Topic: Investigation Complete of Instamines and Fastmines for almost every top alt coin - page 3. (Read 12024 times)

If I put my house up for auction for $1 and it sold $100,000, is this mark up 'insanity'? Or do people use things other than the initial price to determine value?

You have shown repeatedly that you don't understand value, only price. And you use it in your guide arbitrarily (this is your methodology everyone is talking about that you have admitted excludes important factors in determining long term value) to decide whether something is a 'good investment'. Your methodology is bad which creates bad conclusions. 

Why are you obsessed with this point ? A month earlier than what ?

I can understand people being disappointed not getting in at the time (I didn't get in). I can even understand them getting angry. But what's it got to do with its market valuation or potential today ? Absolutely nothing as far as I can see.

Are you saying the market is overvaluing the currency or what ? This is not clear from your commentary when in fact it's the presumably the one thing that your readers would want to know. Nobody buying today gives 2 sods about how it was launched. They want to know if they have an investment that's going to give returns or not.

Are you saying there's an ethical problem with it ? I asked you this earlier but the most articulate response you're capable of amounts to nothing more than a load of toys being thrown of the pram.


Why is it "insanity" ?

Is this the whole basis for your appraisal ? That you feel the initial stakeholders made too much money ?

It looks like it to me. Even so, you don't take into account that 'market cap' is a theoretical number. None of the stakeholders can actually realise their holdings. They can only realise a tiny portion of it and by the time their full remaining holdings are realisable, the currency will be substantially distributed anyway.

So your whole line of reasoning looks like a mish mash of straw man arguments and making mountains out of molehills mixed in with a bit of jealousy. I don't think you're even clear yourself why you hold these views.

Thank you very much for sharing, I agree with you, now altcoin is short-term development.

nice vid! If I knew what I was doing with video editing I probably would've thrown together a few. www.cryptometer.org makes it quite easy to do a voice over analysis.

Yes, they do happen, but you cannot predict them. At least, TA (which is what you're doing) is used to analyze what happened after, any other claim is really trying to read a crystal ball. So it's nonsense when you say "I expect a pullback", because it really may or may not happen. What time scale is "too long" or "too short" in the cryptoworld? These are subjective arguments that anyone can make, and are equally as meaningless. Look at the rise of Bitcoin's value in November - do you see all of those sell orders? Why would *anyone* sell during that period at 300, 400, 500, 600, 700... crazy, right? Oh, wait, it's because they expected a "pullback", which really did not happen until the coin went up all the way over $1000.

Isn't this whole topic about distribution? "Instantmines" and "fastmines" are direct complaints of perceived "unfairness", because "early adopters" get too much "advantage". When you used words like "absurd profit margin" in your wiki, it's clear as day you're letting your emotions argue for you. There really is no factual basis behind your argument.

Also, I hope you can see the irony of this particular statement (in relation to your arguments) in particular:


Yes, so you're saying Bitcoin has intrinsic value (because it has other uses than just speculative value), and it would be silly to apply this simple analysis to it. I really do hope you know a lot is going on these days, and there will be a paradigm shift from shit-coins to actually-useful coins within the next few years - that's just the trend lately. Thus, yes, as I stated in an earliest post, this analysis probably applies to copycat shit-coins, but does not apply to any coin that has any particular intrinsic value. Just like Bitcoin.

As I said, you ignoring this intrinsic value in every single coin (except Bitcoin, apparently) is doing everyone a disservice. A more solid "analysis", IMO, would be to determine whether or not a particular coin has any intrinsic value, and whether or not that coin is undervalued or overvalued based on that. Statements like "it rose X, so it can't possibly rise Y" are meaningless. Statements like "it will rise X, because of Y" actually provide some insight.

For some reason, you're focusing very heavily on NXT, as if that is all I am talking about. NXT is not my only investment, but I digress. What Bitcoin is doing now is paving the way for other coins, you don't actually think alt-coins will have to go through the same process as Bitcoin did, right? (Besides adoption) Once the legal framework is in place, more people are familiar with crypto, etc. - that does not need to be done again. I believe in cryptocurrency in general, but this "analysis" is clearly an agenda to promote certain coins because you refuse to take into account of all the factors even when it's shown that your model is too simple.

