No one is saying that XSPEC is by default, a completely private coin in its current state.
Yes, it's not completely private. Calling it a privacy coin is a
MISREPRESENTATION. However, what it does show is the abuse and the huge disproportion of coin holdings in the current state by the address. The Top 100 holders own 82%, and the Top 1000 own 99%. So I guess it's a good thing it's not completely private currently to show that it's a scam after all. It's a coin with PRIVACY FEATURES.
Not a PRIVACY coin. Two totally different things, and you are marketing it differently than what it really is.
Looking at the INACCURATE blockchain viewer
You're debating it's INACCURATE. It's not very inaccurate at all.
XSPEC = SCAM
Everyone see how this troll argues? Always goes back to the scam argument with giant red text as if that bolsters his non-existent points.
XSpec is a privacy coin, I don't know why you would call it anything else when it can currently has Tor integrated, OBFS4 to trade in Tor blocked countries, and ring signatures. Thats far more current working features than some other privacy coins. There is no misrepresentation. When 2.0 hits, the only FUD talking point you'll have is the Top 1000 nonsense.
XSPEC's ICO was more than a year ago. The distribution is now driven by market forces, not initial sales. Having said that, XSPEC's distribution is, indeed, 99% for the top 1000 addresses. This is what happens with every relatively young, relatively unknown project. I think people in the crypto world forget that even in 2018, crypto is not truly mainstream. As a percentage of the world's population, very few people hold BTC, and XSPEC is much, much, much, much less well-known than BTC. For such projects, the normal progression is 1) most coins are held by a small number of people, many of whom are close to the project; 2) coin experiences a pump; 3) some early adopters take profits, leading to a dump; 4) dump leads to redistribution to a larger group of holders; 5) repeat, with the amplitude of the pump and dump cycle dropping as distribution and market awareness improve. The key point here is that centralized distributions aren't great, but they are a fact of life in the earlier stages of most projects. They are NOT evidence for a scam (i.e., a deliberate attempt to steal money from people based on false information). Over time, if a project continues to follow its development roadmap and deliver on its promises, the distribution will improve.
The currently developers picked up the project well after its ICO was finished, and did not take part in it. They are funded only by community donations either directly or by staking donations. Its clear by now that you don't understand the meaning of the word scam.