First: Of course, Jango can be part of an economy. For it's own it's not an economy. And the problem is: Think about what would happen if the Neucoins on Jango would leave it to Bittrex. With other words: The supply on Jango shouldn't leave Jango because otherwise it would hurt the price. If I would be a musician there and let's say everybody loves me and all the 200,000 "Users" send me some Neucoins I would crash the market. And I don't say that Jango is a bad idea. It's the same problem I've mention again and again: The supply doesn't fit in any way to reality. The price reflects that and it's still too high.
Second: It's right not to expect that everything will be accomplished at once. But then again: Why start with a supply that would be worth over 50 Mio Dollar and monster-inflation and just 3.3% on the market while 97% sitting in the back, staking, and buying a project that is totally overvalued for years. It's as if you would give them a loan. You say: "Okay, I know it's not worth that much now but maybe in 2 or 3 years, so I hope you will deliver. Please take my money and make decisions I would agree with!". In fact that's what every Investor said who bought into the ICO. And if you take a look on the process since the ICO: Did they deliver? What I see is that they don't even really communicate! They don't do just the basic-work. They took the money and the biggest decisions they've made is to switch to full PoS (who is staking?) and to cut the total supply to increase the value (who wants to sell billions of Coins?).
You are right. If coins leave jango right now, most of them would get sold/traded. There will need to be other things to do with them.
Best guess is the very high rewards on PoS mining for the early stages of the coin is meant to more than pay the early buyers and investors to cover inflation from dumping a lot of coins on the market via jango and solitaire.
The strategy was this in my opinion:
They wanted the price (near) to be stable. They believed/thought/hoped, that there would be increasing demand on the exchanges and they would meet that demand, sell into it but with price-stability in mind. Let's say if the price goes above the ICO they would sell a little and it would go back to ICO-price and so forth. That's not very interesting for Investors but they say: "Keep your coins off from the exchange, stake it, and you make 100% per year."
So, the high reward has three reasons:
1. Kind of compensation that there wouldn't be much profit because of the price.
2. Incentive not to hold it on the exchange, to lower the risk that Investors would bring pressure on the price
3. They, as a "central-bank", could sell if there is demand.
If you think about it as if it would be successful: There is a constant growing user-base, constant demand on exchanges and they just would have to meet that demand at 0.00005 for example. If there is more buy-pressure they sell more. If there isn't much they don't sell. In best case that would be pretty constant money over years. And they wouldn't even have to touch the billions they hold. They just would need the staking-reward.
Let's say 5 Mio Neucoin everyday: At 0.00004 that would be 200 BTC! Every day! And they stake more every day!
And if you think about a project like Ethereum, with it's 30k BTC - Volume per 24 hours: It could be (theoretically) possible.
But: What would that be? A money-machine for the team, right? Of course, they would say: It's all for the project and they give a lot away for free, for promotion and sponsor jango-tipping etc., but they would make a lot of money. I mean, if you calculate it just with 500k per day it's still 20 BTC per day and 600 BTC per month = $250k at the current BTC-price.
And again: They stake millions every day. If I remember it right it was about 7 Mio in the first time after launch.
That's the reason why I call it a greed-project, because it wouldn't make any sense to have such a premine with such a staking-reward if they have no plan to distribute it. And besides the nice talking about paying Devs and for PR with Neucoin and so on, distribution happens on exchanges. With other words: In case of success they already made sure that they would become more than just rich out of it.
And to cover that up, they call the foundations "non-profit-foundations" and so on. But again: They wouldn't have to touch the billions, just the staking reward would be enough. Just their private holdings would be enough.
And what would it need to become successful? A hype. That's it. People have doubts about the premine, their intentions, the project in general? They show their faces and some "big names". They do all to impress the public, to seem professional, legit, big, skilled in what they do and so on. They pay for articles, they focus on the non-educated (in Crypto). They said
"You missed Bitcoin in the early days? Now we are here! We will replicate that and you can be an early adopter!".
That all makes some sense on first sight - if you trust them. And some bought into it not because they believed in it themselves, but they believed it would have potential to hype. So it could have been a good buy - to sell in short term right after the launch because it was obvious that they would make some noise, get some attention.
But facts are facts and they've planned a best-case scenario which is naive and ignores all what we know about collective psychology and dynamics - regarding communication (this thread is one example) and the markets. They were not able to think about the complexity regarding the eco-system in combination with collective dynamics. They were never able to answer the real tough questions, like "why such a high marketcap right from the start? Where is room to grow with that?" Most likely they would have said something like "it's about the future, the premine is just potential to pay the future" and so on, but again: It's as if an Investor would give them a loan if he buys to that prices. And that's not smart.
And: The biggest problem they had was that the price went down right after launch. Because if the price goes down nearly nobody will buy it. Everybody has in mind that they have to distribute, that it could be possible that they would sell into the buy-walls if there are buy-walls. So there are no buywalls.
Just btw: Regarding their claim that there would be 8000 new users every day. I already said that I don't believe that because it's not visible on Bittrex, it's not visible on the official forum, it's not visible on google-trends-search, it's not visible here.
Most revealing are maybe Twitter and Facebook. I mean, it would be easy just to click on follow or "like", right? But since the launch (end of september) it's just a plus of about 200 followers on Twitter. That's not even 2 new follower per day. If you look at Facebook: It should be easy to click on the like-button and with 8000 new users per day, which would be 240k per month I would expect some thousand likes per week. But they have only 1,505 likes since day one on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/neucoinTwo scenarios:
1. The number is simply a lie. There are not 8000 new users per day and most likely not even 100 new users per day.
2. There are new users because there are accounts with NEU-tips, but they don't care. 99,9999% are not interested.
Both would say the same.
