Topic: CoinMarketCap.com - Market Cap Rankings of All Cryptocurrencies! - page 27. (Read 639542 times)

The debate about whether Vesting STEEM or locked up HODL should be included in the market cap should be separated from the debate on whether "founders" coins should be counted. Conflating these two concepts can seriously misrepresent things.

Suppose that the vesting period was just 1 week? Would that change the opinion on whether or not they should be counted?  Suppose it was 1 month?  At what point in time do vesting tokens get "taken out of supply"?

1% of all STEEM could be on the market within 7 days.
5% of all STEEM could be on the market within a month.
50% of all STEEM could be on the market this year.
100% of all STEEM is available for BULK trades today.

Clearly vesting for 1 hour or even 20 hours counts in the supply of Bitcoin (time until new coins are transferrable).

So now we are left with drawing some kind of arbitrary line in the sand. It comes down to a "net present value" calculation.

One thing is certain, a $285K market cap and ranking at over 100 on CMC is grossly out of proportion with actual interest and capital investment in the Steem blockchain.

I am all for having some kind of sanity check on whether or not a platform's "valuation" is fair and reasonable.  

You will note that coins held by the Eth Foundation are included along with coins held by Satoshi.  Even the vesting stake from BitShares has been included for the past year and a half along with the "founders stake" in BitShares.

I am mostly arguing for consistency and fairness of rankings.

OP_HODLing 1000 BTC for a year, might not affect the market cap of BTC but OP_HODLing 15323000 BTC for a year surely would... So while a small amount may not be a big issue, in the case of STEEM where >99.5% has at times been removed from active circulation/easily available supply I think it would distort valuations due to scarcity as Bytemaster's pump comment seems to acknowledge.

I think it should still count towards 'total supply' and therefore the overall/true valuation but that it shouldn't count towards 'available supply' as CMC currently ranks. So I think CMC's current approach is largely correct.

While I'm not a fan of Steem, so possibly bias, given that you are the lead dev for Hodl which also uses high inflation/dilution to incentivise the locking up/vesting of supply, I think you may be slightly bias too in what should constitute 'available supply'. Love the squirrel branding though btw. Obviously up to CMC to decide what they think is best. Apologies for clogging up their thread.

My view is that tightly controlled supply (as in the case of a pre-mine or ninja-mine) doesn't contribute to the market cap of a coin in the same way that freely coins distributed do.

As for OP_HODLing or VESTing . . . if I were to OP_HODL 1000 bitcoin for 1 year . .  I wouldn't think that would affect the market cap of bitcoin. However if a preminer OP_HODLs 1000 coins and then gives them away . . that doesn't really count as distribution as the coins are not freely available to their new owners. The new owners may not even be aware of their good fortune.  The key distinction is who makes the OP_HODLing decision.

LiteBar is now trading at Cryptopia
Thanks for listing LiteBar at CMC

I think in addition to that the CEO, yourself and some other key parties also have a decent size amount of what I would call semi-privately mined STEEM. I think those might be factored out under the current methodology too.


It would cost too much in trading fees to generate millions in daily volume. So you'd have to use a compromised exchange or an exchange with no trading fees. CMC already partly addresses that by listing but not including volume from exchanges with no trading fees http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin/#markets



I agree that the market, as with other crypto, is pricing in some of the illiquid supply &/or supply held by founders into the true valuation & STEEM is effectively being valued much higher than the available supply metric suggests. However if CMC included all founder and illiquid shares as 'available supply', then many other cryptos would argue for similar treatment & create what I would consider heavily distorted valuations.


https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22125.msg288854.html#msg288854

I'm not a fan of STEEM so perhaps I'm unfairly bias, maybe CMC will agree with you on some of those points &/or find some middle ground.

https://steemit.com/@steemit         => 12,928,066.340 STEEM

With a total current supply of 22,214,424.000 STEEM means Steemit has 58% and the rest is held by community members. 

So even if you wanted to factor out Steem held by Steemit, the current methodology of factoring out all vesting *users* is wrong.

If you create 10 billion shares, and sell 1 of them for $1.00 back and forth with yourself to generate millions in daily volume, it obviously doesn't create a coin that should be listed above Bitcoin. Which is what the scammers would attempt to do.

