/biz/ - Business & Finance

nothing. It's undervalued

>>9349278
Muh fast and free transactions

>>9349345
It looks like it's about to fall another 10%

>>9349278
It's a currency coin.

>>9349278
Exchange drama killed hype and the team has been doing a lot of work behind the scenes (check the github) but hasn't released hype worthy developments recently. It's a sleeping giant.

It's had technical issues with every exchange it's listed on.

>>9349278
>we have suffered a stolen
>after months still no decent wallets

>>9349278
I invested in it.

>>9349479
lmao

>>9349278
it will be killed by FLASH

waiting for reliable mobile wallets.

>>9349278

> 7000 tps
Only on dedicated hardware.

> Current tps
100.

> No consensus
DAG isn't consensus and produce centralization.

It kept breaking on exchanges. Scam exchanges. I want it to succeed though I sold mine

>>9349278
Sold at $10. Bought at $7.70 today. Didn't go wrong for me

As much as I hate this simpleton coin I hold a third of my portfolio in it. Regardless of what you say deep down you all know this thing is going to be one of the main shitcoins with the best returns eoy.

>>9349278
You played too many video games and now expect short term rewards for every action.
Nano just needs time to prove it's stable and to develop user friendliness.

>>9349278
Whales wash trade and accumulate coin while simultaneously pushin g the price down to the floow. Once the competition ends the whale who wins will pump up the price dump on everyone while it moons

I feel like it is going to pull fucking Litecoin from last year, which was +5000%, this is the only reason I keep hodling.

>>9349647
Because the exchanges are garbage nano did nothing other than what its supposed to.

>>9349278
Literally the only crypto currency worth a damn. Merchants are actually attempting to implement nano payments as we speak because it would eliminate 2% visa/MasterCard fee which has a huge impact on their yearly profits margins. Unlike verge which actually has to pay merchants millions of dollars up front to get them to accept them. Kek

>>9349384
it went from being worth a penny to 31$

nothing went wrong you retard

>>9349278
My real issue with it is that it is deflationary, lacks privacy and lacks node incentives. I don't believe any currency that has these traits will ever reach widespread adoption. Nobody wants their bank account balance to be public. Nobody wants to use a network if it can't handle the traffic (and therefore it needs rewards for running nodes once it gets big enough). And people only think they want wildly deflationary currency (this would also be mitigated by node rewards).

Otherwise:
>great team
>working product is proof that crypto can be fast and free
>great roadmap
Once Nano is top 10, I expect a fork to emerge with these features. That fork is the version I am truly looking forward to.

>>9349647
It's a work in progress. These bugs come with being early adopters to this coin.

Should I sell yet? I don't feel like this is going anywhere and my funds could be invested in things ieh more growth.

I'M NOT FUCKING SELLING

Wish someone would fork nano and make it in satoshi's vision.

>>9349278
Seriously?

>>9349978
banano already exists tho

>>9349278
>it literally doesn't do anything except go fast
I honestly cannot understand the thinking of holders of this shit. Trade it all you'd like, this market is bonkers. But to actually believe in the longevity of this? Deluded.

>>9349919
>listing deflationary as something negative

>>9350006
Ty all in banano coin.

>>9350010
>implying instant fee-less transactions aren't the best fundamentals of a pure cryptocurrency on the market

>>9350036
>security
>smart contracts
>node incentives
>decentralisation
>etc

Wow it's like there are multiple areas that intersect to make up a totally new ecosystem. Speed past a certain point is the least important on the list and this is the only draw to nano. It won't be around long term. There is no reason for it to be.

>>9350101
>completely ignoring the ZERO FUCKING FEES HOLY GRAIL

The network was hacked like 3 times

heres how they coulda been a success

step 1) negotiate with exchanges so that they never ever charge fees for withdrawing etc - its a feeless coin, exchanges charging fees defeats this entire purpose

step 2) get on as many top 20 exchanges as fast possible. i dont care how much you gotta pay, this should have been priority #1 in january when it started to blow up

and now you are the premier arb coin, congrats you are successful

i sold my stack the second i saw binance withdraw fees.

