Topic: [ANN] NeuCoin - Easy to use, free to try, focused on micropayments - Official - page 51. (Read 196243 times)

Yep. It's a ponzi. They are trying to maintain price at 1no ~ $0.01. As long as they can. Until they made their money. Until they give up. Until the house of cards breaks down. Some screenshots of the recent "price nursing pump" (orderbook Cryptsy): http://i.imgur.com/9F2JKwO.png

Blind people fall for it:



Traders make a few arbitrage Satoshi ("price nursing pump" initiated on Cryptsy, Bittrex price followed)

Bought on Bittrex:



(1 no Transaction fee Bittrex --> Cryptsy)

Sold on Cryptsy:

source http://www.neucoin.org/en/wiki/
link: http://www.acne.se/

strange that this was left in the shadow.. are they producing games now ?
dont know what to think of it

http://i.imgur.com/qruTFnU.png
looks like they are trying to maintain price low to allow microtransaction (75no = $0.7) is that part of the hidden agenda staking every nokoin for a while

1) But if you think it that way, the price has to drop very low. Because what they've sold in the ICO was something like "potential-value". They've said: There are 3 billions and each NEU should be worth 1 Dollarcent. That's a marketcap of $30 Mio.

And yes, there are only 100 Mio of supply on the market right now, but in fact there are > 3 billions ready to transact. The supply is already there and growing every day because of staking. And nobody knows if they are security-experts to protect it. Nobody knows if they won't say any day, true or untrue: "Sorry we got hacked" - after a dump to 1 sat. They assert that they've sold 100 Mio Neu for $1 Mio. That's a lot.  

2) They want to make money with it. They've invested already money in it. They have or had a strategy to get rich out of it. In my eyes it's a stupid strategy but it's fore sure not a non-profit-strategy. ;-) And you can be sure: If they don't see any potential for profit they'll let it die.

3) It wouldn't be that hard to make a fun-currency for a company. I mean: This is already highly centralized. It's not a decentralized Crypto-Currency. And if for example Facebook wants something like that, they are able to develop and implement it in 1 month. But they won't agree to be the money-maker for the Neucoin-Scheme. And Game-Devs... maybe small ones could accept some BTC for implementing Neu. But they won't accept Neu for implementing it if they can't sell it without crashing the price or if it's already without any relevant value.

4) If this should go widely used it would bring much attention on the people behind, how they've managed the ICO and the launch, how professional they are and how transparent etc. Also this: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12338641
...isn't good PR if you want that people download software and paying at least a little money for something they produce out of nothing. They can't handle this thread. How should they be able to handle the mainstream-press?


5) It seems they are not very skilled regarding the tech. I mean... why should they be successful with 1 1/2 year of developing and then show up with something that doesn't bring any innovation? I can't see more in this than in several 500-Dollar-marketcap-Coins. The differences are the huge premine and that the money-backing. I mean, under the line that's what they use as argument. Without that, what would be there? Just a very little project with a focus on tipping and gaming. If you do some research you'll find several projects with a focus on that.

What they promise is, that there will be value out of itself, out of growing because they could "buy growth". But that's not enough. And I don't believe that they can buy growth, because real professionals most likely won't agree with the project.

************

If I would have believed what they've said months ago... and if I would have bought into the ICO, I would be really angry. Because even if I would have trusted them because of their plans and transparency-promises and thought they would be highly skilled in coding the ideas... I don't see anything like that. What I see is a manipulated ICO, a manipulated market on the exchanges, a non-existing-Blockexplorer, zero distribution, zero transparency and near to zero communication or explanations. And because I know that all of that is very important, I would see it as a risk for my Investment. The reason is very simple: I believe that it's impossible with a launch like this, to turn it into something that could go mainstream. I would want see professionality and with such a premine: Transparency. They should be transparent about every single transaction, for what it is used for and so on. But they don't publish a Block-Explorer... that's a (bad) joke. ;-)
 

Strategy regarding price? Here:

I really can only speculate about the question what exactly they believed or what strategy is behind.

Regarding the price: It's not that they don't want it to rise. It's more that they don't need that. If we think it this way: 1 NEU = 1 Dollarcent, the Crypto-User (like we are here) would like to see it rise... if it would go to 2 cent it would be 100% in profit about the price.

But: What the Neu-Group would see: More demand and they would meet that demand. They would sell, so the price wouldn't rise much. I believe that's also the reason they've chosen the 100%-interest-rate. The Investor shouldn't think about profit in price, but profit in interest rate. With other words: The price could stay the same, because if there is growing demand the Neu-Group will sell into it, but if you stake you make about 100% profit in supply in 1 year or more because of compound interest.

