Cryptocurrency with the best distribution?

[digitalindustry]

As a followup to my previous post. This is the matter that's prohibited me from investing in altcoins before. Of course I don't like the "unfairness" of the premine, but in a free world anyone is free to premine as much as they want (if there is no lying involved). But the issue is that a premine generates an unworkable ownership structure.

We are now concentrating in the First Class. Here is a table on how much the top of the top First Class members should own, to allow an economically functional distribution in the lower classes also (with the most important being the Business Class, the highest 3% minus the First Class):

Code:

users	mcap$M	TOP-1	TOP-5	TOP-10
1 000	0.2	13 %	29 %	37 %
10 000	6	8 %	18 %	23 %
100 000	200	6 %	13 %	17 %
1000000	6000	5 %	10 %	13 %

Coins controlled by one entity count as one. If the dev also holds coins in a trust, foundation, etc. they are added to his stash for the purposes of this. The functional limits are quite wide, though. I'd say the distribution itself does not present a problem if it is in 50%-150% in the optimum value presented above. Most coins probably fail even then.

Then we come to the quality of the owners. In the outside world at large, being in the First Class, or TOP-0.1% of anything, we are talking about people who have a net worth in millions of dollars, with homes in 3 continents, several people in their direct pay, etc. The USD TOP-0.1% consists of almost exclusively this kind of people. Having several such people in an altcoin's TOP-10 largest owners is a real asset. Lack of having even one is as real a liability.

that model will not work for a number of reasons, but it might be "functional" for a time.

i can expand on it later.

[Momimaus]

Do I really have to say this?

Alrigth one time: NE ---wait it´s coming --- M; NEM

[Zer0Sum]

It's an overrated factor.

Most of the money ends up in the hands of a few no matter what the initial distribution is.

You won't find an example in the world contrary to this statement.

Exactly, obsessive dogmatism here concerning "fair" distributions will always fall victim to human nature.

Bitcoin succeeded precisely because it was highly centralized among, let's say, 50 Early Adopters...
And these pioneers worked together to promote and build an amazing success story.

I'm only about 2 weeks into studying and trading NXT and it's assets...
But, wow, it's fascinating and a reasonable parallel to Early Bitcoin...
With, let's say, 50 major stakeholders *** pulling in the same direction ***.

That's not even the interesting part.

It's fair to say that the NXT Asset Exchange has achieved that elusive "critical mass"...
And has crossed that Magic Line into geometric growth?

Why?

Because of one visionary who has amassed roughly $10,000,000 in NXT Assets...
And got the ball rolling for everyone else.

You can slag any particular project of jl777...
But he has created The Blueprint for getting rich on NXT AE for the next 100 millionaires.

[TheFascistMind]

I didn't have time to read all the posts, but I did try to quickly skim the thrust of rpietila's first few posts on the first page of the thread.

rpietila, your analysis is only the constants that disappear in the first derivative, i.e. it is how the distribution travels to the savers that matters. That was a key macro economics insight of mine.

You are failing to view it as a dynamic system, which is why you don't support the historical higher rates of perpetual debasement. Nature will win, and your misunderstanding will lose. The only remaining question is who will create that naturally high rate of debasement going into the future, a decentralized crypto-currency or the centrally controlled fiat system.

[plopper50]

It's an overrated factor. Most of the money ends up in the hands of a few no matter what the initial distribution is. You won't find an example in the world contrary to this statement.

Nevertheless, it's a bit scary when someone owns over 10% of all the coins in existence.

[devphp]

Nevertheless, it's a bit scary when someone owns over 10% of all the coins in existence.

Yeah, like Satoshi Nakamoto I mean yeah, it's worrisome, but copying my post from another thread, if you're interested in a coin with a truely fair distribution, that would be Myriadcoin. No other coin features a more fair distribution through mining. But looking at how unpopular Myriadcoin is one cannot help but conclude that nobody is actually interested in fair distribution. Hence, all these thousand threads on fairness are completely pointless.

[TaunSew]

It's an overrated factor.

Most of the money ends up in the hands of a few no matter what the initial distribution is.

You won't find an example in the world contrary to this statement.

Exactly, obsessive dogmatism here concerning "fair" distributions will always fall victim to human nature.

Bitcoin succeeded precisely because it was highly centralized among, let's say, 50 Early Adopters...
And these pioneers worked together to promote and build an amazing success story.

I'm only about 2 weeks into studying and trading NXT and it's assets...
But, wow, it's fascinating and a reasonable parallel to Early Bitcoin...
With, let's say, 50 major stakeholders *** pulling in the same direction ***.

That's not even the interesting part.

It's fair to say that the NXT Asset Exchange has achieved that elusive "critical mass"...
And has crossed that Magic Line into geometric growth?

Why?

Because of one visionary who has amassed roughly $10,000,000 in NXT Assets...
And got the ball rolling for everyone else.

You can slag any particular project of jl777...
But he has created The Blueprint for getting rich on NXT AE for the next 100 millionaires.

Hardly.  If more 'investor managers' showed up on NXT's AE, they would have to compete and outbid each other by promising higher dividends.

As well some of James' assets already have a capitalization bigger than NXT's total supply of 1 billion coins..  of course this begs the question as to how he can liquidate these assets back into NXT or Bitcoin without sounding the alarm

[devphp]

As well some of James' assets already have a capitalization bigger than NXT's total supply of 1 billion coins..  of course this begs the question as to how he can liquidate these assets back into NXT or Bitcoin without sounding the alarm

He can't. There are not enough buy orders for starters. That's why measuring market caps often makes no sense

[vipgelsi]

bitcoin is best

darkcoin is second choice

What about litecoin?

[TheFascistMind]

It's an overrated factor. Most of the money ends up in the hands of a few no matter what the initial distribution is. You won't find an example in the world contrary to this statement.

Nevertheless, it's a bit scary when someone owns over 10% of all the coins in existence.

The solution of course is perpetual debasement in a dynamic system where the majority of the money is always moving even if 10% is concentrated it doesn't remain with the same person for too long because the dynamic system keeps competition alive even amongst the elite (otherwise they become complacent, smug, or top-down directed), but how to make it popular is the key challenge...

...one would assume the savers would hate debasement, but they buy coins with very high rates of debasment because they expect appreciation...

...the math that computes the future value of a coin based on total coin supply is DEAD WRONG, refer to my prior post upthread about the math error that rpietila has...

Nevertheless, it's a bit scary when someone owns over 10% of all the coins in existence.

Yeah, like Satoshi Nakamoto I mean yeah, it's worrisome, but copying my post from another thread, if you're interested in a coin with a truely fair distribution, that would be Myriadcoin. No other coin features a more fair distribution through mining. But looking at how unpopular Myriadcoin is one cannot help but conclude that nobody is actually interested in fair distribution. Hence, all these thousand threads on fairness are completely pointless.

The key epiphany is how to make fairness popular.

AnonyMint will try to STFU now.

[smooth]

As well some of James' assets already have a capitalization bigger than NXT's total supply of 1 billion coins..  of course this begs the question as to how he can liquidate these assets back into NXT or Bitcoin without sounding the alarm

He can't. There are not enough buy orders for starters. That's why measuring market caps often makes no sense

We talked about this somewhere, maybe Monero Speculation thread? Not sure.

In any case, a few of us developed an idea of liquidity-adjusted market cap. You count only the quantity (of shares, coins, tokens, etc.) that each individual holder could sell at a given price. The rest are not included. To actually calculate this requires transparent ownership records (including knowing which address might be owned by one individual or a group) of course, which isn't the case in practice. But as a concept you can reason about it or even estimate the number.

[pa]

The solution of course is perpetual debasement in a dynamic system where the majority of the money is always moving even if 10% is concentrated it doesn't remain with the same person for too long because the dynamic system keeps competition alive even amongst the elite (otherwise they become complacent, smug, or top-down directed), but how to make it popular is the key challenge...

...one would assume the savers would hate debasement, but they buy coins with very high rates of debasment because they expect appreciation...

...the math that computes the future value of a coin based on total coin supply is DEAD WRONG, refer to my prior post upthread about the math error that rpietila has...

The key epiphany is how to make fairness popular.

AnonyMint will try to STFU now.

This is very interesting, AM. Reflexively, a fixed supply currency seems more "fair." If money is memory (proof of work, in a general sense), I want my contribution to society to be remembered forever, so that I and those close to me can enjoy the fruits thereof. But there is a competition between valuing past work and future work. Perhaps it is better for all if the value of past work is discounted gradually, so as to provide means to incentivize future work, on which civilization, innovation, and economic development depend.

Do you know the Borges character Funes? (pdf available here: http://www4.ncsu.edu/~jjsakon/FunestheMemorious.pdf) Indelible memory would be problematic; it leads to psychological congestion and exhaustion. Perhaps fixed supply currency is problematic for a similar reason--there is a value to forgetting (gradually).

