I am agree about the critics towards NVC, it is a weird shady coin..
But why do you always suppose premined is bad?! Yes it is bad for shit-head selfish pump-dumping miners who prefer it to start from zero, so they can mine a huge bunch of it at the easy starting points after launch and then when the price goes up, dump it to profit a lot (pyramid game) and that kills the coin and leaves a huge loss for other people who invested later.. a lot of examples are available, you know.
Once again, of course not premined is better than premined in general, but do you expect a group of highly skilled developers sit and create a new innovative coin (copycat coins are total shit no matter premined or not premined and excluded from my argument) without any profit or return for their work, so the coin get released to the prey of the above-mentioned type of miners who are ready there at the gate to receive, pump-dump and then kill it??!
If it is a new innovative promising coin, a small percentage of premined to be used to pay the developers+ further developments and bounties is fair and also may guarantee the future growth and progress of the coin economy.
But why do you always suppose premined is bad?! Yes it is bad for shit-head selfish pump-dumping miners who prefer it to start from zero, so they can mine a huge bunch of it at the easy starting points after launch and then when the price goes up, dump it to profit a lot (pyramid game) and that kills the coin and leaves a huge loss for other people who invested later.. a lot of examples are available, you know.
Once again, of course not premined is better than premined in general, but do you expect a group of highly skilled developers sit and create a new innovative coin (copycat coins are total shit no matter premined or not premined and excluded from my argument) without any profit or return for their work, so the coin get released to the prey of the above-mentioned type of miners who are ready there at the gate to receive, pump-dump and then kill it??!
If it is a new innovative promising coin, a small percentage of premined to be used to pay the developers+ further developments and bounties is fair and also may guarantee the future growth and progress of the coin economy.
Premining is bad because someone who has so much control over the economy can fuck it up instantly and they did nothing to deserve it.
But of course premining is bad for the average mean-spirited miners who just care about short term bump and dump dirty profit..
I say again: not premined is of course better that premined in general, but sometimes impossible, irrelevant and also not healthy for the coin itself.
One may also make an argument about closed source (for a short initial period after public launch) to prevent copy-cat morons out there to prevent them copying the coin the other way... and just publish open source when things get established with a required level of stablity..
But yes premined is bad for bump-dump miners, I agree with you
