LOL, nice way to dismiss the fact that both enormous concentration of ownership (likely but difficult to prove) and blatant manipulation of supply in the form of enormously cut to available new supply (which has inarguably occurred), a) matter, b) can affect market cap, and c) make the whole thing look like some kind of penny stock joke.
Really I don't think any of the market caps matter very much though, as they are all trivially small. We'll see what happens if and when that isn't the case.
Really I don't think any of the market caps matter very much though, as they are all trivially small. We'll see what happens if and when that isn't the case.
Regarding "blatant manipulation" see what I wrote above to celestio.
Regarding market caps, high marketcaps tend to spread coin ownership. Darkcoins costing 17$ each at its high, do not leave much space for the instamine argument. People who get coins for nothing do not usually appreciate them. That's what happened at the launch and why people were selling batches of 10k DRKs for 0.25 BTC. A few months later, why would an instaminer ...hold at 17$ a coin? Market dynamics and market behavior indicates that he would sell a lot of his coins as the price rose. And that's precisely what happened all the way from 0.0000x BTC per DRK, to 0.000x BTC per DRK, to 0.002 BTC per DRK, to 0.028 BTC per DRK, with waves of market reshuffling.
Things like mintpal going down and scammers getting wallets like 400k DRKs and then dumping them at frequent batches were more of an actual factor compared to the instamine non-issue (for the last year or so and in relation to the market). The instamine is only brought up to increase the FUD-vector... "DRK instamine... DRK not secure... DRK forks... blah blah blah" etc.
As for DRK / NSA PRISM 2.0 analogy, I mean please... it's Bitcoin code with mixing on top. Open source stuff. Too much FUD
