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.

Sorry. I guess I could have stated it this way instead:

Posts about unfair distribution are off-topic, but I am compelled respond to them anyway by saying that I believe that people complaining of an unfair distribution of Bitcoin are driven primarily by envy.



I agree that a wide distribution is best and I agree with your response to the example of AUR.

However, a wide distribution is difficult for something that most people don't know about or care about. And as I wrote before, distributing nearly worthless currencies to people that don't care about them is ineffective.

Even the distributions of NXT and Ether are very narrow, as they are only distributed to the people that care about them now. If they are as successful as Bitcoin in the future, those currencies will also be considered narrowly distributed.

Probably. But that is off topic. Replacing objective debate with personal attacks is a sign of weakness. I also consider it abuse of communication for the purpose of winning debate. Please don't abuse communication to win your point.

There are rules that don't need to be broken in any debate and those who break them only show weakness of their point of view and reduce efficiency of a debate.

One rule is do not change subject unless it helps you to objectively prove your point.
Second rule - do not put words into somebody's mouth. Don't assume, just ask.
Third rule - do not debate about intentions, debate about facts.
Fourth rule - do not joke without explicitly indicating that this was a joke. Joking can be used to conveniently back off wrong opinion without losing credibility, not that credibility matters much in objective conversation anyway, but it adds noise and waste of time.
Fifth rule - do not ask questions before getting answers on previous questions assuming how those answers will look like.
Sixth rule - do not interpret timing of response as part of an answer. Don't interpret silence as agreement or lack of knowledge.
Seventh rule - do not lie. Everybody can be objective about a subject even if their stakes are being hurt by discussion. It is not true that people have opinions based on their stakes. If discussion hurts your investments, just don't participate and if you do then don't abuse and don't lie.

No, those shares don't pretend to be decentralized business, so they don't have to be distributed fairly to be useful.
They don't pretend to become medium of value exchange and don't have goal of price stability (though funny thing that they are more stable than majority of crypto).

But considering that they are based on income from useful services, they would be best candidates for crypto if distributed widely and fairly as a token redeemable for their services. Currently Google does not offer any service in exchange for it's stock. But if this stock is to become currency - it must do that. It's like with trading oil through dollars. Why not skip conversion into dollar and pay for appengine, ads, gmail with Google tokens ? Why not pay Microsoft with msft tokens ? Why people are not allowed to prepay for future services from these companies but only allowed to speculate with their stock ? The answer is - taxation that requires everything to be valued in fiat disallowing barter of service in exchange for tokens.

How do I know if maxcoin will not significantly drop in price ?
What kind of tech does it have making it fundamentally successful ?

I believe the distributions of Apple, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and Netflix stocks are unfair. Everyone in the world should be able to buy shares at their IPO prices today. It is totally unfair. waaaaaaaaaa

Envy is such an ugly thing. Don't you think?

Oh, and if anyone wants to get Maxcoin at an early adopter price of $1, I'll be glad to sell up to 1 million of them.

They were compensated mostly because they were not busy doing other things and were hanging out in forums. I was visionary too looking for mathematically enforced constitution of the United States that does not rely on people's votes, but I was too busy to look for opportunities. Do you think I would not invest few hundreds into BTC after I invested thousands into failing stocks ? I have no doubt I would. And I would now if there was one major crypto coin with good fundamentals.

Yes, bitcoin is shit coin. It just happened to get traction because of SilkRoad and some other powerful groups.
It may have good technicals now, that makes it profitable short term, but it definitely has bad fundamentals that makes it deadend long term investment. No wonder bitcoin is currently one of Ryan's picks 😁 along with list of other shit coins.

I think it's best for everybody to take loss, abandon bitcoin ship selling on peaks, and move on to better avenues. Bitcoin hurts crypto scene big time. It's vulnerabilities scare people away from all cryptos considering that they hear that bitcoin is major representative of whole crypto environment. This shit coin should not represent us like major coin anymore. It discredited itself many times and it hurts crypto image.

that was true only for SPV client, last core client will not be affected by those problem, that's why i only use core

bitcoin is still in the beta because of this reason, and as long as new problem keep emerge it will remain in beta i believe, but this does not mean that it can not grow and be accepted widely

i still think that bitcoin can find its place on a niche market in the case it will not work as a global mainstream currency

Yes I have proof: Human nature. We aren't the same, some people is more skilled than other, smarter, clever, stronger, whatever, and profit from it. The early adopters in Bitcoin where smarter, more aware, visionaries that took the risk of getting involved into something worthless at the time. It is natural that they are compensated with more coins, simple as that.

