Topic: Quark market - something interesting just spotted (Read 1238 times)

It was easy to mine so the price was very low. Everyone could mine it with CPU but not everyone was interested. Also could buy after that very cheaply. There were people on the beginning who mined it and had almost zero $ value in it.  Now lots of people bought lots of quarks and price went up. So what's wrong?

Yes, this was the main reason for their rise. Bill Still released a promotional video and Max Keiser tweeted it. I'm sure they bought a bunch before hand  

* Total of 247 million QRK will be mined in ~ 6 months, after that ~ 1 million QRK p.a. (~ 0.5% p.a inflation)

A read of the quarkcoins main thread from the beginning is quite interesting whereas there was the odd Loud call that they were too easy to mine at the start there's far more positive than negative comments.

As lots of quark were thrown around like confetti, I presume now it's had a measure of success those who gave thousands away because they thought they were worthless would be quite angry.

Lemme get this straight: Is Bill Still promoting Quark?

If so, I'm out.

What's not fair is the uneven highly skewed distribution and fact that almost all coins have been mined already. This also leads to little incentive for miners to mine anymore which will have the consequence of the network grinding to a halt unless for some reason QRKs can keep rising in value so much that they are still up there in profitability. With prices having spiked so much in so little time I kinda doubt that.

Everyone had the same opportunity to buy it month ago for 38 satoshi. Not everyone did so and what? This is not fair?

This is a huge contradiction. The fact that there ARE such large whales as your post points out and even Pumper Bill mentions, how are these coins "well distributed"? Or are we seeing buyers well distributed (and for how long)?

Either way, keep in mind 95%+ of the entire coin yield was mined in the first 6 months and only a couple weeks ago there were people able to buy these at 0.00000040. At that price even 1 BTC would buy 2,500,000 QRK or a little over 1% of all the coins. Now at current price, someone who spent 1 BTC (bought 2.5M QRK) a couple weeks ago could ask for 2,500,000 * 0.00013630 = 340.75 BTC. At QRKs peak of 0.00030000 they could have attempted to sell for 750 BTC!!! Again, this is only off a 1 BTC investment a couple weeks ago.

Something isn't right with this picture.

Also, I think one of the reasons why accusations of scam are popping out is when a small group of people collectively own majority of the coins (keep in mind over half were mined in the first month??) they are able to regulate how much get sold and for what price. By buying from themselves at higher prices it appears there is demand at a higher price which gains the interest of momentum chasers and allows them to unload on the new investors. That's just a theory but is logically possible.

Folks - I realise this may be a bit of a controversial post since people might think I'm spamming against Quark. I'm not, I am a genuine holder of a good few Quarks. I'm on the fence regarding Quarks and the 'scam vs people's currency' debate, but I think the idea and objectives are good and they deserve to be given a hearing.

Anyway, on to the subject of this post:

I just saw a sell order on Cryptsi for 500,000 (half a million) Quarks at a price of 92 BTC. The order was there for a few minutes and then got cancelled - maybe because they realised they couldn't offload it and would have to bleed it out.

Now this could both good and bad for Quark the way I see it.

THA BAD (OBVIOUS)

 - it's an illustration of what the 'scam' accusations are saying (there are whales around ready to dump and destroy the value)
 - half a million Quarks is a huge portion of the total (around 1/500th of the *entire* quark supply)
 - never mind all in single wallet, but all in a single ORDER

THE GOOD (NOT SO OBVIOUS)

 - the fact that that trader was not able to get even close to offloading their inventory is evidence of Quark's economic strategy working

If you watch Bill Still's video interview with Kolin, he states exactly this, that the idea is that a 'whale' will never find enough buyers because they are well distributed.

If Quark's are to succeed (and it's a genuine attempt at proliferating the coins, not a pump & dump), then there's a heck of a PR job to do. A point that doesn't seem to come across at all in the debate is this 'whale mitigation' property that Quark has.

This just doesn't come across at all - the only place I've seen it is when Kolin mentioned it to Bill in his interview. Even then I didn't quite understand it myself - the sound was so crap and the description not really fleshed out. I'm also thinking that maybe this is something Max Keiser understands and that that's why he's not so worried about the early mining aspect.

If this (Whale Mitigation Property - 'WMP') is a serious mechanism of the coin's market strategy then it needs to BE SPELLED OUT IN LARGE LETTERS TO THE CRYPTOCURRENCY COMMUNITY, the same way as Brother John F and Joe Snip have attempted to spell out the scam aspect of it.

As I say, I'm on the fence myself about the merits of early mining. I can see advantages and I can also see why people want to run a mile from it, but all I would say is:

Let illumination rather than accusation prevail !

cheers

Pete