No wonder prices don't move much in this coin.
Nevertheless, the developer is good and the coin is innovative.
Several top addresses are likely to be exchanges.
Also it's quite clear from cryptsy trades and twitter that some traders are stockpiling.
That is a given, top addresses are likely exchanges (maybe 5 at most). Still very unhealthy distribution and will most likely be a barrier to entry for new investors.
By comparison:
Top 100 Richest Addresses
Bitcoin 2,397,120 BTC($1,338,518,627 USD)19.09% Total
Litecoin 12,805,933 LTC($198,564,944 USD)47.54% Total
Auroracoin 10,130,190 AUR($67,889,483 USD)95.26% Total
Peercoin 11,968,520 PPC($31,020,934 USD)56.29% Total
Dogecoin 33,028,470,386 DOGE($19,788,298 USD)51.33% Total
Namecoin 4,305,573 NMC($11,407,241 USD)51.51% Total
Quarkcoin 163,381,385 QRK($4,356,810 USD)65.96% Total
Feathercoin 19,009,353 FTC($3,052,022 USD)50.40% Total
Novacoin 507,624 NVC($3,111,261 USD)67.83% Total
Vertcoin 1,085,037 VTC($1,632,417 USD)36.91% Total
Megacoin 14,998,491 MEC($2,015,482 USD)65.92% Total
Worldcoin 31,391,810 WDC($1,618,982 USD)63.02% Total
Terracoin 3,289,608 TRC($381,736 USD)56.86% Total
source:
http://bitinfocharts.com/This would seem to explain a lot, but consider...
1) about average?: it's about average among the coins here as far as the other Rich Lists here:
2) what is the total number of addresses?: one issue with these distribution measures is that they dont factor in the total number of addresses. A new coin might have only 200 addresses, so you'd expect the top 200 to own 100%. Point is, the standard rich-list measure that looks only at number of addresses doesn't factor in what percentage of the total number of addresses those top addresses make up.
3) exchanges: they make up big shares of any rich list, and different coins can have different levels of trading intensity on the exchanges.
In any case, kudos for this kind of info. Coin distribution is clearly a key metric the market cares about. As we can see with the success of BC, an otherwise unremarkable coin, on one end and the failure of QRK, which was very innovative at the time it was released, on the other end (and many other examples in between on both sides of the spectrum), people want insulation from the risk of big-whale coin dumps and are willing to pay for it and put that consideration over any other considerations about a coin's qualities, its dev's or its community's.