[rpietila]

The dilemma is not whether a wealth tax is "fair". It is. At a level of 2.5% (as the muslims practice) it can fund the poor and make sure that no one's wealth becomes larger than 40x his annual accumulation rate, which is pretty much.

The dilemma is that the old money favors to invest itself in places where there is no inflation or wealth tax. Without old money, the functioning of our new currency is in a questionable, untested basis. Can we create money that is not interesting towards the establishment, yet is interesting for us, so that we ourselves prefer keeping our wealth in our money, instead of the low-inflation alternatives such as real estate, gold, or BTC?

If you are not willing to hold a majority of your savings in this currency, who do you think would?

[rpietila]

And this is coming from one who recently proposed a fixed-block supply model. So much for rpietila being a fixed supply proponent.   


But it has to implemented with a clever PoW/somethingelse combo scheme where only the network security is PoW, and the rest is something completely different, potentially something that makes this coin the unique one.

[TheFascistMind]

The dilemma is not whether a wealth tax is "fair". It is. At a level of 2.5% (as the muslims practice) it can fund the poor and make sure that no one's wealth becomes larger than 40x his annual accumulation rate, which is pretty much.

The dilemma is that the old money favors to invest itself in places where there is no inflation or wealth tax. Without old money, the functioning of our new currency is in a questionable, untested basis. Can we create money that is not interesting towards the establishment, yet is interesting for us, so that we ourselves prefer keeping our wealth in our money, instead of the low-inflation alternatives such as real estate, gold, or BTC?

If you are not willing to hold a majority of your savings in this currency, who do you think would?

Again you conflate taxes with movement in a dynamic system. Reductio ad absurdum.

Taxes are unsustainable because they feed the centralized beast.

The wealthy gladly pay higher taxes in jurisdictions where the profit or gains are higher.

[rpietila]

Their "tax" could not be achieved via inflation, because gold cannot be inflated.

I am not sure if your critique is addressing my actual points (called "strawman").

[hakkzpets2]

Fairness in crypto is measured my equality when true fairness means people get out of something they are willing to risk on.


The fairest distribution was Qora. Simply have an open BTC address and proportional to how much you invest you have that level of risk.

Giving people free stakes on FB is not anymore fair than anything.

I agree,Qora had a very good distribution and I didn't see any user claiming he didn't receive stake without any reason.

[digitalindustry]

I didn't have time to read all the posts, but I did try to quickly skim the thrust of rpietila's first few posts on the first page of the thread.

rpietila, your analysis is only the constants that disappear in the first derivative, i.e. it is how the distribution travels to the savers that matters. That was a key macro economics insight of mine.

You are failing to view it as a dynamic system, which is why you don't support the historical higher rates of perpetual debasement. Nature will win, and your misunderstanding will lose. The only remaining question is who will create that naturally high rate of debasement going into the future, a decentralized crypto-currency or the centrally controlled fiat system.

^

I tried to say what he basically said , but i tried to use a number of different English words, i think i failed.

[digitalindustry]

And this is coming from one who recently proposed a fixed-block supply model. So much for rpietila being a fixed supply proponent.   


But it has to implemented with a clever PoW/somethingelse combo scheme where only the network security is PoW, and the rest is something completely different, potentially something that makes this coin the unique one.

The vector {unique} in the equation is found though a number of different factors combining together, so this statement is at best in error.

becasue its not a single factor that will make this or that entity the {unique} one, its rather that its fundamentals brought about the correct environment so that the market could work to effect the entity and make it the {unique} viable investment hedge.   

and, as i keep saying, a very large aspect of that {confidence} is found by NOT having a monopoly on production, also though you then need to have a viable information market.

all these things are very simple if we don't think like "crypto currency miners"

[username18333]

Fairness in crypto is measured my equality when true fairness means people get out of something they are willing to risk on.


The fairest distribution was Qora. Simply have an open BTC address and proportional to how much you invest you have that level of risk.

Giving people free stakes on FB is not anymore fair than anything.

Your post proves a manifestation of the fundamental attribution error.

Within your post, you assume that one's propensity towards risk taking within the realm of their Bitcoin related finances is wholly (or, at least, primarily) due to what about them is begotten of their own selves. However, you did not demonstrate a sure knowledge of those circumstances and their being so wholly a result of these and not, to substantial degree, of others.