So the real question is whether or not there exists a legitimate market with actual trades with many independent individuals valuing the coin or whether it is a closed market with a bunch of sock puppets. In effect, are all trades in the token based upon arms-length fair valuation / speculation or are the trades simply moving money from one pocket to another.

At a certain point it becomes obvious the market is pricing in the full supply rather than just part of it.  Does it really make sense that someone buying STEEM, then converting it to VESTS should REDUCE the market cap?

Soon the ridiculousness of the current method will become apparent when Steem Backed Dollars will have a higher market-cap than the STEEM that is backing it.

So I think there is a case to be made that a chain is either "public" or "private" with a value set by the "market" or by "decree".   It is easy enough to tell the difference.

STEEM have presented an argument why they should be valued much higher on CMC.

https://steemit.com/steem/@dantheman/how-to-calculate-the-market-capitalization-of-steem


https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22125.msg288854.html#msg288854

I think that if you used their suggested 'sophisticated measures' anyone could create an over-valued/pumped coin by mining/holding the majority themselves and incentivising the removal of the majority from the liquid supply with less than 0.5% easily available.

Obviously it's up to CMC to evaluate but I think your current method of listing the liquid amount as available and the rest under total like Ripple/STR is correct.

Hi

COINMARKETCAP, why the API do not give information for all coin ?

examples, this coins do not work :

http://coinmarketcap-nexuist.rhcloud.com/api/SOIL
http://coinmarketcap-nexuist.rhcloud.com/api/SHF
http://coinmarketcap-nexuist.rhcloud.com/api/KR
http://coinmarketcap-nexuist.rhcloud.com/api/DNET

thanks

It appears that you did add CCEDK and Southexchange USNBT feeds, but unfortunately cut of the NBT feeds from the other exchanges like Poloniex looking at the lag without updates they are all showing now.
Can you please have another look at it and ensure that both NBT and USNBT pairs from all our exchanges are supported during the transition.
Besides two other pairs from CCEDK, the USNBT/EUR and USNBT/BTC pair are still missing.

Hope it makes sense now.

That was Cointelegraph's widget, but the partnership has ended.











All updated, thanks.

DGD (Digix Token) Pre-Sale (like lisk) is now trading on OpenLedger

time to this scam - Emercoin mark ** - premined.
11.12.13-12.12.13 - 30 000 000 emc
now - 37 500 000 emc
WITH 6 % POS of premined

Hi Gliss,

As you might know, NuBits is in a transition to rename the coin ticker from NBT to USNBT on the markets awaiting the addition of other coins like CHNBT (Chinese Yuan pegged NuBits) and XNBT (SDR pegged NuBits).
I noticed that you already updated your site ticker to USNBT which is great. However there are two exchanges, ccedk.com and southxchange.com who already migrated to the new name and also changed their API to USNBT or US-NBT. Unfortunately coinmarketcap.com doesn't recognise any longer these exchanges and their pairs. It is expected that the other exchanges will follow soon and change their APIs.

It would be greatly appreciated if you are able to merge all NBT, US-NBT and USNBT tickers published by all exchanges towards the current NuBits coin (USNBT) during the transition.
Please let me know if you need additional information.

Thanks,
Cybnate

SC SIA has a market on the newly relaunched Cryptomic exchange now - https://www.cryptomic.com/trade?c=SC&p=BTC
also DCR Decred, RADS Radium, and XVC VanillaCash have been added. 
CBX Crytobullion is also there, and has been included in the new base market pairs Bitshares, BitUSD & BitCNY for these altcoins.

Still advertising Ponzi and MLM, do you really want that kind of image coinmarketcap ? Coince, BitAngels, now Bitcoin365club. It's cool for my scam alerts on my website, but guys really...

Hi, I think you're probably looking for http://cointelegraph.com

Bleutrade LTC is offline!!! please delete!!

Coinmarketcap......what happened to the news you use to have at the top of the page?   The yellow bar with the news link.

Please add it back...at least what was the link...I forget.
Thx

Got listed. Thanks 

Please add alcurEX exchange.

https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitsend/#markets

Best Regards Christian