So basically you are referring to Bitcoin as a shit coin.
And that's why the block chain is not hacked till now.
And 5 Years is just a scratch against the whole fiat system.

"too late" is the problem, this is the source of unfairness. Why do they have to buy at price much higher than early investors ?
It does not have to be that way. There are many other places on earth where people can gamble if they want to. Why force them to gamble just to own some crypto ?

Bitcoin will never be big. When I read that it's best to not transfer bitcoin for several days due to some Chinese miners relying on other miners for hashing disrupting network operations without evil intent, I can only laugh. Bitcoin network is so weak that even after 5 years of maturity it has disruptions of basic functionality.

It needs to have non-0 value. That value will derive from redemption or useful digital services.
No, I would not give it to people for free to dump. If they got it - they know the value and won't dump.
It will cost them something, nothing will be given for free. Giving for free is the source of all problems.
The only dumpers will be those who lost belief and sell at loss, which won't be significant to worry about.

Do you have any proof that "we can't" ?
It's convenient statement for early adopters, but is it true statement ? I doubt.
Prove it.

People give failing examples of distribution all the time (BTC, NEM, NXT, BTSX, AUR), but each one of them did not do the right thing, so those examples don't prove anything. There are millions of ways to fail, but we need one to succeed.

As for bitcoin distribution, even if it's currently the best (which I doubt), it's still not good enough and, unlike NXT, it cannot even get better due to weak algo. From my perspective bitcoin is dead and those merchants who bet on it investing into software that accepts bitcoin payments are fools. BTC rate may still fly for some time, but I would never keep my capital in it or do any development for it. I use it solely for quick conversion from fiat to NXT and ICOs.

We can't have a perfect distribution. I guess the closest to being good is bitcoin distribution. But if are talking about altcoins created some years after that
I see huge disproportions and backscene shady movement all the time. Distribution of a coin is not a feature it is a upshot of coin being good or bad.

If people buy token for 1 NXT they will not dump it much below 1 NXT, right ?

The goal is to not have big holders who are not interested in the future before token achieves wide distribution and adoption.
If we are talking about devs then tokens should be released to them gradually over time so that they will not be big holders before maturity of their work and success of wide distribution. After distribution is wide and token is adopted it is safe to give them big % because they won't be able to manipulate.

For distribution I don't mean only premine, I mean at any point in time. Distribution can be bad initially, but very good later. Again example is permanent sell order which distributes over time with very bad initial distribution.

This is how NXT distribution was supposed to work, but big holders got greedy and do not sell at constant price causing pumps and dumps. They are the ones who have power to achieve wide distribution and they are misusing their power for other goals.

That's why I asked, is it even possible to achieve fair and wide distribution? When you have 95% of the people that will dump it as soon as possible. I guess the human nature is responsible for the 80%—20% distribution of wealth in the whole world no matter are we distributing fiat, bitcoin or something third. And this phenomenon is true since the early ages until now.

basically 99% of the people around the world, who will dump at the first opportunity, i'm still wondering if those same people will ever embrace something like bitcoin, if they do not believe in it

and when bitcoin will be big, it will be too late for them anyway...

No distribution(if for distribution you mean pre mine) is better, the big holders always will have the temptation to manipulate and dump the coins as soon they reach an exchange

The problem with wide ditribution is that you are giving it mostly to people that don't want it or that think it has no value.

Yes, it is possible to distribute fairly. One way is permanent sell order with constant fiat price (or oil or gold price if fiat becomes too volatile). That asset must be redeemable back to fiat that was invested into it. Just like gold standard, but with fiat being in place of gold.

Yes, getting lucky doing nothing is unfair, but, of course, very desirable by most people including me.
Limited time distribution is unfair too because it rewards only those who spent time on forums during specific time frame.

I don't believe NEM was fair at least because it was limited time distribution.
Can I get NEM same way as initial stakeholders after I know it is real and functioning and not scam ? The answer is no and this is why it's unfair. If I buy it, but someone got it for free, he can always sell cheaper than me, so here goes my risk and I don't want to gamble. I am interested in preservation of savings without risk - that is how fair distribution should work. People should have an option to just convert their savings into crypto hoping that it will preserve value just like gold after fiat crash or massive confiscation.