>>9350013
Please tell me about how great it will be to have your wages lowered every year to compensate for deflation while your debts remain constant and the rich hoard instead of investing. Healthy economy can handle a little inflation or a little deflation. It can't handle a deflationary spiral. If Nano wants to be a currency it should deal with this.

>>9350148
A trade off for subpar performance on all the other metrics. Other coins don't have fees just for shits and giggles, they are necessary incentives. Not to mention there are other cryptos without fees that do more than just trade a useless data packet back and forth real fast. You can't build an ecosystem around nano. There's no future for that reason.

>>9349955
you should have sold on the binance pump. other than that, the best time to sell is always now. all nano does is bleed when its not being pumped by unpredictable news (like charlie lee tweeting about it)

>>9350221
>Not to mention there are other cryptos without fees that do more than just trade a useless data packet back and forth real fast.
Names?

>>9350212
Well we shall see. The current inflationary fiat system blasted everyone in the ass except the rich.

>>9349955
I did a while back even though the project itself is very interesting. Short term crypto fundamentals definitely don't matter (look at that holochain pump). Long term they MIGHT.

>>9350243
Deflationary blasts the economy as a whole by incentivizing hoarding over investing. If deflation is 5% and you only get 2% investing in a company, you don't invest.

>>9349278
it was "george"'s fault

>>9349702
some fag on here said i was an idiot to sell at $10 last week.

Now who's laughing fags???

>>9350288
Leave qt alone pls.

>>9349278
literal shitcoin that was pumped on like 1 exchange with 30 grand usd daily traded volume then when binance listed it fomo and now everyone realizes its a coin full of problems and keeps getting backdoored and hacked into everywhere it goes.

>>9349721
This. Nano FUD feels like ETH FUD did back in the day. Extra comfy.

>>9350330
>ETH fundamentally changes the way business is done
>NANO goes fast
They are not even in the same galaxy, comparing them is ridiculous.

Franco fucking Bomber has happened and another couple of lost or locked funds on any fucking exchange trading this crap.

>>9350320
factually incorrect. when xrb was pumping the exchanges were both doing millions daily volume

https://gyazo.com/7eb1b62652656d09e0bb786891280301

volume on the right

i don't think it would have done the same thing on an exchange like binance with higher liquidity, but theres no need to make up bold faced lies friend

also the coin was never "backdoored and hacked" but clearly you really dont give a shit about facts

>>9350342
>ETH fundamentally changes the way business is done
Which business? Name one.

>>9350342 meet >>9350148

>>9350350
It's just purposeful FUD. They know they are lying but they want to help push the price down. Honestly too common to respond to usually.

>>9350355
>The absolute state of biz

>>9350360
Ask yourself why does ETH have fees you absolute mongoloid

>>9350371
My point is that ETH has cryptodominance but hasn't expand to much real world application. It can be over taken if another platform achieves that more effectively. That's why you can't name a business that has been changed by ETH.

>>9350400
It is being used but that is not the point. My point is using ETH as the leading example at hand and that NANO has no chance to dethrone it. Because nano goes fast without fees but it doesn't chance anything about the current system of things. It has no usecase.

>>9350416
Its use case is the same as XRP and LTC. Fast transfers of value. You can argue that crypto shouldn't be used as currency but the potential for growth is clear. There's no reason for it to dethrone ETH. Anyway, I don't own any Nano because I got sick of the bleed so I'm less invested in this exchange than you seem to be.
>It is being used but that is not the point.
Name one business changed by ETH then.

I have 2k of this shitcoin that i want to get rid off. But then i think, it might pull off another december run any time soon or what litecoin did last year and then chnge my mind.
Biz, shill me on any coins that i can exchange this ahitcoin for please.

>>9350469
>ETH business links
If your argument hinges on this, idk what to tell you. I'm not your google however. Nano hasn't impacted shit and never will. ETH is now and maybe will continue to maybe it will not. It has strong competition from other contenders.
>XRP
Not the same usecase as nano but it has it's own issues.
>LTC
Another shitcoin with no use. Nano is objectively better than LTC though.

