Are "Ultra Rare" altcoins more valuable than the rest?

[daniel244king]

I have noticed In the past few months there have been a significant rise in the value of Ultra Rare Altcoins.

By Ultra Rare Altcoins I mean altcoins that have a total production cap of fewer than 7 million coins.

To highlight this, just in the past month two altcoins - Footy Cash (FOOT), and Tatoocoin Limited Edition (TLE) both have seen 5000%+ highs and increases in their market valuations:

https://www.cryptopia.co.nz/Exchange/?market=FOOT_BTC

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1374929.0


https://www.coinexchange.io/market/TLE/BTC

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1853071.0


Both altcoins have fewer than 4 millions total production capacity.



Of altcoins developed of late (January 2017) I have noticed a trend in the departure from high coin counts as developers seek to reap short-term gains made from ultra-rare altcoins.

On coinmarketcap, the next highest valued coins after Bitcoin are the Ultra Rare Altcoins such as DASH (with a cap of fewer than 7 million coins) among others.

The newly re-developed Torcoin with a total cap of fewer than 1 million coins, reached a market increase of more than 10,000% in just a few hours after being introduced before controversy over a developer caused a price drop.  

It would seem that there is a market for potential investors seeking ultra-rare altcoins.

Most ultra-rare altcoins have market valuations of between $2.00 and $100.00 USD per coin (with the exception of Footy Cash (FOOT) which is undergoing a market correction - hence the meteoric rise in valuation the past month).

There are some exceptions; take Dreamcoin (DRM) for example: Dreamcoin is POS coin with a total cap of 2.4 million coins - but it's valuation remains low despite its rarity.  The DRM may be undervalued but the fact remains that the coin is only available on YOBIT exchange which is notorious for taking altcoin wallets offline for months at a time, leaving investors coins stuck on the site.  That fact alone may be having an impact on Dreamcoin valuation.  I guarantee that moving the coin to another exchange would see an increase of 5000% or more in the short-term.


One the other side of the argument there is Dogecoin.  Dogecoin started as a joke, has over 110 Billion coins, and was not taken seriously; but now Dogecoin has over $150 million dollar market capitalization, and has become a pillar in the altcoin market providing the best liquidity to all altcoins markets.

Are "Ultra Rare" altcoins really more valuable than other altcoins?

[BorgDog]

I think it is psychologically affair. People simply want "have" coins, and more is better. In this aspect "ultra rare" altcoins has an unadvantage.

[daniel244king]

Yes your are absolutely right; and that is so sad - That people don't understand the value of the currency they support.

Is it better to have a few coins with a higher percentage of overall ownership - like the Winklevoss twins who own 1% of all Bitcoins, or lots of coins with very small percentage of ownership?

I own more FootyCash coins with a higher ownership percentage than any other altcoin I invested in.

There is a cap of 84 Million coin on LTC (Litecoin).  I owned 2000 LTC that I paid $100 USD for back in 2012 - A few months later my 2000 LTC were worth approx $80,000 - $120,000 USD (when LTC went to $60).  I only owned a small percentage of overall LTC.

Now one month ago I found a better deal - There is a cap of only 4 Million FootyCash.  Footy was worth a fraction of a penny when I bought into it 30 days ago - It's now worth approx $0.10 USD.  The point is that I now own a MUCH larger percentage of FootyCash than I did with LTC - enough to temporarily impact the market If I wanted to.

Now I have money AND power.

  

[topesis]

I still don't understand why some people don't get it, the value of a token depends on the total market cap, all this coins mention above are very low in market cap and can easily crash and burn. For me it is all about the marketcap of a coin not the number of coins in circulation that can be easily manipulated with few thousand of USD buy order

[13abyknight]

"Coins in circulation" barely plays a part in the pricing of a particular coin. This comes back of the thing that altcoins with lesser coins in circulation can easily be manipulated at exchanges by just a few people which could lead to a complete dump.

[styca]

The price of an individual coin is irrelevant. You need to look at total coins vs total supply, i.e. marketcap.

Coin A has price $1 and total supply 1,000,000 coins
Coin B has price $1,000 and total supply 1,000 coins

A and B both have the same value. Cap is $1,000,000 for both. If you spend $1,000 then you can get 1000 of coin A or 1 of coin B. In both cases you will have 0.1% of a $10m supply.

And if you're planning to hold long-term, you also need to factor in total potential supply.

[renes]

Absolutely no, this is pure mistake. The value of a coin is determined by market cap, if the supply is low, it may make the price high compared to other coin but ''the supply is low''

[bmacdonald11]

You need someone to be willing to buy an ultra-rare coin.

So, they might be more a liability than anything else. Seriously.

[stevegreer]

I still don't understand why some people don't get it, the value of a token depends on the total market cap, all this coins mention above are very low in market cap and can easily crash and burn. For me it is all about the marketcap of a coin not the number of coins in circulation that can be easily manipulated with few thousand of USD buy order

I completely agree with this. OP's use of Torcoin as an example was a bit misleading. I was watching that coin from its release. The price jumping to $5 out the gate was completely due to pumping of the coin by the "creator" and the "developer"... and nothing more. Many people got badly burned by that developer because after that initial pump the coin's "value" dropped drastically and the dev was fired and immediately dumped his stash of the premine. Now the coin is all but abandoned by its "creator". Even at its short-lived height of popularity its market cap was only in the $Tens of thousands. Very low market cap with very low movement on the few exchanges where it was traded. It was a pipe dream that burned many people.
So no, OP, I do not agree that "ultra rare" automatically means more valuable than the rest.

