Cryptocurrency with the best distribution?

[TaunSew]

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 cannot know for certain that these circumstances are so wholly a result of them, or are begotten, to substantial degree, of others.

A starving man with almost no money takes more risk than a billionaire throwing pocket change at every IPO.

[BlackMarket]

Reserve Share 

[world-dollar]

10,000 World dollars (WLD) are being given out to everyone in the world, equally. http://www.world-dollar.com

Fair distribution indeed.

Everyone is uniquely identified via facial verification (short video). Coin Autonomy (www.coinautonomy.com) is the first issuer of World dollars.

10,000 WLD is currently being traded on Ripple trade (http://www.rippletrade.com) for around 0.025 BTC, so around 10 USD.

[OrientA]

10,000 World dollars (WLD) are being given out to everyone in the world, equally. http://www.world-dollar.com

Fair distribution indeed.

Everyone is uniquely identified via facial verification (short video). Coin Autonomy (www.coinautonomy.com) is the first issuer of World dollars.

10,000 WLD is currently being traded on Ripple trade (http://www.rippletrade.com) for around 0.025 BTC, so around 10 USD.

GE coins are the official state money of this Great Empire of Earth. Private monies, lacking imperial backing, would seem less viable alternatives to them.

These coins are made available to the public via a digital request form issued by the Imperial Reserve. (See https://gee.gov.ge/reserve/form/.)

Do I live in the Great Empire of Earth?

[bmw2028]

ONE IS TIME AND ANOTHER IS PREMINE AND THE LAST ONE IS TOTAL COINS.

[BlackMarket]

check here guys
new darknet, free distribution  don't miss it 
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=789961.0

[rpietila]

Back to the core of money creation

In the current fiat system, when new credits ("money" eg. USD) are created, someone takes an obligation to pay it back with interest. Since very little money is actually created "out of thin air", there looms a constant threat that the debt defaults cascade and not enough money is found to pay them all (there is not enough in existence). This would theoretically allow the bankers to seize all property of everyone, because typically people are citizens of countries, whose governments have taken debt from the bankers. As long as this grand theft does not happen, the bankers and their cronies are busy consolidating the natural resources of the planet, such as gold (already about 80% in bankster vault), land and water and mineral deposits, in their control.

What they have managed to accomplish, shows that there is a great network effect in money, which can be 100% pocketed to the perpetrators of the system. In coin terms, that is like an infinite premine to the devs, and people can only get the transaction medium by promising to pay it back with interest. All the benefits of the system, transaction fees, interest payments, etc. go to the devs. In aggregate, the rest of the users are just running deeper and deeper into unpayable obligations, allowing the devs to force a dysfunctional inhuman lifestyle (called the "western world") on them, plus the devs having the killswitch as well.

"Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take away from them the power to create money and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money." -Josiah Stamp, Bank of England.

Seeking for alternatives

(Once again I assume that the network security will be maintained by a mechanism, the best of which so far is POW, so that the rest of the chapter is talking about the initial creation of the monetary stock only)


We have already outlined the alternatives, of which one is POW. This is similar to gold mining in the sense that new units of money can be created by (theoretically) anyone, but the marginal cost of production of money is so high that the benefits for doing it should optimally be only comparable to the benefits of engaging in any other industry.

The initial distribution with POW has the issue of fixed supply. This is not economically without problems. With gold, if the purchasing power of gold rose, it encouraged more mining and more supply. With all current coin designs (save possible emunie), rising price does invite more mining, but the emission is not affected. With Bitcoin, this may have contributed to the self-fulfilling belief that the fixed supply is a resource to be hoarded, and sold to the later comers at a higher price. With altcoins, which do not have the luxury to call themselves "the one and only true coin", this thinking is likely a false premise. Just because a coin has a limited number of units, does not mean it is valuable based on that alone. It is always possible to make a new coin and once key people migrate to that, the previous alt is bound to die a slow death.

Coins with a very fast and fixed distribution (POS) just aggravate these problems, so I am not going into them.

Monero serves as an example of a coin that holds great promise, is 100% POW, no premine/instamine or that, and currently its price is below the average of its emission-weighted history (and also volume-weighted history, which is an easier qualification). It has of course the same challenges that every coin has, in building a community. But a special challenge comes from the ultimate "fairness" that Monero, partly because of the idealism of the current core team, partly because of its history, has: there is not enough funds to develop the coin at a speed that is required to keep up. The debt currency developers (bankers) have all the money in the world, same to a smaller degree applies to POS and premine coin devs, but Monero devs do not have it.