And you should trust them and the "non-profit-foundations" in that way: "Nice, they have a growing supply, that's a lot of potential to grow to mass-adoption", because they say that they'll distribute it for the best of the project... buying into games, tipping over Facebook or whatever.

In fact there would be two markets (that's what they most probably want)... not completely separated because that's impossible, but nearly. We are in the Crypto-Scene, watching charts and trade for profit, monitoring a blockexplorer and so on. But they don't focus on this market. They want to sell it besides the market to a public that would use it, but without understanding it. For the non-crypto-public the price wouldn't be very important. The ususal user would hold 300 NEU for 3 Dollar or something like that and if the price would go down, he wouldn't recognize that or don't care about it. He just would tip with it etc.

But they would meet every demand in every way... on the exchanges and through easy-to-use payment methods besides the Crypto-World. That would be a constand pressure on the price. And the initial-seed and angel-investors would dump 2% every month and at the same time they also would have an increasing Neu-supply, because of the high staking rate.

Under the line it would be (in best-case, if successful) a money-machine out of nearly-nothing for a few people. The Crypto-User is needed to bang the drum for it, to stake it and protect the network, without thinking too much about concerning scenarios and that it's in fact a ponzi because they wouldn't run out of supply for many-many-many years... If successful it would be like selling sand in the desert. And they would have a lot of control about it all, including the price. They're already doing that. Above 1 cent they'll sell more... if it goes down they withdraw some supply of the market. So it won't have much volatility.

If you (we all) are not concerned about what they stake, and the increasing supply they have out of nothing... they would have time to sell/distribute it. If there is more demand they sell more, if less demand they hold it and their NEU-supply grows. We should just think: Nice, that's potential. But for them it's money if there is increasing demand... because they'll sell. Forget the "non-profit". Yes, they'll distribute some millions with tipping and they would pay Game-Devs with it if somebody agrees to get paid in NEU. But as long as the Crypto-Community would have complete trust, they wouldn't have any time-pressure.

But there are too much issues. Investors won't ever trust that way. And nobody wants to feel just used to make little profit and they would sell sand in the desert if successful. It's a ponzi... and even if there would be some success and the press would pay some attention.. it would be outet as what it is. There can't be mass-adoption. Everybody can imagine the headlines about the "CEO" behind it and the design. It's arrogant and naive to believe that nobody ever would analyze it very deeply. And they made huge mistakes... they would have to be completely transparent, as promised. But they're showing very clear that there is too much to hide.

And... let's say they'll go on with it and the price will be stable because they keep it stable, and let's also say they get some non-crypto-user in and nobody cares too much about the critics. The internet doesn't forget. If there should be more attention in the future, more people will read about how they bought the own ICO, looking into the blockchain, reading this thread, thinking about the design, about the lack of distribution, the lack of transparency, broken promises... they can't ever hide that. So they shouldn't ignore that, but that's what they're doing.

Also speculative: I belive that some who were involved know too much what's concerning and maybe anticipated that this is a project to lose credibility. If a highly skilled Dev has some optimism about Crypto in general, seeing a great future in Crypto, he won't take the risk to lose his credibility in a project that has so many weak points. I can't know the reasons but if I were a Dev I wouldn't agree with something like this. I would fear that it would fail right in the beginning and I would also fear going mainstream, because I don't believe that it's legit in a legal way. There is too much manipulation. And obviously they don't have that highly skilled Devs. I mean, there is a lot of complaining about technical issues.

What everyone was or is expecting... also very speculative. There is not much defense. If everybody who is involved would feel all right with this, they would communicate it and defend it more. There are a lot of big Investors who gave their names and... they could show up and communicate what they see in it and what the normal investor should see in it. It wouldn't need discussions here... they could write blog-articles or whatever. But I don't see anything like that. So, I believe that they don't feel very good with this. But I can't be sure about that. Maybe they're still believing in a great future and that FB-User will tip each other and World-of-Warcraft or something like that will implement it... I don't know. I don't understand why they gave their names and money... if they really gave money. Never saw more than the 4000 BTC.