It is unfair to ask somebody to risk losing money in exchange for possible luck.
Distribution should not involve gambling. The goal of distribution is not to make few lucky rich. But, of course, devs who made it possible should become rich and well deserve such reward.

Why is time of distribution always have to be limited ? Why not keep distributing for the same price forever or at least until it becomes mainstream covering at least billion people ?

This is actually what Satoshi intended to achieve, but failed only because of too simple algo that prevented it to be wide and fair.

But I started this topic without word "fair". I started it with word "wide", which is different. Wide distribution solves problem of centralization. Fair distribution solves problem of malinvestment - giving money to less productive people.
Wide does not have to cover more than 1% of world population, but fair does.

Currently the only thing that prevents me from putting all my retirement savings into crypto is gambling risk. Remove it and you will see flood of money into crypto instead of useless gold, GLD, SLV, stocks, etc.

Well didn't NEM alfeady try to do something like this, a fair distribution? And how did this end?

Look, crypto is used by small number of people. Let's take a number of 1 million for the sake of argument. When this thing really take of and if in 10 years we will have 1 billion users worldwide, don't you think they can argue how those 1 million of early adopters are lucky and how it's not fair that they got into crypto and the rest of 1 billion didn't get in that early?

The point is, is the fair distribution ever possible?

Like BCNext once wrote, this idea seems so simple and obvious, but for some reason noone implemented it yet.

Are there other platforms to consider for asset tokens other than NXT platform ?

I need a platform that is accessible from web browser (does not require wallet file), allows me to issue new tokens, has decentralized exchange, does not have present or future centralization or forking issues like BTC has (I recall one pool promising to not use their power for something bad 😀, when govt requires them, they will not have a choice to do something good, so their promise is not worth to trust anyway).

I think QORA, NODE, BTSX have something like assets, but not sure about web access and decentralized exchange.

You mean they can just sell private keys or futures ?
Yes, that is hard to stop.
It looks like the best way to stop is to create buy wall so that those who want to dump will sell into that wall and founder owner of that wall will remove them from circulation.

You are right.
I'd love to do that. The only question is my capability to do that.
Do you offer any help ?

I have an idea of very fair and wide distribution and I need someone to implement website for that.
It is not going to be country drop or anything like we've seen before.
We can just distribute NXT asset, so no need for another crypto platform development or cloning.

how you can do that? there is no tool to stop someone for selling his coins, he can even sell those same coins privately, in the case that there isn't any exchange, basically impossible

It is being reflected from your question that you are about to create an altcoin with a wide distribution.
If I'm not wrong then please correct me.

What would happen if AUR holders were not allowed to sell it for 2 years and devs had huge incentives to develop features ?

i forget "that will happen", i was not talking about bitcoin today, but bitcoin distribution in the future will be simply better because bitcoin is a survivor and not a dead coin like aurora

with aurora they rushed and forced it, to the point that everyone dumped before the distribution has taken place

You are pulling fairies out of your ass.

Bitcoin was pumped and subsequently dumped albeit slowly for more profit.

No coin with a reasonable distribution is going to pump because its not worth anything.

Wide distribution means nothing, if it's not backed up by a value added chain of merchants and vendors accepting it for goods. I compare this to a class of 1st graders exchanging marbles. Lots of them have it but it has no value, other than trading it amongst each other.

If the school canteen or shop starts accepting it for goods, the value will increase and the demand will rise, if there are a limited supply.

Most of these Alt's are being converted to BTC and then into fiat anyway. So there are no real value in keeping them, if they are not used to buy things from merchants and vendors to stimulate an economy. You will have some pre-mined coins being hoarded to increase it value {fake rarity} and then you will see a sudden dump.

no none has done what i've sayed in that post, actually i never thought of this thing, myself, i don't think it's a good idea to give 20% to dev, cryptocoin are not based on a dev, dev should not get anything if not the same amount that he will give to everyone

According to me, it is valuable and not just valuable but also it decrease the chances of pump and dump.
So I think that it increases the life of any crypto currency unless the developers are not greedy.

Why NEM devs are worse performing than NXT devs ?
Do they have enough incentives ?
Are they paid well ?

I agree that it's better to have narrow distribution than lack of features.
I also agree that ideal coin must have both.

