Topic: Why is NXT not the number 2 coin? - page 12. (Read 16958 times)

Odd comparison to make as linux has extensive adoption, acceptance and development support from many large private companies. "Linux" is found within most consumer devices these days in one form or another.


False, false and false. I suppose the other first examples don't classify as functional in your opinion despite them functioning.


One great thing about PoW is that it allows for a fair and controlled distribution. Any ICO allows for shill accounts to distort distribution and than there is the added problem of the last minute change in NxT's ICO(Like was done with maidsafe coin) compounding the problem.

Which is actually the most important thing when it's only over a year old. These are just the beginnings.
Developing features, interconnecting features, slowly improving usability, ironing out bugs, etc.

Not too important at the moment. There are plenty of (techie) users in NXT/SuperNET slack and fora. NXT is not primarily used for payments, so there's no real need for merchants accepting NXT. Leave that to BTC for the time being. VC's have trouble investing in decentralized community based opensource platforms, NXT is more like the Linux of crypto. Besides, VC's want to extract profits after a certain point of time, imo VC money is overrated and not always needed. There are some businesses using NXT (technology) by the way. Like smartcontracts.com, debune.org, and jetcoininstitute.com. And NXT is crypto sponsor of payexpo.com (not a crypto conference).

But it does have first mover advantage. The first 100% PoS coin (no bitcoin clone), the first with a functioning Asset Exchange, decentralized Marketplace, Monetary System, etc. ICO is only 'questionable' in the eyes of miners that are angry they couldn't mine the shit out of it. Actually, there are some disadvantages if distribution is too even and there are no whales. There's less innovation, less sponsors, etc, mentioned in the NEM discussion iirc.

There's no such thing as a 'fair' launch. Is 1000 people fair? Is 10000 people fair? How about 5 billion people?

Another dillemma NxT has is that it is a small group of whales controlling most the coins which is helping fund development and keep the coin going. Any fork with a fairer dispersion of most of the assets would compromise some of the developers interest in the project succeeding. This is the dillemma of an open source project that doesn't have enough interest to bring in enough developers for multiple reasons. With bitcoin you have developers working and testing for fun, to pad their resume, because a private company backed by VC capital has a vested interest in BTC succeeding, security researchers writing researchers papers, ect ... with NXT the developers are essentially all motivated bagholders.

This is why most alts will be destined to fail ... first mover advantage for a protocol or currency offers a tremendous advantage. Judging from the fact that all of Bitcoins weaknesses have very probable solutions which are being tested and will be released soon it doesn't bode well for NxT or other alts.

I didnt mention CMC.  Only NXT's market cap.  Most coins at CMC are junk.  Like over 90% of them.

Of course it does. Amongst other (imo more important) things.
If marketcap according to CMC is your holy grail, please explain Rimbit.

Thanks for giving a fair and informative post.  So I guess it's in the hands of the NXT whales then if they want NXT to succeed.  Imo, they better make use of their stash than hoarding them.

A decent development team is about all they have going for them.

Waning user adoption and interest, lack of merchant acceptance, lack of VC investment and legitimate business interest.

Part of NxTs problem deals with not having first mover advantage and another part of it is its tainted and questionable ICO. Bitcoin has enough problems with Satoshi being anonymous and possibly controlling between 2- 5% of all Bitcoins that will ever be mined but at least it was a fair POW distribution where anyone can mine. It is very likely (based upon the evidence) that between 5-9 users control most of the stake with NxT which is very troubling and why most people are apprehensive about getting involved with NxT.

This will continue haunt them just like Paycoin, Dash, Maidsafecoin and many other coins that didn't have a fair launch.

I don't think NXT is dying.  They have a good, enthusiatic team.  And I think they are well funded.  They are a major sponsor in the upcoming Payment Expo.

There are many more ways to judge the relevancy and usefulness of a coin other than market cap. NXT is dieing and become less relevant for many reasons. Most of the assets associated with Nxt are scams and ponzis as well.

Show me a millions of dollars flowing of VC funding flowing into a NXT project or a large change in merchant adoption and I will recant my concerns of NXT's future.

So if it's not a bubble its market cap actually means something.  And if it grows to over a billion due to investor interest it will matter more to both consumers and businesses.

No. I actually typed what I was saying.

What are you saying?  NXT is a bubble?

Do you think Rimbit's marketcap of $ 915,244 actually means anything?
I consider marketcap only one of many indicators, easily manipulated (BanxShares with óne market) and there's things on CMC that are not even cryptocurrencies (Ripple or InstantDex).
Agreed, being in the top-10 does attract (superficial) attention. But serious people/businesses contemplating adopting a platform/currency for their use, will do a proper investigation before investing.

NXT's coins are limited.  If there is an influx of huge capital coming in NXT, naturally price will go up and the NXT economy will expand.

Marketcap is everything in this 'industry'.  If you're small you get ignored, if you're big everyone will notice you.  So hell yeah this is a dick measuring contest.

CMC != economy

So NXT's economy shouldn't be growing to more than a billion market cap, is that what you're saying?

Why does it have to be a measure of penis's around here (or is it peni)?

The gatewayi helped setup in cryptosmith has the actual metal and is selling for bitassets..its traded 1:1 with the backed asset and the shorts are held with 2:1 collateral on the blockchain.

I knowwhat you say though And collateral comez into play because assets are shorted into existence.

The fact is that even with "gateways" bitUSD is fractionally reserved because the "gateways" in Bitshares aren't 100% reserved like in Ripple.  In Ripple, every IOU issued by a gateway is backed by the tangible asset (supposedly, if you trust the gateway operator).  In Bitshares, the "gateways" are simply a businesses taking a cut of processing transactions in and out of the Bitshares ecosystem.  Because Bitshares' "gateways" do not hold 100% reserves of the bitUSD, bitGold, bitSilver, etc to back the issued derivatives contracts which Bitshares, imo, disingenuously refers to as "assets", Bitshares cannot claim bitUSD is pegged to USD.  It's not pegged because if you can't fully convert all of the "digital assets" (Bitshares' derivatives contracts) to the physical asset there cannot be true parity.  What you have in Bitshares is a prediction market for derivatives contracts being sold to people under the auspices of it being equivalent to physical assets stored in a Swiss bank account.  This imo is not ethical and will lead to a lot of people who don't truly understand what they are purchasing being hurt.

Not just that.  VC's are pumping millions (and soon to be billions) in Bitcoin related start ups.