The coin whose distribution is the closest to the "natural distribution" (above postulated to apply to Monero), has the most "surface" to counter manipulation attempts, the largest liquidity, smallest supply/demand shock price inelasticity, and lowest volatility.
Do the number of people included in the distribution, marketcap, or any type of trade volume come into play in this resilience?
- Being open about market manipulation, means that it is exposed, and is easier to spot and neutralize. The downside risk is that you get the idea that Monero is somehow worse than other coins, because the manipulation is admitted.
Yet the time in which one would normally 'waste' in trying to come to the conclusion that 'x' is somehow worse than other coins has been largely negated. I think it's one of the main reasons we've diverged into a thriving speculation thread rather than sitting in the main thread pretending we're all voodoo masters. I feel this type of action has also resulted in at least one other 100+ page thread focused on Monero, and other reasonably 'hot topics' here. In short, I feel that it's served greatly to prevent groupthinking and instead branch out in our discussions.
BCN marketcap will at some point be pushed to incredible heights at incredible volume (all faked, because no one at all owns it), and there always are suckers who join to any pump out of ignorance.
I've considered this to be incredibly likely to happen at some point, yet have always wondered where it would go from there. Straight down? Or would they let it sit there? If it sat there, would the volume be high or low? Likewise with the straight down path - would the volume be high or low.
If the volume were low going down, that would likely make many bagholders that would seek to re-capture their value at some point in the future, and possibly even create a community for them. Just my thought is all.
- The markets work such that the +EV short term action is towards reducing volatility. You can prove it for yourself by setting up a bot that aims to increase volatility and the other one decrease it. The latter one actually makes you money after fees, obviously the first one does not, as it is the counterparty of the latter.
This is an interesting statement, and I admit that I have limited understanding of +EV, but are you saying that you can tell that +EV is a result of measuring profit from volatility?
I don't really think that the possiblity for XMR to fail in as little as 32 months is 61%, it.. just.. is.. smaller than that based on the mechanism of market failure (there being nobody to buy the coins offered) compared to the ownerbase of XMR and their capabilities and willingness to buy as long as the technology is sound.
Well, consider the size of the userbase to be an always increasing number in the sense that if you have used or owned xmr in the past, then you are always an xmr user, regardless of ownership, due strictly to the idea that you could always back within some sort of statistical probability.
In that case, the userbase is some sort of logarithmic increasing function, and the minimum buyerbase is always 1 (2 below). As the user base increases, one user becomes and infinitesimally small part of the userbase, and as such the idea that failure in 32 months approaches the ownership of one or two users, not zero users, would yield a more likely scenario.
So, a large part of error in your calculation, IMO, is the summation of probabilites of failure in sub-1 users, and addition to the total chance for failure, where the effective value due to the probability to fail would approach an infinitely low number, and as a result likely affect your 61% failure number the most.
For example, taking the probability to fail to be 99.9% at one user could yield the probability to fail to be 99.99% at a half a user, and 99.999% at a quarter of a user, and 99.9999% at an eighth of a user. As an example only ofc.
Additionally, one single buyer in the buybase would have the ability to place infinite value on the currency (obviously volume would approach zero), so likely to counteract this, no less than two people will always be in the buybase, else there would be the potential for infinite profits with nobody capitalizing.
So my point is that in the chart you posted, the 27.2754% number is okay, but the 33.7398% number contains an unbounded variable that really should be bounded .. and I think that bounding it will yield a number between 0 and 33.7398%.
So, just some guesswork, but let's add above the 0 a .01, and the ev in that case to be .001, which would then introduce a new range of
0,1 27,2754% .03
,01 10% .001
0 23,7403% .00
And for the sake of bounding the variable, cut off a price of 0 and scale the remaining numbers by 1.3113 accordingly:
10000 .0842 6.42
1000 .988 7.54
100 5.203 3.97
10 14.554 1.11
1 30.292 0.23
.1 35,766 0.03
.01 13.113 0.001
Which would seem to indicate a more reasonable than before, IMO, chart of with a failure rate (80% loss) of 48.879%. But, is this line of thought erroneous?