It's not easy to compare it with other projects, because so far it's hard to say which projects will be successful... they're all in the beginning, even BTC is. I believe that Crypto in general has a lot of potential but it's unpredictable if the "Google" of Crypto is already there... or the "Facebook" of Crypto. But it won't be a ponzi-scheme and it won't be a central-bank-system like Neucoin. I believe, Dash has some chances. It has a public and skilled team, ongoing development proven over years, and it has a better distribution (there is some instamine). It has constant volume so far... it's pretty stable I would say and with a good potential. But that's what I believe, it's really unpredictable because there is so much innovation that something like ETH or a network like Supernet could make the "older-fashioned" projects irrelevant.

Paycoin: I didn't follow close enough to give a good overview. But there were tons of lies to bring people into it and the team behind it dumped it into oblivion. I never understood what was the strategy because it was... kind of irrational out of everybody's perspective.... a lose-lose-situation. Many lost much and those who made money out of it don't sleep very well and the "irrational-mastermind" is still on the flight as far as I know. There are SEC-Investigations and... you can read the complete story here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=857670.0;topicseen

But that are a lot of sites to read. I hope for a book or a movie. ;-)

I think that exactly this - properly executed - would be huge. just huge. a widely spread "fun" currency for "super likes" and games etc with millions of new users adopting it - it would be enormous. and not like dogecoin, which was still by and large a cryptocurrency-community phenomenon, but in truly large numbers of normal users who know nothing about bitcoin or any of this. literally 10 million users and useful and viral. that would be such an enormous change from any cryptocurrency so far. in fact, if they could achieve that type of distribution that alone would make neucoin very valuable.

there was this interview with wences cesares a while back when he talked about bitcoin adoption and how it's all about critical mass, how email with 6 million users was just a curiosity, etc. and he mentioned these small, viral, "fun", casual, flowing types of behaviours as what would really could bring the masses in. not beating the credit cards for online shopping. not beating the banks for wire transfers. not anynomity. but this fingertip type flow of tiny little bits anfd things to do, eventually reaching critical mass.

I believe that's how cryptocurrency will become popular. and i believe neucoin could maybe do that, or at least that that's what they are seeing and trying to do. it's certainly what i see in it.

a few excerpts from the wences interview below:

"There are 6 million people in the world who have used bitcoin, and only 300,000 of them have ever actually used it to pay for something. So most people are using it as a store of value. I believe that this is the perfect native internet currency. It has all the attributes to flow across the web and mobile just as bits flow, as information moves. And that can change the world, but not with only 6 million people. Maybe with six hundred million."

"What’s happening right now with bitcoin is very much like what was happening with the internet in 1992. Before the browser, someone looks at TCP/IP and says, oh my God, this thing moves information from anywhere to anywhere real time and for free! It’s going to change information forever, so I’m going to launch Netflix. Well, hold on. Yes, but not now. Not for 20 years. First we need much better computers, more broadband, lots of things have to happen. Same thing with bitcoin. Yes, it will change everything, but not now, not yet. Email with 6 million people wasn’t email, it was a curiosity."

"Trying to push payments now, trying to replace credit cards, I think would be a mistake. Like trying to push video in 1992. Dogecoin taught us a lot. The kind of things they were doing, five cents here, five centers there, are where bitcoin can thrive. No fighting to replace credit cards right now. Enable the flow of tips and small transactions around the internet, that is the more natural entry point. We play tic tac toe online: I put down 50 bits, you put 50 bits. I win and buy a song. You leave me a little tip on an article because you like my comment. It’s whatever, but it flows."

full interview:
http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/29/6082195/the-fort-knox-of-bitcoin-xapo-wences-casares

so, regardless of all these calculations it just comes down to whether they convert millions of new users or not.

Ah very interesting... it makes sense they don't want the price to be too high since it's a tipping currency, but then that leads to the question of why they priced the presale so high. You would think that they would try and do more to get hype or excitement on the forums, maybe had a simple web game that accepts neucoin or something at least that released at the same time the coin did. Where did they expect the price to go if they didn't really do anything at launch? How is that fair to the presale buyers that bought at that price if they couldn't even get enough buyers to sustain that price? I was reading back at the post: http://forum.neucoin.org/t/the-neucoin-pre-sale-price-is-going-to-be-01-what-do-you-think-of-that-valuation/148 and a lot of the community were saying how they were thinking the launch would be different than other cryptocurrencies, that this coin would have a bunch of uses at launch, thus getting more users etc.

I'm really curious what happened to Darteous now because until I left, he was still very convinced NeuCoin would live up to his expectations. But I don't know, maybe this is what everyone was expecting?? This is the first coin launch that I have been apart of so maybe my expectations were too high? Maybe a coin launches just for the sake of launching, then major features they promised would be released months/years later? Can someone help explain to me? Maybe compare a successful coin launch vs Neucoin's launch vs what happened with Paycoin? And can someone do a tdlr of what exactly happened with Paycoin? All I know is that they promised to keep the price at $20 but that didn't happen.