Literally the only use case for nano would be as a digital cash in a future tokenized society. With the necessary infrastructural investment that comes with it, nodes, bandwith, security, storage etc. A value transfer system that your ecosystem would be based upon. Except you can't do anything with nano except shoot it back and forth instantly. It will go up short/midterm sure. But that is it's ceiling.

>>9350558
It probably will go up it has a committed community.

>>9350395
Because ETH is a fucking commodity. You are renting processing power from other people. People who have no incentive to just give their processing power away for free.

Apples to oranges. With currency coins, THE NETWORK IS THE PRODUCT. Therefore there is an innate incentive for people to behave in a way that keeps the network healthy, or else they jeopardize their investment.

An ETH miner SWITCHES FUCKING COINS when it’s not profitable to mine ETH. Their skin in the game is their mining rig. The network is economically separate from their hardware; the two do not need each other. Fees augment the profit incentive to mine ETH (so does the block reward handout).

NANO’s innovation was realizing that a profit incentive isn’t necessary to get people to maintain a value network. The loss-aversion behavior innate to humans provides enough incentive. “Run your own node to validate transactions yourself if you’re using the network a lot” is different than “run a node to make a profit,” but it allows for no fees because the base incentive is baked in.

What went wrong is no exchanges to trade on.

Fuck, most of you retards no here have no idea about economics. A deflationary currency is not optimal for a growing economy, especially a global economy.

This coin has one purpose and one purpose alone as >>9350198 said, this is the perfect arbitrage coin. Micropayments? Yeah, sounds fucking cool, good luck getting anybody to actually SPEND a deflationary currency with stupidly high price volatility.

Take a look at bitcoin. It has INELASTIC supply. We know it's capped to 21million sometime around 2100. It's deflationary, so why is it so expensive today? It's the economic incentive to mine it. The cost price of bitcoin can be modeled directly from mining it. The cost of the hardware, the cost of electricity and the opportunity cost. Nano doesn't have a mining incentive. It's also an inelastic supply. We don't know the base cost of Nano but we do know it has high price volatility because inelastic supply coins have high price volatility. Look at the image related.

This coin is currently being marketed as a micropayments coin. People will be able to buy a cup of coffee with Nano and it won't cost them anything more than the cup of coffee. Cool. But wait, how do I convert that Nano back into fiat because the real world outside of /biz/ doesn't run on crypto? Well, we have no fiat pairing, so first you need to sell it for bitcoin (exchange fee) then send that bitcoin it to a fiat exchange (withdrawal+transaction fee) then sell for bitcoin (exchange fee) then withdraw to bank account (cash withdrawal fee). 5 sets of fees. On a $3 cup of coffee. And the price of the coin in volatile by design. Yeah, that shit is going to get HUGELY adopted.....

But if it was an arb coin, then it's ultra desirable because arbers make money off spreads. What better coin to do that than an inelastic volatile coin that is fast. Holding it between trades may actually make you money while you're enacting your current arb strategy?

>>9350973
Sounds like a great opportunity to me if holding my arb coin can make me money in the short term.

So no exchanges, poor marketing, and also, fundamental development issues (no good wallets, node crashes, exchange issues)

This is an irrational market, the consensus on that is overwhelmingly clear. You trigger movements in an irrational market through emotional factors, and that happens through good marketing. You tell some fucking NEET to buy this coin because its fast and free and he can use it in the easiest algostrategy out and he might be able to make some good money? Fuck yeah he'll buy it.

You tell any business owner though to adopt an deflationary inelastic volatile currency who's only benefit to them is being fee free, and he's going to tell you to take a hike.

Disclaimer: I'm a nano whale. I'm not currently manipulating exchanges and I'm holding all mine in my node. Why am I writing a FUD piece and not selling because that's what seems obvious to do? Because movements are happening behind closed doors that you people have no idea about. These do not include the core team. The marketing strategy of Nano will shift at the will of myself and others who are funding this to occur. Watch this space.

