Re: Investigation Complete of Instamines and Fastmines for almost every top alt coin
Of course all of these people are against my writing. It's worth it to them.
Its such a coincidence all the people who spout vitriol at this simple wiki are major supporters of coins with extremely suspect mining situations...
My analysis is simple and meant for the NON mining public. I urge them throughout the wiki to do more investigation than just my simple work. The amazing thing is that a number of regulars here (myself included) never really did a simple investigation into all of these coins. They came out so fast with so many "new" features... I bet a number of these in my wiki will surprise people.
Its such a coincidence all the people who spout vitriol at this simple wiki are major supporters of coins with extremely suspect mining situations...
My analysis is simple and meant for the NON mining public. I urge them throughout the wiki to do more investigation than just my simple work. The amazing thing is that a number of regulars here (myself included) never really did a simple investigation into all of these coins. They came out so fast with so many "new" features... I bet a number of these in my wiki will surprise people.
The problem with your "analysis" is that it's inconsistent and superficial. Nor are you a recognised authority on the ethics of cryptocurrency launches, hence the criticism of your presenting it as a "Wiki" because it leads people to believe that you are. In fact you're a self appointed one.
The inconsistency arises from the comparisons made from one coin to another without placing these in the appropriate market context. The implicit scope of your 'market domain' is basically the current 'coin' community (bitcointalk readers) whereas all these assets would be more fairly compared against a common background of the global market at which they're targeted.
Take your criticisms about distribution for example. When one coin is compared with another then, yes there are measurable differences in the context of the current market. On the other hand if the scope of appraisal was a proper global market domain then these differences pale into insignificance. ALL initial stakeholders of ALL cryptocurrencies amount to less than 1 thousandth of 1 percent of potential market participants. The investors of any cryptocurrency that's successful in such a market stand to make many thousands of percent of a gain whether the primary stakeholders number in the 10's, 100's or 1000's. So the comparison is one of degree, not of principle as your appraisal alludes. Nowhere in the report is this perspective considered or even acknowledged.
On top of that you go on to use highly emotive language in amongst the descriptive content without even stating that this is your opinion or presenting any balancing historical background as to the basis for the various coin policies which in many cases is absolutely viable.
You have implicitly maligned many hard working developers who act in good faith without even consulting them or presenting an alternative context to your own for their coin launch policies. The irony of this is that many of them have thought these issues through to a far greater extent than this analysis could even be bothered with.
Please take this piece of propaganda down. It's is a badly researched opinion piece disguised as a 'guide'. A disservice to investors and one that should be taken with a huge grain of salt by anyone having the misfortune to stumble upon this mis-labelled rant.