..snip..
My thoughts:
Instamine is entirely subjective - what emission curve constitutes the "insta" aka how do you define "instant" because that means literally "in one moment"? do you include coins that ever changed block reward - manually or by fast algos? community knowledge / involvement / voting? Mistake by dev or premeditated? Dev "instamined" 95% personally or his cat jumped on the keyboard and killed his miner and he got 0.1% and who else got what? Positions of the stars and planets at the moment of launch?
Premine is entirely objective - pre-mine has a clear *literal* definition: coins solo-mined by the dev before the launch date, easy to *prove* by anyone with a BCT link and blockexplorer.
And the *reason* for marking coins as such is to warn investors of a potential *distribution problem* - which can be for a 1000 reasons throughout the coin's life and is often impossible to know objectively, and requires a hell of a lot of on-going work by CMC to get right - and why? So Monero can get definitions changed that have been working fine for CMC & it's users, to be more inline with their agenda?
Thanks Gliss, I uses CMC everyday because I trust your data and it's well presented / easy to use, not someone's subjective opinion on what is good or not - thanks for keeping your impartiality.
To follow your lead CMC should remove ALL asterix of any kind and let the investors do their own research.
No because the 2 defitinions CMC currenlty use are both objective:
* - non mineable - Every coin states itself whether it is either mineable or not = true or false = objective
** - premine - Compare launch date to first block date to see if coins were mined before or after the launch = true or false = objective
"instamine" - First gain consensus from crypto community as what emission curve constitutes 'insta-', then compare 1000s of factors on each coin and come to a value judgement = someone' subjective opinion backed by some kind of consensus on how to define the term = a constant dispute for CMC as they start to try to value-judge which coins were "instamined" or not and lose their imparitality / market as well as having to extend this to all kinds of potential problems to warn investors on, not just the launch = can of worms.
Maybe the reason CMC picked the definitions at the start was becaue they are objectively provable, don't kick up a sh*t storm of personal opinions / spurious accusations, and if they had instead been subjective since the start they wouldn't have gained the trust they have now and be the leading coin compare site.
again...thanks Gliss
It isn't just a 1/0 situation as you are presenting it. There is a grey area ( something like legal but stinks).
If CMC will just use the "objective" "true/false" standard then they are missing the point in helping investors.
A 3rd category could be used but again- it will be hard to decide the criteria.