Topic: NAS the latest GREEDY/PONZI distribution model - 71% to 11 people?? what? (Read 6543 times)

NAS is a NOGO area

+1

Maybe because this coin shows more innovation than 99% of the coins out there? They introduced a decentralized block-dice and will be releasing a multi-gateway (trust(-less) multisignature gateway) to deposit BTC ect INTO the blockchain.

only idiots buy pure PoS coins anyway

anyone buying P&D PoS coins is just waiting to be the bagholder

how is this one not dead yet?

the distribution is bad?what about Nas?Nas even worse.
the true is that
You and your stupid Chinese trolls want to want to make a huge scam

 I agree with you. But i dont have nas ...

Side chains are something different, these are spin-offs.

A spin-off is already planned as an alternative to the Ethereum IPO, although that seems to still be some time away.

There will be more.

 

People will want it or not want it true but i  think they factor into this decision the initial distribution? People are starting to consider these things now.  Have you not noticed how this is brought up time and time again on coins with terrible initial distribution? how many coins suffer this bane every time they get mentioned on the board. First thing people start shouting is instamined crap, premined crap..... this 71% to 11 people makes those look great. Mention ripple, nxt, any coins like this first thing you hear is the whining as you put it regarding the initial distribution. This puts lot of investors off and causes a lot of issues for the coin.



The bitcoin spin off model is not good, it is better than giving it to 11 people only of course but it is still a nasty model of distributing new alt coins. I have already explained why before on this thread.

It can't be gamed?? because it is already gamed towards btc whales. If you had zero BTC you would not want to see this model would you? of course not. you would only support it because you have some BTC? that is it no other reason.

Having lots of BTC does not entitle you to automatically have lots of a new alt coin. The very idea of it is crazy.

It has nothing to do with fairness.... that is correct of course.

If you are talking about the success of the coin..... i suppose if you could develop something so amazing and it was closed source you could get away with premining 99% of it and sharing 1% out to the board whilst you keep the rest to sell. Yes that may work if the coin was mind blowing and nobody could ever create anything like it and people just had to have some.

However since it is all open source i see no reason for people standing for that happening since there is no need.

71% to 11 people is crazy. We can distribute better than this. Let's make sure we improve upon that next time.

Go ahead launch a side chain based alt. I await the responses here in the alt section.

When is one of these getting released? This will not be popular with most of the alt community i'm sure.

The fact is, the initial distribution doesn't matter to the success of the (or any) coin. After that, anyone buying  (or trading something else for) the coin has to want it, and anyone selling (or trading for something else) the coin has to not want it. Nothing else matters.

If people are trading the coin (I don't really follow it, so I don't know), then this effect is already in play, and the initial distribution won't matter. People will whine over it certainly, but that won't stop people from wanting it or not wanting it and trading among themselves.

That's one reason I support the bitcoin spin-off model. It is an extremely wide and deep distribution model that doesn't even require immediate action by most of the people receiving it. It has nothing to do with fairness, just an efficient and low cost way to get the coin out there that can't be gamed.

I know you think that I try to talk down the problem of the inital distribution. But I am not, I'm just trying to get people to see whats past that, but enough about that.


The next NXT clone that will be fairer distributed will be NXTL, even though it will be rewritten in node.js. I am not yet sure if that is successful because it will be very hard to implement new features that NXT will bring. So even though I got a stake in that, I'm not sure it will be a success.

If someone makes a new NXT clone with all traps removed and atleast of the quality of NAS, then maybe I even switch and promote that coin. We'll see! I am a passionate person, and when I get behind something, I don't give up fast

Good night cryptohunter!

Well let's not jump ahead here, IF (i say if because i've not really checked it out in detail) NHZ is as bad as NAS then that does not excuse NAS. Rather it just make NHZ a bad distribution model also. I'm not saying it is, people should seek to look into NHZ themselves.

Well i'm glad i'm helping with this thread. If people choose to invest in a coin that gives 71% to 11 people then they will do so. Although makes you wonder why most shout out about a dev premining 2%....next time he should just  premine 2% and give 69% to 10 other friends..... leave the remaining scraps to be shared by everyone else. When the board complains just call upon any NAS investors to tell everyone what a good idea it is.



NAS initial distribution was terrible, it will be the largest problem to overcome i have seen on this board.

The thing with this type of situation is this....



step 1 - give a select few people most of the coins by accident or intentional ( in nas case i think rookie error)


but now you have a problem.

a - people don't like it when they hear just a few people got all of the coins
b - nobody is interested in making the coin work because they don't have any...


step 2 -  give a small amount of coins to LOTS of people and pray they think the few coins they have solves issue a and b above.

step 3 - use these LOTS of people with their small amounts to drive interest/marketing of your coin and push it forward to enrich the few people who got most of the coins at the start.



that is the plan here.  For me i don't like the plan it does not solve a nor b.

