Here is follow-up on the "No ICO" ideal:
Please do not conflate ICO coins with premined, instamined, or stealthmined coins. If the ICO coins were distributed at the market price then that is not a premine. The problem is that ICO pricing is never set by the market and ICOs can be manipulated as follows.
Apparently they need to include WAVES in the "significantly premined". Please note that every ICO is likely "significantly premined" because the issuers can borrow BTC to buy the ICO from themselves, then pay back the loan (with the BTC they paid themselves) giving themselves free ICO tokens and giving the illusion that they raised more money than they really did:
Instead please continue growing the platform. People just love to waste time in here.
Please don't try to cover up the truth. Let him answer.
The same question will be asked of Rise and Lisk.
They already distributed 9 million coins to themselves. That's plenty of coins to manipulate the market when the supply is set at 100 million, with no more to ever be created. They are also using 1K of ICO funds to buy back even more coins. Interesting how the market appears to be suppressed now. They also distributed 4 million coins to "strategical partners and backers."
Thank you for the information. I hope someone can document that, so it is a fact and not a hearsay.
I hope he also answers my question.
I am not here to play altcoin police. So I will not harp on this. Speculators should be free to do what ever they want and decide to use trust instead of trustless paradigms if they so desire.
I've asked the questions. Cheers.
The bolded part in your response is exactly what ETH/DAO is. Not to say these maniacs can't push the price much higher in the future but the con will only last so long.
The way the insiders manipulate the market with these premined tokens is explained, and note the high leverage employed which means if they run out of tokens to margin with, it is like a house-of-cards and will implode to 0 in a heartbeat:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1524111.msg15340159#msg15340159They siphon off BTC for as long as they can and high as they can pump it, then game over and they walk away with BTC and the fools walk away with empty bags.
Also some (including the Daoattacker) allege that the USGovt + MIT (university) are complicit in the ETH pump:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1413819.msg15343686#msg15343686
And the price of Ether has been manipulated by classic, r/BTC, etc since day one. So the price alone is not an accurate gauge. BTW, I was telling people to buy up ETH since its ~$.30 lows. Follow the big money cause they always have a plan...or a clever exit scam.
Are you sure that final decision won't be reverted too?
Excellent point. Ethereum is one big game; I'm really curious to see what they have planned next. Cause I do think it's all a plan, an insider job with a scope and goal.
I am planning to demonstrate a way to raise money without an ICO wherein the market sets the price and the distribution is fair and the scam of getting a loan to buy the ICO from yourself is not plausible. You can read more about that:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1526067.msg15362605#msg15362605So my serious question to this forum is, with a fair distribution is it impossible for the price to go up? Monero was fairly distributed and the price went up and they have no serious means of attaining adoption (who cares about anonymity).
Is launching a project the honest way, with a serious plan for massive adoption and challenging Bitcoin technologically, going to be rewarded by our community or can only insider pumps succeed?
Serious question. Please feedback.
Serious question. Please feedback.
Define "fair distribution" first.
Market determined pricing. Free market competition to acquire the tokens. The insiders can't amass a large proportion of the tokens via deception, such as taking out a loan to buy their own ICO.
I already described the parameters of the market:
1. Competitive, i.e. the price not set by the insiders.
2. Insiders can't via deception amass large proportion of the tokens.
I should add a third:
3. Does not require tying the mining to centralization indefinitely, e.g. Zcash's plan to have the miners pay 10% to its foundation indefinitely (does theirs decline to 1% tail, I've forgotten?).
Ah maybe this is becoming a thread jack. Apologies. The opportunity popped up to ask a question. I was just hoping to get some feedback.