Topic: Is wide distribution valuable ? (Read 14571 times)

with broad distribution, of course there are many investors who hold it, so it will be more difficult to influence their minds to be in line and do what we want. so that the market will look healthier

Does having a wide or short distribution has anything to do with to do with pump and dump? I don't think that is possible. And distribution is not really something that any one can control. You can't control, everyone is free to buy as much as they want to buy and hold and you can't tell them what to do or maybe stop them from buying because you think that the coin is not properly distributed, nah it doesn't work like that. If the market cap of a coin is small then it is easy for it to her pumped and dumped.

its success how it can be based on your plan then only it make some sense to distribute them otherwise in most of the time we cannot know which will be the best idea to execute them.

There is clam, where any person that has more than 0 bitcoins at block 300,377, Litecoin at block 565,693, or Dogecoin at block 218,556 was given ~4.6 CLAM. 

The problem it is inflationary, and if I remember every minute an miner get get some amount close to 4.6 CLAM, so you can almost double the amount of clams you have compared to other starters by by mining once.

"fair" is subjective.  In my opinion, a 100% pre-mined coin is fair.  The creator of such a cryptocurrency has the best claim to the coins.  No-one is forced to buy any of them from him.

Rather than lament the absence of a cryptocurrency with an initially uniform distribution across all 7.3 billion people on this planet, I appreciate the incredible amount of work, resources, risk, and patience that many have put into these projects.  That I am free to join or leave any of these projects at will is already more than fair as far as I'm concerned.

The key disadvantage of a fully equal initial distribution is that it would be unstable.  Some people would be keen to acquire more while many others would not care at all about their coins.  Market volatility akin to a violent chemical reaction would ensue, ultimately resulting in a Pareto distribution.

All else equal, an asset with many holders is far preferable to one with few.

A new currency's "pump-and-dump" is not something to be feared or suppressed.  Instead, it is a mechanism for moving towards a healthier and more stable distribution.

They cannot take away my bitcoin, but they can sell their huge stake and take away value of my bitcoins.
And, obviously, I care only about value of my wallet, I don't care about number of bitcoins in my wallet.

I agree that there is no fair distribution, but disagree that there is no equal distribution.
All it takes is to collect passports data and give each person equal share.
I am not suggesting that this is needed, I just state my disagreement.

Nobody has the power to take your bitcoins from you no matter how many they own.


No. There is no such thing as a fair and equal distribution.

I don't like this idea.
Can't a crypto coin be developed in which there is a fair and equal distribution
Is there any disadvantage of it

Yes, avoiding the opposite is my goal.
When I say wide, I don't mean 100% equal and also I don't mean fair.
Wide means that majority of small holders hold 90% and minority of big holders hold 10%.
Each small holder should not have more than 0.00001% of coins. If any holder has more than that, he is considered major holder and counted towards 10% cap.

Distribution is bad when minority owns more than 50% and has power to take it all from majority through dumping or disruption of network.

Big holders from minority will work hard and invest into coin development.
Passive majority will sit idle, but serve as guarantor of distributed ownership preventing pumps by taking profit selling during pump attempts and buying during dump attempts.

The problem with current coins is that there is no proof of wide distribution.
Many accounts could be owned by one person just to fake wide distribution.
Which is why I suggest to conduct crypto census after convincing everybody to participate because that proof will be valuable and give incredible boost from new investors. Those coins who cannot prove will be left behind.

Of course, if those 10% rich devs or investors abandon the project then coin will die, which is why census can bring value only to long standing coins with good history of development like BTC, NXT, etc.

No, bitcoin network is not strongest as of today.
 It had many failures and technical weaknesses that allowed Mt Gox to exist longer than desirable.
Recent weeks advice to not send bitcoin for several days shows that the network is still weak.
When was the last time VISA advised to avoid using credit cards for several days ?


Just because it has respectable status of father does not make it right to hide it's weaknesses from new investors.
Do I admire Satoshi's invention - yes, very much. If I was asked to donate him some coins as charity - sure I would. But investment and charity are 2 different things.
Do I think we should keep advertising bad tech for investments - no.
Do I think we should keep advertising it for charity and historical value - yes.
May be BTC should be considered rare collectors coin. But no one uses collectors coins for everyday business.

So if someone issues fixed number of physical coins that are very hard to fake and sells them for 1000 BTC each only to long term dormant BTC account holders that would make a lot of sense. It will remove risk of dump and will give collectors their rare coins that preserve value through rarity and historical significance. They can keep sitting on them till death, but they will no longer represent risk for new BTC investors because it will be impossible to dump BTC price by selling these rarities.