The economic history of Monero is that a great resource has been expended to mining it. Some of it has been miner profits, but most has been consumed as mining costs. The current price is below that of purchasing the coins for the aggregate of investors, so the investors have been not only paying for the mining costs but also subsidized the mining profits from their own pocket. On top of that, the developers, who also own stakes, have subsidized the coin creation + subsidized the development. It has been a wonderful experiment, but we have to face the facts that at present we are deeply on the red.

I am not proposing anything to Monero (this is important to say since I serve as Operational Executive in the MEW, so my words might be interpreted to apply to that), just thinking how the initial distribution system could be make better so that it retains all the fairness, but the added value from the emission, or a part of it, could be captured to serve the adoption of the coin so that in the end the network effect would make everyone better off, not only the first, middle and latter adopters, but the society at large. Optimally, the universal adoption of the currency would be such a great boon to the liberty and well-being of everyone that even the ones who "lose" as a result of their previous wealth's purchasing power reduction, are mostly happy with the result.

Challenge

In a regime of slow initial emission of a currency, propose ways that capture the part of the value of the coins emitted (which currently goes to excess mining cost), in such a way that the value is automatically and trustlessly (or, as close to that as possible) spent/distributed in way that increase the adoption of the currency.

[identtitentti]

Ideally best distribution of cryptocurrency would be even spread among all human beings, with automated sensible flattening procedures over time. Note that such automatically flattening crypto would be just measure of value, platform and exchange medium for "producer credits", or "assets", as we call them, and the latter forms of cryptocurrencies would represent most of the genuine purchasing power. Individuals and communities could and would create assets according to what they produce (no production, no purchasing power) and exchange those assets to other assenge on the global exchange platform. Best distribution: de jure AND de facto equal possibility to freely create and exchange cryptocurrency assets. Market anarchy, money creation anarchy, anarchy with strong social consciousness and global empathy.

[nakaone]

Challenge

In a regime of slow initial emission of a currency, propose ways that capture the part of the value of the coins emitted (which currently goes to excess mining cost), in such a way that the value is automatically and trustlessly (or, as close to that as possible) spent/distributed in way that increase the adoption of the currency.

- de-anonymize coin production on a global scale and give every human being the possibility to produce his own money under one currency (produce coins with your birth-certificate or your finger print)
- give every person the same rate of emission
- the market will allocate the coins/value efficiently
- if I understood the practical solution of the byzantine generals problem in bitcoin properly, this mechanism will lead to the same result

[NewLiberty]

"Give me control of a nation's money, and I care not who makes its laws."

We work to reverse this.
Hence the contrapositive:

"So that we may be careful in making laws, decentralize control of the world's money, to all its people."

[identtitentti]

"So that we may be careful in making laws, decentralize control of the world's money, to all its people."

Small but important reformulation:

"So that we may be careful in making and using smart contracts, decentralize control of the world's purchasing power, to all its people."

[identtitentti]

give every human being the possibility to produce his own money under one currency (produce coins with your birth-certificate or your finger print)

Reliable PoI is for sure the desperately and still missing killer app, but the real deal is to give every producer - individual or collective - the possiblity to create money/assets/token/credit (the word does not matter, what matters is purchasing power) representing their production. No products, no purchasing power, and to be free people need to be free to exchange their products freely. Individual producer credits can be as simple as promises of working hours that they exchange into food etc.

[RAJSALLIN]

Following

[HeroCat]

The best distribution is for BTC
For other crypto currencies - they are so many - I think many are "home made" in fact.

[sumantso]

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.

Not surprising it comes from a NXT backer. They are a touchy lot and first to arrive whenever someone mentions 'distribution'.

[rpietila]

Challenge

In a regime of slow initial emission of a currency, propose ways that capture the part of the value of the coins emitted (which currently goes to excess mining cost), in such a way that the value is automatically and trustlessly (or, as close to that as possible) spent/distributed in way that increase the adoption of the currency.

That challenge is met by the empire, which distributes its coins gratis upon request.

Those coins can never gain value. (I already said this, just to hear arguments against it, which of course were not received as there are none.)

We already know from my previous posts, the 4 classes:
- First class (developers, earliest adopters, big investors)
- Business class (largish investors, businessmen, service providers)
- Middle class (smaller investors, ordinary users)
- Low class (owners of only a small number of coins).

If coins are forcibly distributed to everybody, they come to low class in such an abundance (low class consists of 80% of people) that they have no use for them and either:
- sell them as soon as there is a meaningful value to be extracted (cf. Auroracoin), or
- keep them, making a huge overhang of value belonging to people who do not contribute to the economy.