Edit: These questions are for everyone, please I want to hear objectively from both sides

it was so badly designed that you have to wonder if the whole thing was just a joke.

That's not possible, because of the network. Staking keeps the Blockchain rolling. So they have to stake.

But if we would say, there would be only 0.1% interest rate (just for a calculation-example) and we say they start the project like they did:

3 billion in total
100 mio for the market

2.4 billion "growth-foundations" to distribute the supply.

And let's say the ICO was sold and really in public hands, they could distribute 2.4 mio over time and various ways - like they say. If the public would trust them, without fear of "team-dumping" or that somebody would hack them or whatever, they could distribute it, if they see demand and could hold if not - they could distribute without time-pressure. They could tip little amounts wherever it's possible, pay those who would like to implement it and a Game-Dev would see more value in it, the chance would be higher that he would accept NEU for his work and so on.

They also could control the price, because it would rise with a growing demand = user-growth and they could sell more. They would act like a central bank and over time the growth-foundations would distribute the billions and it would become a decentralized currency.

If it would be really successful the price would explode because there wouldn't be much inflation and I believe that they don't want that. It's a tipping-currency and they don't want too much volatility.

Interest-Rate is also needed to motivate the user to stake, and that's like Proof-of-Work for Bitcoin. So there has to be some more interest-rate.

They could have chosen a lower interest-rate... like 20% and decreasing or just 6%. But it's also the huge premine that makes it complex. That's an issue in itself I believe. Because if they want to give the people some intention to keep their coins and stake, for the best of the network, they have to chose an interest-rate that makes some sense for the usual investor. But with that huge premine --> they will stake always more. That's really a problem at every interest-rate.


Maybe a solution could have been, if technical possible (I'm not an expert): Different wallets with different interest-rates. That the growth-foundations would stake, would keep the blockchain rolling and protect it, but with only 3% interest rate (just a number), but all public users would stake at 100% but decreasing. They would sell 100 Mio and it would become to >200 Mio after one year just out itself ("public-staking") and they could use their billions to invest in games and distribute it with tipping and so on and they could sell, if there should be much user growth.

It would need some time to figure out the best solution for various scenarios, but the current design is suicidal.

They still have 30 coins for every coin on the free market.  The electric company does not accept Neucoins unless DanK owns that too.  The only companies that accept Neucoins belong to...Dank.  It was pretty easy making agreements with himself to accept Neucoins every morning while he was shaving.  They will have bills to pay in fiat and must sell.

Only DanK-owned companies currently accept Neucoin.

When he goes to negotiate with other companies, they will do "Due Diligence", see these threads, follow through the allegations of tax fraud etc to the reality that it is all true, the lack of transparency, the blue sky violations and the tax fraud...and pass.

Thanks to all of the good work here exposing Dan's illegal activities, past and presently, there will never be another company that freely accepts Neucoins.  Maybe a few little companies who accept Danks bribes, but don't hold your breath for Facebook.

So, if the foundations never stake, there are still 30 coins hanging over the market in the market even now.  It is going to one satochi when the buy support peters out.

James will hang on to the Bitter end, Dart will never be seen again.  Baby Mod will grow out of it, a bit poorer.

@tempus what do you think would happen if they just didn't stake those billions? Just said, ok the foundations just won't stake at all. I'm curious what the calculations for inflation and distribution would be then.

Every project is in development. But you can't compare it to Ethereum. I have no idea how it will turn out with ETH but it's a fact that it's a very innovative project, a complete new Cryptocurrency, not just a fork of another one. And I'm not a coder but I'm really sure that there are many Devs out there who would develop in weeks what the Neucoin-Team did in 12 or even 18 months. Maybe you know what they have done to need so much time, but I can't see that.

But I agree, that it would only have potential about huge user-growth. And I see one scenario how Neucoin could have some use. But just as something like a fun-currency, without any focus on value. More like a "thump-up-button" with tips or as virtual-virtual-currency in an online-game or something like that. On a real and free market it's kind of irrelevant, because it's own economic-design is suffocating.








Let's think about that... there are ways to distribute it, that's for sure. But you have to expect that all those Coins they distribute (however they would do that) will reach some day the exchanges. Let's say they tip it over Facebook... it would be only a question of time somebody makes a business-model out of it to collect some of it and dump it. If they would distribute only 50 Mio and somebody would find a way to collect just 5 Mio and dump it, the price would crash. 5 Mio at the current price = 175 BTC.

