Topic: NAS the latest GREEDY/PONZI distribution model - 71% to 11 people?? what? - page 2. (Read 6543 times)

Yes i agree, i don't think the dev of NAS took the coins.

What i think is that the ipo was crazy large stake of the coins. He did not take them since he would be pretty insane to make it look this bad. Nobody wanting to get away with it would give 20% to one person and 71% to 11 people. He would have send himself 100's of little btc stakes to make the ipo look more reasonable.

If i were the NAS dev i would scrap it, give the ipo people back their 2BTC or whatever and start again with a sensible distribution.

Unless they give away 4 billion + of it it will never live down it's initial 71% to 11 people start. Hell nxt has never lived down its distribution to 71 people even though they have done a lot of work and not pressed copy and paste.

Nas will be floored to zero once a real clone of nxt shows up with some decent initial distribution method.

The ONLY reason to clone nxt would be to distribute the coins better at the start. Otherwise just stick with nxt i guess.

I would not touch a coin with 71% given to only 11 people, it will always be crashed down by that fact... people will either go with nxt itself or wait for a way more fair nxt clone.

I say again i do not think the NAS dev took the coins and i do not think it is a scam. I do think it is the worst coin in terms of initial distribution i have every seen and therefore it will never succeed. Hell other coins with nothing like as bad distribution have been crashed down by constant bickering and complaining about the start of them.

NAS ipo people give up at least half of your stash for the giveaway so people get 10x the rewards they are getting now or watch the coin fail.  200M is nothing it is 10% of what just one single person has.

 Should the entire board help a coin succeed so that one person gets 10x the rewards of everyone else combined?? get serious.

None at this moment. Never claimed that either (or did I?!?). I was just stating a fact. NAS has some differences though. The main client is per default wesleyhs client with alternative addresses enabled. Soon there will be a new windows .exe client with chat and decentralised dice game released.

Wait, where did I say that all coins should use this method?

I don't believe that at all. I view it as an alternative for getting a coin into a wide number of hands in a stable way. That's very useful for bootstrapping, especially for pure proof-of-stake coins which don't really have any proven methods of doing this.

If you want to create e new coin and use a different method go right ahead  (now or in 2020).

But I don't view it as "unfair" to launch a coin using this method either. New coin creators can do whatever the hell they want.

BTW, I assure you I am not Satoshi Nakamoto. I have a few BTC but if and when I launch a coin this way, it will be for the above reasons, not because I have a "huge" stake in BTC and want to grab most of the new coins.

And which features are there in NAS which are not included in NXT?

If you don't drastically change the sourcecode, you can just merge the new features into the clones. This will be done all the time with NAS for example.

But thats indeed an interesting question. What happens to NHZ and NAS and blablabla when NXT in inventing a great feature? In my opinion they are no clones anymore, they are just old versions which no future, if there aren´t programmers which can make the same step happen.

to cryptohunter: if you dont know all the information dont make thread about it , find out facts first,and if you feel that you missed on something ,make a thread how bitcointalk robed you of investment opportunity

Yes this maybe. But now the distribution is pretty bad and we need to do something about that. We need to giveaway more coins. But all the guys I wrote to either ignore me or already sent what they wanted to send.

I  would like to explain why that bad distribution happened ,it wasnt because of greedy devs ,it was because bitcointalk locked the ipo thread . As i understand they thought its a scam .So the devs just trasfered nas coins to investors who already tranfered some money and to people who registered for free 100000 nas coins .Bad distribution wasnt devs guilt at all ,bitcointalk is responsible for bad distribution because of  their actions .

Yeah but i won't be telling the 2020 people they don't get any of the 2020 alts because they were not around in 2014. That's the big difference.  I will tell them they are going to get the same opportunity the 2014 miners/investors got.

I'm not saying you  have to give the 2014 people your BTC, i am saying they deserve equal opportunity to aquire 2014 alts that are relaased and that they are aware of.


Just because you are lucky enough to be an early adopter in BTC does not entitle you to be an early adopter in all future opportunities. That is a crazy notion.

Alts are seperate new opportunities to BTC.  

The only people that will ever want this kind of sidechain distribution will have a major stake in BTC.

It's not a ponzi, it called greater fool.

You can't tell from DGEX.com that he has made a killing, I don't think he was an original investor or DGEX would look like Coinbase.

NEM coin

LOL don't bring common sense and logic into this you will offend the shady masked cloners and their farmed lemmings hahhaa

 

Everyone had an equal chance to get BTC.

But wait, you say, what about all the people that didn't know about it back in 2010?

Well, I say what about the people who show up in 2020 and didn't know about your amazing new alt in 2014?  

This never ends.

Ultimately the market will decide. I think treating new cryptos as spin offs from btc (which is most certainly what they are, objectively speaking) is likely to become a dominant distribution model, and like every single conceivable distribution model there will always be people who say it isn't fair. That can't be a disqualifier or there would be no distribution.

No not really. Fair means as many people as possible have equal chance at getting coins.

I don't consider those BTC whales just getting a whale share of all new alts fair. Any anyone who is not a BTC whale would probably see it the same way. Even the btc whales would know it was not really fair.

Fair doesn't exist. Fair means you get what you want, someone else doesn't, so to him its unfair.

The method I proposed provides a the widest practical method of distribution in the universe of crypto coins.

I bet if you come up with a fair way, that doesn't intrude peoples privacy, you could make an awesome coin! Noone has been able to find a good approach!

that is not a good way.... it serves to enrich the already rich only and cuts out noobs to crypto entirely.

Just because people are BTC wealthy does not entitle them to gain unfair advantage in new alt coin opportunities.

We need to find a much fairer way than that.