for trading

-> e.g. for someone to push their newly designed coins to the top of the league, it would suffice to release a tiny percentage of them into the market, causing price squeezes due to shortage of supply. One could argue nothing wrong with that as the price is determined between market participants aware of supply shortages. However, the ranking in the league table vs coins with wide circulation is misplaced.

Suggestion -> supplement with a new ranking based on Traded Market Cap or a similar statistics (over a certain period across all available exchanges), e.g. Traded Market Cap (24h) = Traded Volume (24h) x Weighted (by volume) Average Traded Price (24h)

Let's see:
the trade volume of Bitcoin might be something like 70 000 the last 24hours(0.5% of the total supply). That's not much, sure, because many people use it for long time storing or trading. Now there is coming Quark, which gets traded with 2000btc (5% of the the total supply), because it is so new and every one waits for the big dump or pump. -> it will get over proportional high listed at coinmarketcap.com. And you have the problem, that 20% of Bitcoin are owned by Satoshi and he might never spend it. So should the total supply be decreased?
-> I think, this is no good idea.

2. The prices on less liquid exchanges are sometimes "manipulated", in that off-market transactions for small volumes are enacted

-> e.g if the market with reasonable size bid / offer for a certain coin is at $1.50 / $1.55, someone might sell tiny amounts to lower bidders at $0.50 without risking much. Yet such transactions come on record and distort both price and market cap history charts.

Suggestion -> for each coin introduce some reasonable minimum treshold trade size which is required for inclusion of that trade into the price and market cap statistics.

This was only with the new exchange "coinedup" an issue. When you make a sell order at 0.50$, you will sell at the best price which is $1.50, which will be the last traded price. All exchanges work like that. If not, this is a bug.

3. The % change in Market Cap is shown over the 24h period, e.g. every minute we look at % change to a different reference point.

-> e.g. even though 24h change might be interesting, the observed % change is then not comparable to the observed % change value several minutes or hours ago. This is irritating and gets substantially magnified when prices are volatile, or being manipulated as per above.

Suggestion -> use % change to a fixed time point of a day, such as 0:00 GMT. Perhaps this has been already discussed, so apologies if the community already actually agreed on the existing format.

That might be a good propose. I would change it like that: On the top you can change between dollar and btc. The same could work for percentage change week, day,hour,15min. And please, as an parameter in the url.

Thanks for the feedback, I'll address each here:

1. I agree with Porcupine here.  What you're suggesting is an entirely new ranking, not marketcap.  However, I'm working on displaying volume figures so people can determine how much trading is supporting the marketcap figure.


2. I've already put in place price manipulation prevention for DGEX (Nxt) and Coined-up (DogeCoin).  I'll eventually switch to moving averages for all exchanges to smooth out the volatility.

3. Agreed that this needs to be improved.  Would averaging the last 21-27 hours (or something like that) be better?  If you pick a point in time such as 0:00 GMT, then at 1:00 GMT that's only reflecting a 1 hour change

[Gliss]

btw, I'm having issues with the dgex.com API,  so if you see Nxt popping in and out, that's why.

Can Lottocoin be added ?

http://lottocoin.org/
http://lottocoin.org/blockexplorer.php
https://www.facebook.com/lottocoins
https://cryptocointalk.com/topic/2167-lottocoin-lot-information/
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=368707.0
http://www.reddit.com/r/lottocoin
http://topbitcoinsites.com/lotto-coin-altcoin-thats-a-game/
http://coinbomb.biz/lottocoin/

https://github.com/lottocoin/lottocoin

Exchange : https://coinedup.com/OrderBook?market=LOT&base=BTC


Regards.

Is there a link with the total supply count? It seems like each block generates a random number of coins, so I wouldn't be able to calculate it based on block height.