I agree neucoin is still in development. just like ethereum, it's not just about what is there the first week after launch, or how it's trading short term - it's about what you think it may become. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the only thing that matters is whether or not neucoin can deliver on getting millions of game-playing, viral, social regular consumers to adapt this thing.
But I agree, that it would only have potential about huge user-growth. And I see one scenario how Neucoin could have some use. But just as something like a fun-currency, without any focus on value. More like a "thump-up-button" with tips or as virtual-virtual-currency in an online-game or something like that. On a real and free market it's kind of irrelevant, because it's own economic-design is suffocating.
I think that exactly this - properly executed - would be huge. just huge. a widely spread "fun" currency for "super likes" and games etc with millions of new users adopting it - it would be enormous. and not like dogecoin, which was still by and large a cryptocurrency-community phenomenon, but in truly large numbers of normal users who know nothing about bitcoin or any of this. literally 10 million users and useful and viral. that would be such an enormous change from any cryptocurrency so far. in fact, if they could achieve that type of distribution that alone would make neucoin very valuable.
there was this interview with wences cesares a while back when he talked about bitcoin adoption and how it's all about critical mass, how email with 6 million users was just a curiosity, etc. and he mentioned these small, viral, "fun", casual, flowing types of behaviours as what would really could bring the masses in. not beating the credit cards for online shopping. not beating the banks for wire transfers. not anynomity. but this fingertip type flow of tiny little bits anfd things to do, eventually reaching critical mass.
I believe that's how cryptocurrency will become popular. and i believe neucoin could maybe do that, or at least that that's what they are seeing and trying to do. it's certainly what i see in it.
a few excerpts from the wences interview below:
"There are 6 million people in the world who have used bitcoin, and only 300,000 of them have ever actually used it to pay for something. So most people are using it as a store of value.
I believe that this is the perfect native internet currency. It has all the attributes to flow across the web and mobile just as bits flow, as information moves. And that can change the world, but not with only 6 million people. Maybe with six hundred million."
"Whats happening right now with bitcoin is very much like what was happening with the internet in 1992. Before the browser, someone looks at TCP/IP and says, oh my God, this thing moves information from anywhere to anywhere real time and for free! Its going to change information forever, so Im going to launch Netflix. Well, hold on. Yes, but not now. Not for 20 years. First we need much better computers, more broadband, lots of things have to happen. Same thing with bitcoin. Yes, it will change everything, but not now, not yet.
Email with 6 million people wasnt email, it was a curiosity."
"Trying to push payments now, trying to replace credit cards, I think would be a mistake. Like trying to push video in 1992. Dogecoin taught us a lot.
The kind of things they were doing, five cents here, five centers there, are where bitcoin can thrive. No fighting to replace credit cards right now. Enable the flow of tips and small transactions around the internet, that is the more natural entry point. We play tic tac toe online: I put down 50 bits, you put 50 bits. I win and buy a song. You leave me a little tip on an article because you like my comment. Its whatever, but it flows."
full interview:
http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/29/6082195/the-fort-knox-of-bitcoin-xapo-wences-casaresso, regardless of all these calculations it just comes down to whether they convert millions of new users or not.
1) But if you think it that way, the price has to drop very low. Because what they've sold in the ICO was something like "potential-value". They've said: There are 3 billions and each NEU should be worth 1 Dollarcent. That's a marketcap of $30 Mio.
And yes, there are only 100 Mio of supply on the market right now, but in fact there are > 3 billions ready to transact. The supply is already there and growing every day because of staking. And nobody knows if they are security-experts to protect it. Nobody knows if they won't say any day, true or untrue: "Sorry we got hacked" - after a dump to 1 sat. They assert that they've sold 100 Mio Neu for $1 Mio. That's a lot.
2) They want to make money with it. They've invested already money in it. They have or had a strategy to get rich out of it. In my eyes it's a stupid strategy but it's fore sure not a non-profit-strategy. ;-) And you can be sure: If they don't see any potential for profit they'll let it die.
3) It wouldn't be that hard to make a fun-currency for a company. I mean: This is already highly centralized. It's not a decentralized Crypto-Currency. And if for example Facebook wants something like that, they are able to develop and implement it in 1 month. But they won't agree to be the money-maker for the Neucoin-Scheme. And Game-Devs... maybe small ones could accept some BTC for implementing Neu. But they won't accept Neu for implementing it if they can't sell it without crashing the price or if it's already without any relevant value.
4) If this should go widely used it would bring much attention on the people behind, how they've managed the ICO and the launch, how professional they are and how transparent etc. Also this:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=944933.msg12338641#msg12338641...isn't good PR if you want that people download software and paying at least a little money for something they produce out of nothing. They can't handle this thread. How should they be able to handle the mainstream-press?
5) It seems they are not very skilled regarding the tech. I mean... why should they be successful with 1 1/2 year of developing and then show up with something that doesn't bring any innovation? I can't see more in this than in several 500-Dollar-marketcap-Coins. The differences are the huge premine and that the money-backing. I mean, under the line that's what they use as argument. Without that, what would be there? Just a very little project with a focus on tipping and gaming. If you do some research you'll find several projects with a focus on that.
What they promise is, that there will be value out of itself, out of growing because they could "buy growth". But that's not enough. And I don't believe that they can buy growth, because real professionals most likely won't agree with the project.
************
If I would have believed what they've said months ago... and if I would have bought into the ICO, I would be really angry. Because even if I would have trusted them because of their plans and transparency-promises and thought they would be highly skilled in coding the ideas... I don't see anything like that. What I see is a manipulated ICO, a manipulated market on the exchanges, a non-existing-Blockexplorer, zero distribution, zero transparency and near to zero communication or explanations. And because I know that all of that is very important, I would see it as a risk for my Investment. The reason is very simple: I believe that it's impossible with a launch like this, to turn it into something that could go mainstream. I would want see professionality and with such a premine: Transparency. They should be transparent about every single transaction, for what it is used for and so on. But they don't publish a Block-Explorer... that's a (bad) joke. ;-)