And what they can't: Distribute as much as they stake. That won't happen. The supply they're holding will grow with compound interest and every serious Investor will fear that. I don't see any reason to trust them. I don't see any reason to trust in their professionality. There were several hacks in Crypto and there were several scams with the strategy to claim being hacked (Sorry, we got hacked. Bye)

But even if nothing like that would happen the next 12 or 24 months... if they distribute it, the supply on the market will stake also with compound interest which means, that the Neu-team stakes their billions but can't bring them on the market, because the supply on the market will increase already with >100% per year... my calculation is about 175%. The 100 Mio on the market right now (and they're holding most of that as well) stake... and in about 8 months there will be 200 Mio just out of that and 6 billion the team will hold and stake it to 8 billion in 12 months.

I'm not sure if everybody understands the problem... and my english is not good enough to explain it more properly. The problem is:

The more they would be successful in distributing the supply, the more will stake with compound interest on the free market --> exponential. That would be more than enough for any theoretical demand. But at the same time they're staking their billions as well... what will they do with that? What would happen is: The market would inflate itself and that would be enough to bring the price down. But they have to inflate it, too. Because:

1) they want to sell it, they want to make money with it.
2) If they would stop with that the distribution would get worse and that will be recognized.
3) The more user-growth there would be, the more the public would recognize all the issues

It's a trap for all. And it's paradox but true: It's also a trap for them... because they won't be able to handle that. Even in best-case and without thinking about lack of trust, lack of professionality, possible fraud or hacks. There is no scenario to handle the inflation.





That's wrong. With that design they've chosen they will be dominant forever. It's a very simple calculation: Let's say there will be a time with 3 billion on the free market. Just for a calculation - in one year:

There will be about 8 billion in total (staked out of the existing 3 billion with compound interest).

3 billion on the free market
5 billion the team and their investors will hold

Year 2 and the next 12 month:

3 billion will stake with compound interest and more than double
5 billion will stake with compound interest and more than double

So... if they won't bring their billions to the market any time soon, they'll always hold more and at the same time the market won't run out of supply because of the inflation out of itself and it will be a constant pressure on the price. The interest rate will bring always and ever and in every scenario the value down.


If they would've chosen a much lower price but with a supply of 1 billion... so there would be more distribution, it would also stake with compound interest on the free market, the other 2 billion would stake with compound interest in their wallets... so they couldn't distribute anything more.

If anybody can show me a possible scenario in which this project will survive and hold some value, I'm very eager to hear/read it.


And, just for example: If there would be a normal interest-rate, let's say with 6%, there also would be some problems, but there would be at least some possibility to distribute it. And even if there wouldn't be any interest rate they wouldn't run out of supply any time soon. The price goes down with just 100 Mio (without self-buying it would be already much lower). But there wouldn't be so much time-pressure... and they are under time-pressure.





With a constantly dropping price it will be hard to get new users in. If they lift the price up... they'll stake everyday millions they are unable to distribute, so either way... it's a trap for all. They are losing, Investors are losing... there is just one way to make profit: Speculation on the possibility for a short-time-pump because they're holding >99% and are able to pump it. But I doubt that it will happen, because they would have costs in BTC and it would involve some risk for them because experienced Investors will recognize market-manipulation and the (non-existing) distribution and step back.

Really, I thought about that the last days. I like it to analyze things and I don't have the intention to "write it down" just because I'm a bad-boy who would like it to see it fall. In fact I'm waiting for something that could be big, with high intentions and a lot of potential. But this is kind of irrational.

And in my eyes they should explain it... they're still leading people into this, paying for advertising and so on. In my eyes it's dishonest but maybe I'm wrong and they have a strategy for the interest-rate-issue (and some other issues). But they should explain it to the public, including calculations of possible scenarios.

 

Then why didn't they use all their Angel money to buy out a goodly chunk of Dogecoin (50 satochis, 100 Billion plus already widely distributed with thousands of merchants accepting it?)

There is a reason diamonds are expensive and dust is cheap.  There is a lot of Neucoins existing and ripe to hit the markets within the month.  As plentiful as dust particles.

You evangelicals just can't seem to grasp two things:

1.  Dogecoin already did this, and it is worth 50 satochis with 5% annual inflation and

2.  Dilution.  Your investment is fucking doomed.  Why would a coin with a German name and a squirrel over take a cute dog and jokes?  100 Billion tokens at a penny is a Billion Dollars.  You really believe spyware-pig both had your best interests at heart, and a Billion Dollar idea with a German Name?