But is it true that wide distribution inevitably results in lack of features ?
Why not distribute it widely and allocate 20% for features slowly payable to devs upon completion of milestones.
Did anybody try that model ?
If yes, was it failure ?

I dont think AUR was similar to NXT , it lacked initialization , moreover the coin was holded much my the people who were involved in its creations , so much Pumps and Dumbs were Unlikely to occur with that. Unlikely AUR alts which you assume to be NXT was relly,fairly distributed among diffrent people not only the devs and Intrested people which made it a success for time being.
I think the Pumps and Dumbs are mainly because they have much Alts of the Same coin.

NEM did, but they are doing terribly since they are not delivering promised features at all or delivering too slowly.

Distribution is overrated in my opinion. Crypto world is still just a small group of people, imagine when this goes mainstream, for all those masses, we will be the ones that held all the coins and we will be tbe hoarders in their eyes.

Some even argue that the benefits of the bad distribution are not that bad, look at NXT, their whales have  financed and still are financing many projects.

All in all is better to have bad distribution and constant delivering and innovation than other way around.

they could do it via signing msg, everyone post his btc address and sign it then for every genuine member that do this he will be reward with a portion of the supply of a the dev's pos coin

But NEM's original holders are dumping it and crashing the price, due to the lacking solid features or applications to support the price. Ppl are dumping it for profits. It is not about good distribution. I thought good distribution should be that more ppl know the existence and are willing to buy and hold that coins, which will make the price stable.

What other coins have good distribution ?
I keep hearing that NEM had good distribution, but it lasted only 1 month, it does not look good, does it ?

I don't know exactly. There's factors like... its crypto. The trust people put in crypto is up and down. Its not based on something of value like Gold. Etc.

You'd have to talk to people who are actually into Ripple. I am not.

I noticed that Ripple has huge swings in price. How come Ripple labs cannot maintain stable price ?

I always get a bitter feeling when I remember AUR. I mined a couple with my slow computer back then... and I held them all over the bubble instead of selling, I was too optimistic and was witing for a higher price, I got greed. Since then I don't gamble with altcoins, as long as I see some solid profit I sell for BTC. I could have made like 5 BTC out of nowhere with the insane AUR pump.

Did anybody run taint analisys on Ripple accounts to see real distribution ?
How does it compare to current NXT and BTC distribution ?

One dev told me that it is possible to exclude sockpuppets without  revealing identity.

If this is possible then why not create such currency on NXT monetary system as experiment to see how it withstands pump attempts.

If million people own 0.00001% of it then pump will be impossible.
If it took something valuable from owners or offers some value in exchange then they won't dump much lower than that value, so there will be no dump.

You would have to check ripple;
http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/ripple/

It's a weird coin so you would have alot of reading to do.

It was 100% premine i believe and is being distributed manually to prevent this among other things. It is the #2 market cap coin so this is probably the closest to do what you're talking about.

Ok, did anybody try really wide distribution without any scam ?

aurora was simply a shit coin with false promise, it was premined around 50% with the promise of a good distrubution among the users of iceland, which i doubt it ever happened in the first place, and surely was orchestrated in a shady way

it was an huge pump scheme for sucking money from poor icelender, the dump in fact happened before the distribution leaving those that should've recieved their coins with a worthless bag

real good distrubution that happen naturally like with bitcoin, and lasts many years it's a completely different thing and will only help stabilization and dismiss big p&d

Pump and dump is unrelated to how good or bad the features of a coin are.
It is often perpetuated by the creators who have more of it than the average user, or a group of users with capital to buy a large amount of the coin.
Once they have enough of the coin, they push up the market prices further, convincing the average user and potential investors that the coin is gaining value due to its merit. Once everyone invests in the coin and decides to hold, the huge investors or the creators of the coin bail out and dump the coin.

The main reason few altcoins take off is the abundance of alts. When there are so many alts, it is hard to find a new alt that will make all the difference.
Distributing it to more people may help, but only if the more people actually take notice of the coin.

I always thought that having wide distribution has huge benefit to a coin, especially PoS coin.
But recently someone told me that it has only slight benefit.

I thought that widely distributed coin will not have risks of pumps and consequently dumps.
Some debate that AUR was widely distributed and dumped.

I object saying that it was initially pumped only because of poor initial distribution before airdrop and also did not have useful features.
If it had same qualities as Ether or NXT and was not allowed to be traded before airdrop is finished then it would not be pumped dumped.