Less than 70 vs at least a 1000. It is a huge difference.
I'm not sure initial distribution matters (and I'm even less sure it should). What we should be comparing is the distribution both currencies have on a given calendar day. So when NEM launches, it has a 1000 or so holders, and on the same day Nxt has 43,000 or so. How does that make NEM better?I'm also not convinced that an initial wide distribution helps, especially if a lot of those people got their coins for free. Many of them will cash in immediately for free money, and many more will sit back and let other people make the currency worth something. You'll get a lot of bystander apathy. I admit, I'm doing this with other coin give-aways. Why not? Part of why Nxt has been successful is that the relatively few Nxt whales knew the onus was on them to make the currency a success.
We will se it in Volume and price stability after lunch.
Quote
I bet on NEM 
no such cappital conentration like in NXT
That would be amazing. Historically, wealth tends to concentrate. The Pareto Principle says that after enough time, 80% of the assets are owned by 20% of the people. I will be astonished if NEM somehow overcomes this aspect of human nature. More likely, even if NEM does have a "better" distribution at launch, it will quickly get worse, as some people dump for a quick profit while others, who have more faith in the coin, buy up. You're always going to get a mixture of rich and poor people. no such cappital conentration like in NXT