Quote from: mr.coinzy on August 26, 2016, 11:42:52 PM

Quote from: ICOcount.com on August 26, 2016, 11:12:41 PM

Quote from: unvoid on August 26, 2016, 07:04:41 PM

Quote from: nihilnegativum on August 26, 2016, 11:06:13 AM

I first thaught that mere quantity of increments of value was a trivial matter, now I think it actually is important. I now don't see it merely as a psychological difference, but more like a packet of liquidity, that does change something objectively, so a quantitatively bigger money supply would be better, especially when dealing with small markets.

This is what I always said about cap. But lately people see many "ICO" with 100M cap and they think that this is somehow "gold" cap. And their main reason for that is "less coins higher price". Yeah, lets make 10,000 coins, let's see where we end (especially when we are building computer where calculations costs. I think that most of that people just want to list this coin on exchange, get rid of it with profit and forget). More coins, more liquidity and less spread in price. I don't know how some people can't see that.

1B would be much better but of course majority decides.

yeah 1 billion is much much better.

hope the vote result will change if ppl see this

I think that there should have been more options (like 250 million for example) - would still be more preferable than 100 million.

there is an option for 500m, but it doesnt get much traction yet