...
ECC is over 18 billion now. Super High interest with high volume of coins with low demand is a death blow. Can not be done safely without massively lowering the number of ECC coins.
...
Let me comment on this words (friendly), but first let me say that these "Free discussions are very good to expose good ideas". I would say, I am enjoying this! Thanks!
Regarding the part of the sentence I quoted:
I do not agree, respectfully. High volume would in fact sustain all you said. IF there was volume, transacted volume, then the coin would start to value. (you might not have mean that volume was transacted volume, but in case you was then this is my opinion). The problem/status is that ECC is not being used now for trading like it was before (I used to trade ECC like 1 BTC a week).
In the "Total amount of coins" (in my opinion) the main characteristic that spots out is that it differentiates the monopolize effect and the total "speculation" (initially only). The Monopolizing effect derivates from a bit of greedy and "speculation investment" that in this case could start by something like, "many might be guessing who as the most amount of coins?! If this goes rocket sky, who will make the buck...". But I would like to point, like you compared with other coins, the same idea against those other coins, and in that case it would be even easier to accomplish the "monopolized effect" (but surely with less wider windows for investment).
Adding some other opinion of mine: "old" coins (or old blockchains) like ECC, being big or small in amount of coins, does not matter much. Because the speculation of that amount was already negotiated through many adopters when the initial ECC started. Now it just defines the ECC granularity more/less in terms of trading.
So, conclusion for me is that the amount would only change the "speculation" in exchange for "bad informed adopters". Not much for the ones that already know that ECC will transform into a different amount of "total value". Percentages are, percentages... they will stay like that. And I think the only way to show value is by showing dedication, future vision and facts (the good ones):
Good facts examples:
- ECC has been very well transacted and initiated over a "green" effect that many liked.
- ECC has been taken over by people that though something like "how can coins like this dye?!!! NO WAY". Thanks for all of them that made something up to this.
- ECC was one of the first coins to use high stake rate and age (if not the first). MINT had 20%... but a lot less age time.
- ECC was at some point very "high volume speculated" due the relation with "long term investment", connected to the "green" style.
- ECC adopters did sold some of their coins, but I would say that "most of ECC is/was not sold". This shows that someone is still up to the investment they did initially. (Yes, I am one of these guys)
- etc...
Now ECC needs to adapt and reinvent it self. But also stay close/connected to the original roots! Why? It drives the speculation even better, therefore makes it valuable, stable and possibly "someday" a greedy coin for give uppers or newly interested adopters. Remember one last though,
coins/chains that never dye have always increased value because they have persisted and adapted/evolved. That's the most "wanted" objective for all society in cryptocurrency.In name of crypto, I thank all interested in participating over this open discussions. =)
BarTeam out.