In these conditions, the Business class (of 3% of the people) does not have the means nor feels the need to develop services for these people, just to get the worthless tokens in exchange. There are so much better coin economies available that every productive person chooses them instead.

Monero economy is valued at $5 million now. By distributing coins to everyone equally, it would be $0.001, needless to say such an effort is futile.

I exhort everybody to read the question again and let the proposals flow. 

[digitalindustry]

Challenge

In a regime of slow initial emission of a currency, propose ways that capture the part of the value of the coins emitted (which currently goes to excess mining cost), in such a way that the value is automatically and trustlessly (or, as close to that as possible) spent/distributed in way that increase the adoption of the currency.

That challenge is met by the empire, which distributes its coins gratis upon request.

Those coins can never gain value. (I already said this, just to hear arguments against it, which of course were not received as there are none.)

We already know from my previous posts, the 4 classes:
- First class (developers, earliest adopters, big investors)
- Business class (largish investors, businessmen, service providers)
- Middle class (smaller investors, ordinary users)
- Low class (owners of only a small number of coins).

If coins are forcibly distributed to everybody, they come to low class in such an abundance (low class consists of 80% of people) that they have no use for them and either:
- sell them as soon as there is a meaningful value to be extracted (cf. Auroracoin), or
- keep them, making a huge overhang of value belonging to people who do not contribute to the economy.

In these conditions, the Business class (of 3% of the people) does not have the means nor feels the need to develop services for these people, just to get the worthless tokens in exchange. There are so much better coin economies available that every productive person chooses them instead.

Monero economy is valued at $5 million now. By distributing coins to everyone equally, it would be $0.001, needless to say such an effort is futile.

I exhort everybody to read the question again and let the proposals flow. 

very antiquated thinking - , trust me i'm about as far from "socialist" as you can get in some aspects, its just faulty thinking, here is why:

Quark has already achieved more than Monero so it is the evidence,  Monero is held by what ? 20 people? maybe?  maybe 40 ?

your "business class" system is completely flawed, micro businesses are a business never the less, and they don't (or won't) constitute 8% but more like 80%.

you have quasi admitted that at best Monero will be a "payment container" by admitting no one will buy it off you at your "fake" "business class" price.

and why would they ?  there is no chivalry in "Business class" that says you can have a better deal than me, that is ultimate faulty thinking.

The point to remember :

the Fiat debt money system worked (past tense) the best out of all the other systems (communism, "socialism" etc) because it leveraged the free market from a centralized point -, if people want to learn that means that; the Federal reserve was the ultimate "lender" but then let any commercial FI engage in Credit Creation and compete.

this can not be done with Crypto becasue the Central authority self destructs, also i can't get into the other complexities here - the point is , you can apply old faulty thinking to a new system.

When Quark surpasses Monero on Cap with broader distribution will you claim that there are just more "business class" in Quark? 

[smooth]

Quark has already achieved more than Monero so it is the evidence,  Monero is held by what ? 20 people? maybe?  maybe 40 ?

Your number on people holding Monero is extremely far off. I know at least 40 and I'm quite sure that I know only a tiny percentage.

[TrueCryptonaire]

Quark has already achieved more than Monero so it is the evidence,  Monero is held by what ? 20 people? maybe?  maybe 40 ?

Your number on people holding Monero is extremely far off. I know at least 40 and I'm quite sure that I know only a tiny percentage.

Yup.
Monero community consists currently closer to 10 000 members rather than a few dozens.
There are tons of members who are outside bitcointalk. 

[rpietila]

Quark has already achieved more than Monero so it is the evidence,  Monero is held by what ? 20 people? maybe?  maybe 40 ?

Your number on people holding Monero is extremely far off. I know at least 40 and I'm quite sure that I know only a tiny percentage.

Bitcoin has about 1 million and the marketcap per user is $5,000. Now if we think Monero has the same marketcap per user (which is very far-fetched), it should have 1,000 users.

Monero downloads typically measure in 10,000s per week. Poloniex alone has 5,000 distinct speculator accounts. MEW has 60 members a week after inception while membership costs 10 XMR at least and is only really possible for BCT accounts.

By getting back to marketcap per user metric, 5,000-10,000 users ($500-$1,000 per person) is reasonable. If all exchanges are considered, the number might be 10,000-15,000. Probably not more though.

I don't know of anything that Quark has accomplished, so it's not a comparison. Auroracoin had a much bigger pump, but is equally dead now.