But just to scratch an itch - have you seen the recent developments of NXT at all? Or are you just using what you've heard or perceived from other people? I encourage everyone to actually take a close look at what NXT is doing and not believe what FUD-sters promote, because all of these arguments ("instantmine", "distribution", etc.) are really distractions from the real point - what the ecosystem can actually do (and is doing).

Pandaisftw

Hang on.

That wasn't the proposal that the investors in NXT were offered and it is disingenuous to suggest that it was.

A developer wanted to raise enough capital to complete an experimental project in cryptocurrencies, namely an evolution of the blockchain idea to support more complex transactions than simple currency transfers.

He decided what level of capital he needed (as it happens quite a small amount) to complete the project and made a public offering in exchange for said investment.

The project could have been a flop and gone nowhere. It could have been a scam and the "developer' could simply have run off with the money. It might have turned out to be work in progress that didn't get completed till 2015. It could have been successful in technological terms but garnered no market interest. Any of these things could have occurred.

As it happens, the developer honoured the agreement and also made good on the timescales for implementing early feature sets which were part of the original plan, not an easy thing to do.

It's not his fault that the rest of the world became interested to the extent they did and placed a high valuation on the asset. He had no responsibility to anyone but the original investors with whom he entered into an agreement. Nor can it be the fault of the original investors who took the risk of capitalising the development effort at the time, not knowing how it was going to turn out and simply responded to the offer.

So who do you want to blame now for the "scam" ? The rest of the market that gave it a valuation ? The current developers ?

This idiocy about "distribution" is nothing more than a desperate scramble to rationalise lost opportunities when in fact no such rationalisation is needed. Everything about the original launch of NXT was conducted with complete integrity and in good faith by all parties concerned. I am not a primary stakeholder. I bought some next on the open market after reading about it's technology specifications which I found intriguing.

The same opportunity is still available to anyone right now. It's only 6 months old which basically makes anyone investing at the moment an "early bird" relatively speaking.

I love this thread.

I made a quick live youtuber about premines and instamines Jul 28 2013 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmyIjyjQUmc&feature=share

i show cryptometer.org and frk(great no premine),  bottleCAPs(great, HBN both same algo and no premine coins)..  then i show MinCoin( )   This was made quite awhile ago, interesting to watch now in retrospect.

The biggest problem I have with your article is that you don't present both sides of the argument and continue to omit facts that have now been brought to your attention. Yes, the original developer made some mistakes and has long ago left the project.

But I think we have a pretty good track record since I first became involved in June 2013. And I don't think you have presented any compelling evidence to support your claims that investors are at risk from early miners dumping. That time has long since passed.

We agree to disagree then. I read the post and I still reiterate that a coin generation scheme such as goldcoins, no matter if they announced it or otherwise, is a poor and unfair distribution plan. It's way worse than an accidental fastmine. You seem to think if you just reassert that it is fair (because you announced it) that people will believe it.

If I announce a coin that will mine 65% of their coins that they would mine in a year in the first day, that is still an instamine and an unfairly generated coin.

Your goldcoin is merely half of that.

It's not just that someone/some people could be holding massive amounts of goldcoin. You don't want to support that kind of coin if they are going to call that coin generation plan "fair".

Try again, corrections happen all the time in healthy bull markets. That is investor lingo 101, not speculator lingo.

http://mutualfunds.about.com/od/activevspassivefunds/a/Market-Correction.htm

In reference to the number of coins in BTC wallets...I wasn't making a distribution argument, but nice try.

In regards to your assertion that by my definition, Bitcoin is a scam, that is incorrect. A ton has happened from the inception of BTC to today, including dozens of governments adding it to their tax code (or making it tax free) because so many of their citizens intended to use the currency. While there is speculation in bitcoin, the price has normalized nicely.

