Topic: NXT VS NEM - page 11. (Read 14422 times)

Bitcoin is gold, but it will be too slow and old to compete with the 2.0s. 

Ethereum or NXT or Ripple have a good chance at being the next and first world currency.  Ripple might be accepted by governments, NXT is here now and working hard to improve.  Ethereum if delivered (and I believe the hype) will be a huge technological breakthrough. 

NEM, has a chance to become a big player too.  The advantage it has on NXT is that it can learn from all of NXT's mistakes.  So it is very possible that it can eventually overtake NXT, but not in the near term.  It'll have to be released of course.  The biggest mistakes of NXT are it distribution and its "forging" scheme.  NEM has already addressed distribution and is working on a new way to secure the network called POI. 

Really..... there are sooooo many factors involved.  One president of one country could entirely shape the economic future of the world if said president adapted one of these.  Even if just a major bank teams with one  of these, that would be a total game changer.  Hell...... if a few major celebrities came out in favor for one of these that would make boost the economy 10%.  Hahahaha.  Yes, seriously.

That comparison to Earth population starts being quite funny, when trying to determine the optimal distribution    I'm remembering that first it was used against the "fairness". In that task it works better, but not well enough.
 
Ofc a good distribution can be determined. There is a method, but we do not know it. So, even you can't say "it isn't well distributed".
If only one owns all the coins, it is some kind of distribution.
After some time has passed, there will be X owners.

Maybe a good distribution is such that the number of coin owners X increases with a certain speed S (delta(X)/time). X and S need to be such that the coin "lives" = people are interested in it + it has quite stabile value (or at least not -10% in every week) + ...


That is one "theory" - or someone may say bull...  
But if returned back to NXT vs NEM distribution, there are only guesses about how well NEM's distibution will progress. Time will show.
If making an assumption, then it is easy to say that a better distribution is reached, when X is greater, coz then it has more 'connections' to transfer the coins. Time will show. For NEM.
For NXT that could have been already calculated - and could have been produced a bit better figures than those infographs as there already exist a lot of data


Edit:
if S_NXT could be calculated eg. for every week, and the most of the NXT owners are satisfied with the distribution, then we can determine a 'good distribution', and that can be an example to all the coins

needs to be moved to ponzi section? lolllz =)

You seem to have an unbelievably myopic view of the cryptocoin economy.

If "everyone on this forum" is all there is in terms of market then we're all in trouble. There are literally thousands of investors in NXT. A few people make a lot of noise on forums about their pet grievances but that only lasts as long as they stay out of the market. Half of those are quietly hedging their bets and then STFU as soon as the price starts going walkabout in a direction they didn't expect.

It's all fud and bluster. V8x8d is right - "the average joe cares little about the IPO and only about functionality". If any of these technologies every get out into the "real world" it won't be 8-hour a day bitcointalk posters that will be investing in them.

What makes you think this isn't happening ? Everything about this coin has been notable by the timely arrival of scheduled features and significant events.

The asset exchange is already in beta after only a few months. Why exactly is there a need for any "restoration of faith" ?

A working/live asset exchange is why I purchased 2 bitcoin worth of NXT. Deliver this and my faith will be restored. The average Joe cares little about the IPO and only about functionality.

When i think of fair distribution I think of people that are currently involved with cryptocurrencys not the world population, you cant just give coins to people that have no idea wtf it is take auroracoin they are looking at it as free money end of story they dont give two shits what crypto currency is, you distribute coins to 3000 people that have a understanding of cryptocurrencys they can help market it, im going to own one million of a coin with my one stake, i will want to help support this coin, tell other people let them know how it works what it can do, remember this shit is all new and is finally getting mainstream coverage in the last year, right now i stand by my word. if you want to support a coin who would u have on your team 3000 people that understand the world of cryptocurrency vs say 30,000 people who have no idea what it is? If cryptos were mainstreams and everyone was using it, id say 100% 3000 people is not a well distribution but guess what at this point in time we dont live in that world.

I'm saying we're not handing out chocolates at a party and the people that think this is going to be a major investment criteria (i.e. something that will 'benefit' NEM over NXT) are deluded.

There are millions of companies around the world where the founder retains a 51% share for decades. The dynamics of ownership demographcs can go in both directions, up down and sideways. Have 3000 stakeholders if it makes you feel better. Have 30,000 or 300,000 (like Auroracoin) for all I care. It's not going to matter a jot to investors 2 years down the line any more than it matters to someone who just bought 2 shares in Apple for the last $1000 of their life's savings.

