Quote from: BitcoinPorn on June 27, 2016, 09:12:10 PM

Quote from: pnosker on June 27, 2016, 07:06:55 PM

The idea is that it rewards those that have been securing the network. It logistically doesn't make sense to award all the addresses because we will be manually checking balances and stakes to ensure that the owners fit the criteria for the giveaway. We don't want to award exchanges with VRC because they just hold and don't stake.

Not only that, but the amount of VRM we would like to give away is small compared to the ICO. It's simply a token of our appreciation for those that supported us. It's about as open as it could be with a public list, fair warning before the ICO, and direct distribution via identical public keys.

I guess things check out good so far, I mean, long ass users like myself who have been holding for years have in fact been securing this network up until this point. Wish rather than the 250 get the same amount, maybe the rewards just go down the line into smaller amounts, or a reward is based on percentage, but now it gets back to what someone else was saying regarding the rich getting richer. I guess more or less I might find issues on either side overthinking this. I trust whatever decision is made in the sense that you guys are open about it and this discussions have been taking place.

I really do need to double check my balances in the main wallet. A wallet does not = a vrc address, right? Like if I had 200000 vrc, but they were put in 20 vrc increments into separate addresses, the combined total is what counts as the total wallet amount, right?

Yes, wallet =/= VRC address. Make sure they're all in the same address. You can send to yourself (a particular address) if necessary.

250 was chosen because this will be a manual process and if we were to do every VRC address it would be time prohibitive.