Once these flaws in BTC are fixed, I will change my opinion.
But what if it's impossible to fix them ?
What if BTC devs are on govt payroll to keep flaws for as long as possible ?
What if major miners will not accept these changes ?
What if miners are on govt payroll ?
It's not done until it's done.

It is not at all logical, as the bitcoin network is the strongest network of all crypto.
And it is the father of all cryptocoins and also it is the first crypto coin mankind has ever seen, so it can have some flaws and developers are looking for ways to correct those.

Wide distribution is the only way, if you want that your crypto coin will be popular 

I am on this forum because it serves as forum for all crypto.
Bitcoin became word that represents all crypto and I try to show people important difference between specifically BTC and crypto coins in general.

Even if it was bitcoin only forum, why must I leave if I have unfavorable for BTC opinion that I can logically prove ?

Is the purpose of this forum to maintain artificial peg BTC = good coin by suppressing negative opinions ?

If the distribution isn't proper and accountable then yes it is valuable.

But the developers are known to be run away by dumping the coins when they see the prices rising.
And those coins sucks.

So that you think that THE BITCOIN IS A SHIT COIN then why are you on THE BITCOINTALK FORUM???

You must leave the forum if you think that Bitcoin is a shit coin.

This is a big requirement of trust and cryptocurrencies don't work well  with trust.
Lots of professional traders went bust when the Swiss government decided to remove the pegged floor to the Euro. So you will have to be certain about the peg and the person/institution guaranteeing the peg. 

About ramifications:
1. I disagree. The value of crypto coins can be more, but people can still buy it for the same low price from issuer or distributor. They will buy like crazy, knowing that value of what they buy is more. They will even borrow fiat to buy more of it. They will stop buying when they got nothing to pay with. When people buy like crazy distribution becomes wide. Example - when people bought cheap gold for dollars before gold standard peg ended, gold achieved wide distribution, so wide that govts had to confiscate it and start world war 2 to reclaim monopoly on gold.

2. Yes, issuer can and will promise. After all, we trust big holders of NXT and BTC to not dump it on us, which serves as promise to be able to redeem at reasonable price from somebody on the market.

3. To solve it we would have to trust issuer to adjust sell order price accordingly. Or we can just assume that assets that we accept in exchange for coins have stable value. We could accept very broad ETFs or stocks of big and stable companies. But that problem exists only if coin value is less than redeemable asset. Once coin takes off and it's value greatly exceeds value of redeemable asset, this problem will not exist. People will not redeem at loss, unless they urgently need that asset.
Once issuer sell order is completely purchased, people will be able to sell at higher prices. Until then they are locked in their investment even if it has super high ROI.
Long term locking will also help to deter borrowing making sure people invest only what they own - their savings.
That will help to prevent premature exhaustion of issuer sell order and subsequent bubbles and contractions.

But if we accept PoHW (proof of human work) in exchange for tokens then problem of trust to issuer does not exist because there is nothing valuable to redeem. Image recognition can be successfully used as PoHW.

We could also give 2 options - to buy with fiat or give PoHW.
Those from poor countries will get coins with PoHW. Those from rich would buy with fiat.
In this case only those who paid in fiat will be able to redeem. Or we will not provide redemption option at all and spend collected fiat on development and marketing.
Amount of fiat should be comparable to average labor cost on the planet to get a coin with PoHW.

We could also give people opportunity to pick middle ground multiplying fiat amount by PoHW amount so that lower income people would choose to work more, but spend less fiat, and higher income people would choose to spend more fiat and work less.

Nothing is wrong with your suggestion. It has been done before. When the dollar was on the gold standard, then you could always get a dollar for a fixed amount of gold. China's currency (as well as those of a few other countries) can be bought for a fixed amount of dollars.

The term "pegged" is used to describe a currency whose value is fixed to the value of another asset, generally a currency or commodity. Typically, the peg is requires a person or organization to guarantee that the currency can always be exchanged for the underlying asset.

There are a few "pegged" cryptocurrencies, but they are generally very small because they rely on trusting the operator to maintain its pledge to exchange the currency for the underlying asset.

There are are a few ramifications:

1. The value of the currency is never more than the underlying asset because you can always get it at the pegged rate.
2. In order to maintain the value at the peg, the currency has to be at least as useful as the underlying asset, or the issuer must promise to also buy it at the peg, no matter what.
3. If the value of the underlying asset goes down, so does the value of the currency.

In effect, you are suggesting a currency that acts as a substitute for the underlying asset.

I already consider NXT and Ether narrowly distributed. One indication is limited time of IPO distribution. Ether can still fix it because not all coins are distributed yet. NXT can fix it too if big holders make that choice.

I suggested to keep distributing at IPO price for long term, what is wrong with my suggestion ?
I did not suggest to give it to people for free.