Just to be clear, I'm extremely skeptical of an investment into a currency that hadnt been released yet to receive 5,000x increase in valuation in 1-2 months. Your apparently extremely skeptical of a coin that has been accepted and utilized by tens of millions of people around the world in 5 years, had government hearings, thousands of business owners (incuding a few big businesses) accept the currency, and a number of Wall St type big wigs enter the fray (wayyyy after the early adopter period, mind you). While the likelihood of a bitcoin-like 1000% value appreciation happening is still very very low, there was a ton of demonstrable things that led to its rise in price. NXT cannot say the same AT ALL.

No. What I take issue with is your statement that the coin was "not fairly distributed" when the facts indicate otherwise.

Also, with the coin now 12 months old and trading at less than 10% of its Dec 2013 high, your assertion that someone with a large amount of coins could "completely crash your investment" is less than genuine at best.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3289325

You are correct. They paid a very small amount of money and made a huge gain. That's the reason why people take risks, because there's potentially no limit to the return on speculative ventures.

What your job is (to support the emotive claims in your report) is to demonstrate where the ethical flaw is in this.

You haven't done that.

Nor have you made any material appraisal as to the commercial viability of the technology that NXT network currently represents. The reason you haven't done it is because:

a) your too lazy

b) being an opinion piece, it's not a priority of this report to do any balanced investigation of any of the content you cite

I again re-iterate my last request. Please take this nonsense down before you drown in criticism and become the subject matter of your own agenda.

When you're an investor, you look at the utility and the future value based on that. When you're a speculator, you just look at price, and try to guess your gains based on that. You're clearly a speculator ("healthy bull markets... expect 20-25% pull back... " "Can you reasonably expect..." -- Who knows?) Again, your analysis too simple, and I'm afraid that actually a lot of people may think this way.

What correlation does any coin's value going up 10x have with it's value going up X% in the past? (Hint: Zero.) The current "market price" is exactly that, the balance between information, speculation and risk.

Also, I would like to point out that "a long time ago" is completely relative. If I were investing in the stock market, I'd say Bitcoin was a scam (according to your definition), because no way someone could make 500-5000x in 5 years. And if you're going to bring the distribution up...

http://bitcoinrichlist.com/charts/bitcoin-distribution-by-address?atblock=295000

~2000 accounts hold 50% of all bitcoins (valued at ~$3bil USD). That's 0.1% of accounts (not counting <0.0001 balance) holding 50% of all bitcoins. So I don't think the distribution argument is particularly valid to begin with.

No problem, I'm glad it's of use!

LOL, there have been a couple coins that my opinion on differs with what their mining data shows. I competely admit to being a Dogecoin hater...not against the people or anything. I just can't believe a meme would go so far...still makes me shake my head. Fourchan is going to rule the world some day. 


And for the others, I'll look into Franko now.

No, I'm not a miner, just an investor.

It's completely relevant to show how overvalued the coin is right now. From investment in October/November to December, the initial investment went up anywhere from 4,000x to 40,000x in value.

When you are an investor, that amount of increase in value does not leave too much more room on the upside and plenty of room on the downside. Can i reasonably expect NXT to jump 10x in value from where it is today? It's already gone up some 20,000x (average). In healthy bull markets, you expect up to a 20-25% pull back before the next leg up. Cryptomarkets tend to be even wilder than that. The increase in value from OCtober/November to December (and today) makes me think it could go a heck of a lot down more so than up.

When the original investor was a long time ago, i could hear the argument it doesn't matter. But the original investor was not even 1/2 a year ago. So, yes, it's completely relevant.

Wrong. I don't have an instamine section. I have an Extreme caution section, a questionable section, and an okay section. The extreme caution section represents some instamines, yes, but also scam behavior or otherwise extreme tilting of benefit to first adopters. NXT is the most extreme benefit for first adopters, period. Thus, it Has to go in the extreme caution section.

I've stated repeatedly that this analysis is not a full analysis but only for mining/how the coins come into being. If your beef is that my analysis doesn't go into the areas it wasn't intended to go into, well, that isn't my concern.

This is one of the more interesting articles on altcoins I've seen.  Thanks to its authors and thanks for linking it!

I especially like the grudging nod towards dogecoin as annoying but not instamined.

Y U NO ADD FRK!!!!

FRK came out about the same time, but as ive been saying since the release, Fair coins were being swept under the rug.