Dumb.  Dumb, diluded dummies.  And not too many of you:

There is 76 people in /r/Neucoin on Reddit.  There are like 12 people here who regularly post.

Neucoin.org is a ghost-town and nobody asks hard questions ever.

You are pretty much alone on a planet with 7 Billion people who give no shits about 100 Billion Nazi-name coins.

Look at the distribution.  How much do you think Dank actually gives a shit about the small sliver of total market value that the 100 million NoKoin ICO actually represents?  You have currently 1/30th of his attention.

And the amount of shits Dank gives about pre-sale buyers is reduced at a rate of 100% a year.

Inflation, Camaro Bitch.  Dilution.  Stupid name.  Scammy Founder.  Offshore tax avoidance tomfoolery.  Get it yet?

Your money is gone unless you dump now, idiot.

I agree neucoin is still in development. just like ethereum, it's not just about what is there the first week after launch, or how it's trading short term - it's about what you think it may become. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the only thing that matters is whether or not neucoin can deliver on getting millions of game-playing, viral, social regular consumers to adapt this thing.

it's all about what will or will not happen over the next year when neucoin starts rolling out on games, facebook, etc. that's what the strategic plan is all about. will they convert a lot of users? will it get viral? will it engage more and more service providers?

basically - can the foundations distribute the premine in a way that gets neucoins in the hands of millions of users? if they can - it will be huge. if they can't - it won't. but it's way to soon to tell. they haven't even started with the consumer applications yet.

at its core, neucoin is basically a ripple/stellar proposition - have a premine and try to distribute coins in a way that encourages participation and growth.

the other way to do that would have been to have one giant foundation premine ripple/stellar style. premine the entire supply. but then the foundations would remain dominant forever instead of becoming a minority holder in just a couple of years, ultimately holding almost nothing, more like an early incubator than a constant whale forever and ever. also, the ripple/stellar way early adopters wouldn't be rewarded, it wouldn't incentivize viral spread, etc. also, the price would have had to start ridiculously low and if successful grow to something ridiculously high. this way, the price is more stable (relatively speaking, so far 15% or so down from presale price), and the growth instead comes in the form of pos. same end result, just different ways of doing it.

I personally think that the high inflation/high rewards with a more (for game playing consumers) understandable price is a better way to go. and will get more viral.

wait and see if they can get millions of users or not. that's what this is all about.

Need a new stake wallet because the version 1 .0.0 version says that  Warnng No Sync check point  in quiet a while so looks like developer  team needs  to make a new update for wallet.

Yes, I believe that they lose money. They maybe made a little profit with the ICO, but it seems that they like it to think big, and most likely they use money the same way. Paid for advertising, paid for articles, paid for design, maybe they even paid salaries for 1 1/2 years of development. And now they try to sell sand in the desert but nearly nobody wants it.

It's really an arrogant behavior and very naive to believe that some big names and money-backing would be enough that people would buy 100 Mio and they stake 80 new millions of that dust in just a few days.

Total supply right now: 3,080,934,921
Top 100: 3,074,747,207 ---------------> 99.8 %

....just about 6 Mio are not in the Top 100... and in 2 days they'll have staked the ICO.


Funny is also: If they would be successful with distributing coins, if there would be a great demand and user-growth and there would be 1 billion (just for example) on the free market, that also would stake with compound interest. Nobody would need to buy anything from them. The team would stake their billions with compound interest and the public would stake what is on the free market with compound interest, and that would be enough to make it worthless.

We are about 7 billion people on this planet, but with that economic design they have to export it to other galaxies...


Hopefully they will give away some more real money to make PR for this. Obviously they have enough BTC and Dollars and it's good to distribute real money.

the day i find a new coin launch where after a month the graph does not look like a hockey stick is the day hell freezes over. at the end of the day guess what? its just another shitcoin.same as the other thousand or so.
 I'll stick with my  favorite funny money stake n bakes for now ty.  hyp, tek, dmd and con.... yeah con!  i get a stakes everyday.its fun goddammit!! its not my 401k plan fer chrissakes

The marketing attached to this coin gives me a feeling that the super-majority of the budget was spent on ads instead of actual product development. Think of when the coin was announced and their major services aren't even fully launched yet.

Well, I bought 1 BTC and sold it for 1.5 BTC. Not bad.

However the marketing attached to this coin would suggest more then that. I hope it will succeed 'more'

Good luck to the team!