I don't think you've the slightest clue about what you're talking about.

Keep dreaming.

You talk as if the NEM market will exist in isolation just because it's 'well distributed'. For a start, it isn't well distributed. There are 7 billion people in the world and 3000 of them are going to be stakeholders. You've just picked a totally arbitrary number to decide what is "good distribution" and what isn't. These markets are a golfish bowl floating in an Ocean the size of the Atlantic when you place them in a global context. The biggest market cap any of them can hope for in the short term is a few tens of millions which is loose change down the back of the couch to many interested parties that might take the inclination to scoop up half the money supply for their daughter's wedding present.

You don't need to be an "original stakeholder" to be able to manipulate a market. In fact it probably helps if you aren't because then you've got nothing to loose.

Ownership demographics are not what is going to make or break any of these enterprises. Simple supply and demand is - if they supply something that people need then the value will be supported.

When was the last time you went into Starbucks and did a double-take when you got to the cash till..." hey, I've decided I don't want this coffee, the stock in this company is badly distributed which may lead to market manipulation".  

I don't agree with you at all.

I watched a few of his interviews and read around what he's trying to do. I think his grasp on the technology, economics and philosophy of cryptocurrencies is incredible for his age. He's also made a lot of absolutely astute observations about where the whole technology is going and has a rock solid vision about how it should be shaped.

Just to take one solitary example of the top of my head - it will change the whole definition of an 'alt coin' for a start. Gone will be all the arguments about algos, source code, protecting networks with hashpower and so forth. An alt coin will just simply be a currency definition on the etherium network - protected by the full hashing power of even those nodes that have nothing to do with that alt coin.

I think you need to go back and review whatever appraisal you made that lead to such a clueless remark. Yes, its a big challenge, but it's the right approach.

+1 Market manipulation is far easier with a narrow distribution.  People like to make excuses that nxt haters are just jealous etc but this is just a fact of how things work.

Well said.

+1000

One of the problems NEM is going to have is that it's going to be sandwiched in between NXT and Etherium when it launches.

NXT and Etherium are in some ways complimentary in the sense that NXT has "out of the box" features that get up and running quickly whereas Etherium will have a rich "Javascript for Blockchains" type language which will be used for advanced contract based transactions.

By that time, NXT might just have enough traction to carve itself a market presence alongside all the hype and bluster that Etherium will bring. NEM will get launched into the shadow of Etherium - a massivly more advanced technology than anything that has gone before and NXT which will have had nearly a year's worth of smoothing out bugs, gaining brand recognition and capturing new business (hopefully).

I actually don't give a sh*t about the distribution aspect. It's something that people bring up but is getting less relevant all the time. NEM will end up just as badly distributed make no mistake because people with a lot of money who want a lot will buy a lot and others will be only to happy to sell it to them. NXT is actually already spreading out. Have a look at these infographics stats http://nxtcoin.blogspot.com.es/search/label/Infographics

As for big holders cashing out and sending the price "to zero", don't kid yourselves. There isn't a stock in the world that doesn't have big holders. Whether it goes to zero is to do with the viability of the investment, not the size of people's holdings. Big holders already cash out of NXT on a regular basis. They also cash "in". Just last night someone bought 1.5 million NXT in the period of about 2 hours.

Buy what you think is a good technology and stop worrying about what everybody else has. Investments are not a democracy.
 

Exactely.

There are also some other components in there. For example there are guys claiming to own up to 90 accounts, and the investigation of the stakeholoders also showed many people that bought in mltiple times. So maybe there aren't even 3000 people to beginn with.

As a stakeholder myself i am hoping for a great start of NEM so i can participate accordingly

There will be alot of sellers when the distribution of NEM happens, but there will be holders to, i will be one of them, than there will be people buying into it that didnt get in at the ipo, i dont expect this coin to be huge value due to the dumpers in the beginning. NXT can manipulate the market keep the value up of there coin anytime they want, less likely with nem due to the coins being spread out more, I for-see the marketing of NEM to be like doge this will help greatly for the value of this coin and get more people to invest in it.

mmm... maybe the number  of people owning will not go down, but there has been many saying that they will sell their stake.
U r right: 3 BTC is much money to some - - - and that will start the concentration.

There are people who r not selling but who r not so rich.  they will start suffering from the game of the rich.

I agree

Everybody is talking about money, market cap and buying and selling.

Crypto 2.0 is about being MORE than a coin. Being a coin BUT more. So, a 2.0 coin will not be successful for being a coin alone.