[Chicago]

Hello,

    When I was new to the crypto scene and in turn began evaluating alternate chains, those which had a conservative distribution and a very limited money supply became the most attractive bets.

    Maybe this supply and demand projection is intuitive for other new traders too.
    If that's the case, then expect at least some shitcoin bagholders to do very well as long as there is a catalyst to adapt and build upon their coin daemons with continuous improvement.

    The biggest winners will be those blockchains relaunching as BTC reaches a bottom, promoting new traders to buy in with cheap BTC and then maximizing their returns on the upswing of both the altcoin and BTC.

Best Regards,
-Chicago

[daniel244king]

The price of an individual coin is irrelevant. You need to look at total coins vs total supply, i.e. marketcap.

Coin A has price $1 and total supply 1,000,000 coins
Coin B has price $1,000 and total supply 1,000 coins

A and B both have the same value. Cap is $1,000,000 for both. If you spend $1,000 then you can get 1000 of coin A or 1 of coin B. In both cases you will have 0.1% of a $10m supply.

And if you're planning to hold long-term, you also need to factor in total potential supply.

Thank you.  You said it perfectly!!!

Some people are ignorant and think just because they have "a lot of coins" that they have something of value.

That's why I am holding FootyCash!

[Someone47]

no ultra rare altcoins are not valuable more than the rest . anyone who thinks that is not bright person sorry to say this harsh toned. but people think many bad idea. unfortunate

[daniel244king]

no ultra rare altcoins are not valuable more than the rest . anyone who thinks that is not bright person sorry to say this harsh toned. but people think many bad idea. unfortunate

"Not a bright person"

This coming from someone who just made a statement without any facts to back it up.

You are the one who is "not bright".

[Someone47]

no ultra rare altcoins are not valuable more than the rest . anyone who thinks that is not bright person sorry to say this harsh toned. but people think many bad idea. unfortunate

"Not a bright person"

This coming from someone who just made a statement without any facts to back it up.

You are the one who is "not bright".

ok !  hold "FootyCash". good luck with the decision !!  ultra rare coin good !!

this is very rare and many people share a same view. so it will be ultra pricy!!!

[KikloV]

Are "Ultra Rare" altcoins really more valuable than other altcoins?

Ultra Rare coins are easier to Pump and manipulate than coins with larger numbers.

Problems with Ultra Rare coins,
The less coins available the less secure a proof of stake coins is.
Proof of Stake requires a large number of coins to secure the network.

Also by having only a few coins , this decreases the utility usage of a coin and causes the transaction fees to be higher verses fiat.

So why are all of the new ICO limited amounts, so they can manipulate the price and gain more suckers.
Even BTC numbers are too low to be a world currency, which is why their high transaction fees have caused many to move to LTC.

 

[Chicago]

Hi KikloV,

The less coins available the less secure a proof of stake coins is.

Inaccurate.  The fewer unspent outputs there are, the fewer chances per second of staking there will be.
Coins are easily divisible.

Proof of Stake requires a large number of coins to secure the network.

Also inaccurate.  See the reasoning above for the difference between unspent outputs and coins.  Staking 1 million 0.00000010 Foocoin unspent outputs yields the same rewards as staking 1.0 Foocoin, the difference between them being CPU usage and variance, or luck.

Also by having only a few coins , this decreases the utility usage of a coin and causes the transaction fees to be higher verses fiat.

Inaccurate.  The transaction fee is a choice built into the code and may be set at the appropriate threshold of tolerance given the coin's economy.
If non-devs copyclone a coin and fail to consider the affect a relatively high transaction fee would have on their economy, it is a design problem.
You're describing the symptom of the problem rather than the root cause of the problem.

So why are all of the new ICO limited amounts, so they can manipulate the price and gain more suckers.
Even BTC numbers are too low to be a world currency, which is why their high transaction fees have caused many to move to LTC.

Coins are easily divisible.  There is no functional reason why they must be bought and sold in whole units.
The choice for 8 significant digits where 0.00000001 is the "smallest" has no impact on a future design revision to create new units of subdivision down to 0.000000000000000000000000000000001

Remember, by arithmetic and logic, you may divide anything in two an infinite number of times.

Best Regards,
-Chicago

[Johnny Carsonogenic]

I think OP's use of Ultra Rare should be replaced with Rare.

[bongiu]

I always believed the quick bucks I was promised to have if I looked into cryptocurrencies were in ultra rare altcoins. The thing with these ulta rare altcoins it's that you have to be careful and be informed about the altcoin itself. Things like who created it, why, and what's the possible market for that altcoin. On the other hand, I think what gives these altcoins their enormous percentages is merely speculation.

[KikloV]

The less coins available the less secure a proof of stake coins is.

Inaccurate.  The fewer unspent outputs there are, the fewer chances per second of staking there will be.
Coins are easily divisible.

Divisible matters little ,as the fiat equivalent continues to rise as the price per coin rises.

The security is a formula, ignore it at your peril  
hashProofOfStake <= [Coin-age] x [Target]      
[Coin-age] = [amount of coins] x [days in stake]   
  
Sorry # of coins matter a great deal.

 

[namini]

Absolutely no, this is pure mistake. The value of a coin is determined by market cap, if the supply is low, it may make the price high compared to other coin but ''the supply is low''

+1