For others they may feel their crumbs are enough to solve a and b. That is there choice. I am just trying to illustrate that they are crumbs and that we should be pushing for this kind of model.

a better model.....

step 1 - we give a LOT of the coins to LOTS of people.
step 2 - we all contribute to the coin and push if forward to success.
step 3 - we all get rewarded equally for the work of the larger group.



this is the nxt clone i await. You got lucky someone paid you off with cheap/free NAS to try and boost the coin. I get this , that is fine. You have been open and honest about that. There is no scam. However it is what it is.

Don't try to push against the facts nor spin it that giving 71% to 11 people is a good model for success or fairness.

This proves one of my points. Yeah the distribution is bad, but it also incentivices the marketing/promoting of coins. Also the buzz around the coin because of all the people that opens threads like this help too. As I said, I still beleive this coin will have a good future, not NXT-good, but good.

Coin is called NHZ and its distribution is "fair", meh, dunno if you could even call it fair, it is more like non existent^^

which clone do you mean? i'm not sure if i heard of it or not?

Did you know there is another clone of NXT out there. And it is even older than NAS?

Ever wondered why you didn't hear anything about that? (or not much?)

1. i don't need to be involved to state that 71% of the minting was given to just 11 people.

The facts don't change regardless of involvement.

2. Most people that hold a HUGE share of a coin want to believe it will be successful. That does not essential make it so.

Nas will not escape the facts, neither shall any other coins that feel the best way to distribute their minting is by giving 71% to 11 people.

My mind is made up that is was the worst distribution i have seen yet on this board. Based purely upon the facts that it was the worst distributed coin i have seen yet. Nothing more nothing less.

Really unless you can go back in time and change the facts, they will remain the facts and should be brought up in any discussion of NAS in the future. Just like happens with other coins with undesirable initial distributions.

Let's leave it at that. 71% was given to 11 people, there is nothing that can change that fact. The rest is merely justification and excuses.

Let's hope the next nxt clones give a better try and distributing the coins.

Noted, so any discussion is pointless then anyway as you have made up your mind even though you were at no point involved. Must be nice to have so much time for things that don't really affect you

Also, for the statement that NAS is done. I'd bet against that (by holding my coins) and even though only future can tell, I think this coin has a long and successful way ahead. We might not be a NXT, but we will damn sure be the most successful direct clone of NXT for a long time!!

ALL other coins did have better distributions. The fact that coins can be spread out to new wallets by anyone after this point shows nothing. I can spread out 2 billion nas to 50 wallets with ease.

Please don't attempt to negate the intial distribution question here. Initial distribution is KEY.

It is the initial distribution we are discussing. We can't rely on hearsay of what happened afterwards.  

The facts are the facts

71% of all coins were given to 11 people.  This is nothing other than the worst initial distribution idea yet on the board.

It would be nice to see a nxt clone where more than a handful of people are given a good amount of the coins. Simple as that.

Let's not let this one slide, else you will get more of the same.  Next coin 100% of coins to 2 people. But wait that is okay because we sold it to other people and spread it out to different wallets we own.

You have a huge chunk of NAS so i don't blame you for trying to salvage this distribution crisis, however salvage is not really possible.

Nxt can say all the same things and more ... but still i hear people saying the main reason they will not invest is because of the intial distribution to 71 people.

NAS was worse and just copied nxt code anyway..

This thread like all such threads turns from an OP showing the clear facts of the intial distribution model that was the worst ever seen on the board.. into a thread of justifications and excuses as to why it happened and how it will all be better soon once they dump their stashes.

That is not the point, the point is only that it did happen and that it should not happen again because the next coin that tries it will suffer the same scrutiny and bad press that will hold the coin back forever.

There will be a better distributed nxt clone out any moment now if we make sure not to let this type of concentrated distribution happen again in the future.

Nas is done, i see no way it can ever recover from this now.

The point of this thread is to highlight this issue and make sure new clones don't make the same mistake. If they do, we shall simply highlight the facts then once again. Until eventually the devs start to realise it is not worth making a coin that will forever be reminded of its very unfair origins. They can achieve much more by making it as widely and fairly distributed as possible. Sure give the ipo or early birds a huge advantage if you like but don't give one person 20% of the coins, and 10 others another 61% of the entire minting...that's just silly.

That was the initial distribution, this person sold most of his stash. I bought many of his coins and resold them, then he sold about 300M to anohtether person. Also he deposited about 400 M to dgex.  He now owns 370 M


Why does the board help anyone do anything? The people can decide for themselve if they would like to participate in a currency. I don't see anyone get pressured into using NAS, do you?

YOu talk like other coins have better distributions. I bet 90% of coins have the top 1% holding over 60% of all coins.