Topic: Economics of Pre-mining and ICOs (Read 336 times)
I've been told to stay away from ICO's, but looks like people are doing "okay" with them.
No horror stories yet...
Although it's clear that many ICO's are meant to raise money for the founders/investors/developers.
I know many of you are against pre-mining and ICO's, but and this is a big BUT; economically would you agree that there has to be "some" coin's available (for circulation) at the start?
Of course "pre-mining" the crap out of a new coin is a clear mistake and looks bad...there needs to be some volume for the marketplace.
I know this is a sensitive issue for many of you, I want to add that isn't about what is fair or not fair, but more about buyers/sellers/traders/marketplace.
Does some "pre-mining" or a limited ICO help "jump start" a new coin/token?
I personally think that some ICOs are good, and for most investors ICOs are a great way to get in on coins that they can later sell for a profit (typically within a relatively short time-frame because of the nature of a lot of these other cryptos), so I don't think that there is any major issue from a use perspective.I know many of you are against pre-mining and ICO's, but and this is a big BUT; economically would you agree that there has to be "some" coin's available (for circulation) at the start?
Of course "pre-mining" the crap out of a new coin is a clear mistake and looks bad...there needs to be some volume for the marketplace.
I know this is a sensitive issue for many of you, I want to add that isn't about what is fair or not fair, but more about buyers/sellers/traders/marketplace.
Does some "pre-mining" or a limited ICO help "jump start" a new coin/token?
Now if someone premines something without people knowing the total extent of premined currency then there is a problem I have, but aside from that there are no issues I can see. It's like Unobtanium where, iirc, only 10 full coins were supposed to exist, and then the market got more than 10, and it was revealed the dev had coins he was using to sell and make a profit on from the high speculative value.
So no "ninja" mining for new coins...I think I remember that story...
Although it's clear that many ICO's are meant to raise money for the founders/investors/developers.
I know many of you are against pre-mining and ICO's, but and this is a big BUT; economically would you agree that there has to be "some" coin's available (for circulation) at the start?
Of course "pre-mining" the crap out of a new coin is a clear mistake and looks bad...there needs to be some volume for the marketplace.
I know this is a sensitive issue for many of you, I want to add that isn't about what is fair or not fair, but more about buyers/sellers/traders/marketplace.
Does some "pre-mining" or a limited ICO help "jump start" a new coin/token?
I personally think that some ICOs are good, and for most investors ICOs are a great way to get in on coins that they can later sell for a profit (typically within a relatively short time-frame because of the nature of a lot of these other cryptos), so I don't think that there is any major issue from a use perspective.I know many of you are against pre-mining and ICO's, but and this is a big BUT; economically would you agree that there has to be "some" coin's available (for circulation) at the start?
Of course "pre-mining" the crap out of a new coin is a clear mistake and looks bad...there needs to be some volume for the marketplace.
I know this is a sensitive issue for many of you, I want to add that isn't about what is fair or not fair, but more about buyers/sellers/traders/marketplace.
Does some "pre-mining" or a limited ICO help "jump start" a new coin/token?
Now if someone premines something without people knowing the total extent of premined currency then there is a problem I have, but aside from that there are no issues I can see. It's like Unobtanium where, iirc, only 10 full coins were supposed to exist, and then the market got more than 10, and it was revealed the dev had coins he was using to sell and make a profit on from the high speculative value.
Although it's clear that many ICO's are meant to raise money for the founders/investors/developers.
I know many of you are against pre-mining and ICO's, but and this is a big BUT; economically would you agree that there has to be "some" coin's available (for circulation) at the start?
Of course "pre-mining" the crap out of a new coin is a clear mistake and looks bad...there needs to be some volume for the marketplace.
I know this is a sensitive issue for many of you, I want to add that isn't about what is fair or not fair, but more about buyers/sellers/traders/marketplace.
Does some "pre-mining" or a limited ICO help "jump start" a new coin/token?
Jump to: