Once again, I talked myself into a corner, didn't I. Thanks, @nat, for pointing it out.
The point I was trying to get at is like this: that price gold is what the price of gold is.
You can make something out of gold, like a ring. Now you have a gold ring that ounce-for-ounce should be more valuable than the price of gold.
But the value of the gold itself is the same.
Uno's value is what it is, and there are no promise of future performance baked into the price.
but...
I agree with @IMZ's consistent point about the merchant and the innovator, because having the jewler in the market for gold creates demand and that will raise the price of gold. for everyone through scarcity. I never denied this but I just didn't think it through all the way in my last rant.
Clearly, Uno is worth more on Crytpsy today because of the way it performs a special function: moving value out of cryptsy. But that function could eventually be stapled onto other coins, and then the price of Uno might fall at Cryptsy. But the point I failed to make clearly is that features can be appended to just about any blockchain coin. I welcome new features and uses for Uno; but unlike a thousand other unfair blockchains, I also value Uno for the core idea behind it.
Uno is a pure crypto "base metal," imo. It is more fair than gold, because you know how much there is and when it will be discovered. Governments can't claim the Uno reward for blocks 200,000 to 300,000 just because it happens to be in a mountain under their control. You can't debase Uno by secretly mixing it with another less valuable blockchain. The way Blazr2 launched Unobtanium, with disregard for his own wealth, makes Uno different than almost anything else out there other than Bitcoin. You can't staple fairness onto an unfair blockchain; you only get one shot at it and if you mess it up, its gone forever.
Some people say, "A blockchain is just a bunch cryptographically linked text," and that text files are not special, and that blockchain tech is the real value today not the stuff it encodes. Yes, Visa & banks want to use blockchain tech for their own profit driven purposes, and it may be the same technology, but it is still not the same "idea." Beyond being "just a blockchain," Bitcoin is an idea that others have leveraged and built on top of.
What a lot of people don't understand is that a blockchain, like a piece of paper that a poet writes on, contains ideas and morality (social, economic, technological). Embedded in the core of every one of the thousands of cryptocurrencies that have ever been launched is an idea. Some of the ideas were, "let me scam as many people as I can," and "let me pre-mine this and dump it on the believers," or "This blockchain is only valuable because of me and my contributions and if I don't get my way, I am leaving." Many of them were bad, immoral ideas, and so they have died an appropriate death after the ideas were vetted.
But Uno was a good idea in 2013, and is still a good idea in 2016. Fairness is a good thing among most people, and so Uno has lasted so long because it's a great idea, an experiment in scarity, fairness, fair distribution and everything else.
I don't deny that Bitcoin also has a lot of these characteristics of fairness/fair launch in its blockchain story. Uno could only have been launched in 2013 in the shadow of Bitcoin. But Uno is a different metal when it comes to the mechanics of inflation and scarcity, and that to me is what makes it interesting.
So Blueman, if you want to update those awesome graphics, thats just fine by me.