I call BS, if someone market bought & injected 400 BTC into the market EXP would have gone alot higher than a dollar. Take what scambust says with a grain of salt.
Yes, you can't trust everything on the internet. I believe that story just as much as the one where that guy lost 15 million dollars in BTC buying a fake record deal. Anyone with 400 + BTC knows to buy low and be patient. If not, then all I can say is some whales beat some other whales. Believe it or not, we are not whales, but there are plenty of them out there. Various groups even tweeted about it, maybe they had some connection? (I didn't even tweet about it that day, but I did write a pretty good article the day before, that is all)
What we did do when we designed it was to make it intentionally rare, and that was partially to make it better for speculative trading, and yes, for whales. We knew this would help with volume and eliminate the risk of having a flat line crypto. This also helps with price variation by making the count low enough so it can be very tradable at essentially any marketcap value, and never has the problem platforms with billions of tokens may run into.
What I do know, traders that are big players have said they love EXP, so I would expect there will be accumulation and more volatility in the future. Plan accordingly.
A lot of flaws in this.
A decent coin should first focus on it's purpose and speculative issues should not be a consideration.
This coin is just a clone with some bells and whistles right?
What prevents somebody from making a slightly sharper clone with better bells and whistles?
As for the person who claimed to have sunk 400 btc, that story does not ring true, but a lot of people must have bought at the high around 0.003 and those people have not done well obviously.
Remember in 2013 when lots of btc clones were coming out. The only ones that are still around are the ones that were issued with a strong ethical aura, e.g. no premine, some genuine improvement, some real purpose, a theme etc.
This coin has a lot of positives but the fact that devs are primarily focused on speculative potential puts it squarely in the pumpndump.
We designed every element for survival and eventual success. Even little things like the number 8 for the reward, that is a very special number in China. We could have made it 10, but why not use every design element in the best way possible? The coin is rare, but there are still enough. I think it is a good balance, and eventually, many years from now, there will be 13 million+ tokens out. What we didn't want was any risk of getting to a low sat price and then have people stuck and unable to trade. For example, a coin with many billions of tokens could be worth 2 sats, that is a huge problem because then there is a vast price difference in the buys and sells. We avoided that problem by designing it this way -- The pro and con that goes along with that, it does make it potentially more volatile early on.
That said. Bitcoin would not have gotten popular at a couple cents and no volatility. Nobody would have been talking about it. We all know it was lots of people hoping to get rich that made Bitcoin get press. That is also what gives Bitcoin the chance for real adoption and real world use. (Initial speculation) Speculation is mostly what is going on in cryptos right now, adoption is the end game. Adoption and real world use is a long term situation and something that realistically can take many years. So survival in the speculative world is very important early on. Please check into Expanse more though, rarity is just one small element and the very least of what we are doing. That was an element decided day one as it was so obviously the best design, and we have moved on from there spending many months working on Expanse.