>>9351034
...so do i hold or sell? how much more is it going to dip? i just watched 400 people exit above me on the 10K rich list

I'm a believer in Nano. It's one of my biggest holding. However, the whole crypto' market is going to be boosted by institutional investors. They're more interested in good businesses tokens and store of value than efficient currency.

>>9351069
Who said anything about dip?

Don't know how long you've been involved in the space, friend, but when richlisters move coins, that's a good thing.

Richlisters don't move unless they know they can either accumulate more, or the price is right enough for them to cash out.

Considering were like, what, 1/4 of ATH USD value and 1/3 ATH BTC value, that rules out the second scenario from being the case.

I'm not going to give you a specific play by the month guide, but think for a moment about what I've said and make your own mind up.

>>9351116
>the whole crypto market is going to be boosted by institutional investors

No, it's not. See chart in >>9350973 for reasons why. The chart explains ineslatic supply in nano, but consider the fact that total supply for crypto as a concept IS elastic.

>>9351168

how do you feel about this?
>>9226991

>>9351168
how do you feel about this?

>>9226991
>>9227001

>>9350243
I would definitely blast a good one in this ass

>>9351168
no joke, you have an absolutely terrible understanding of economics bro.

cost of a production of a bitcoin has no bearing on the value of a bitcoin. A Picasso is 10 bucks worth of paint and canvas. I could use the finest paint made by the world's best chem engineers and paint on a canvas made from some endangered species of tree and the world's finest cotton and put 10,000 man hours into it and it wouldn't be worth 1/100000th as much.

Nano's price is low simply because it was given away. It is literally one of the top moon missions across all of crypto the last couple years. This produces "weak hands", even if it nano *should* be worth say $100, so many people got in for a couple cents. If you put in $1000 dollars and that position is now worth $500k and you have a networth of say $50k outside of crypto, you are going to take money off the table. This is even more true if the tide's start to turn. It doesn't matter that it *should* be $100 if you have 90% of your net worth in crypto. This is why the consolidation phase is so long and drawn out for nano. Nano is a very immature market. In contrast, bitcoin and even stuff like dogecoin outperform in bear markets because they are mature coins, the thousandaires that "went to the moon" cashed out and were replaced by millionaire investors who have now been replaced by billionaire investors in the case of bitcoin. Nano's reddit crowd is selling an undervalued asset because they are playing with the houses money, and the market is persistently out of equillbrium because crypto in general is a very green/square market, there aren't enough institutional guys to arb out these kinds of obvious misevaluations.

Every coin has a market cap right? Consider the metric that is the average cost basis of acquisition for all holders of the asset. That is not something you can measure directly because the information simply isn't out there but obviously Nano has one of the lowest in relation to price. That is immaturity.

>>9351247
Sounds like I'm reading Alex Jones.

Tell me, what part of his OP was actually correct? Backtest his strategy on paper and tell me if his steps actually worked. How many big green candles with high volume did we see as per the dates he tried to line up with? Literally every call he made was rubbish. Look at his post date and time, and compare to the image related. it's Binance 4hr intervals.

Remember what I said about irrational markets and emotions? If you listened to him, you got your stack eaten up. Notice how if you follow what he said, you would've bought into an oncoming dip again. This is an arb coin, trying to swing trade it on one exchange where there's no pressure to move it either up or down and it's at the hands of demand alone, is just dumb. This guy was selling you emotions.

From this chart alone anon, you should know what the play for Nano is. I hope you have some BTC you can transfer to Binance.

>>9351425
Another reason nano is so immature and why the "mooning" was so huge is because even though the team could have probably done a token sale for a $1 a coin they choose to give it away for free. Most other coins greedily didn't go with this strategy and just gambled that the SEC wouldn't shake them out.

Nano's team took a long long term view. This makes it one of the safest investments. They never sold anything to anyone. Nano literally has less claim on being a security than world of warcraft gold which is effectively sold by proxy by Blizzard though the subscription service which is effectively the selling of mining rights.

Massively underpriced, no inflation ever, no legal problems. It's literally the safest bet out there but its unsexy/scary because crypto investors are idiots who don't want to chase something that "already mooned" and they don't realize the monetary policy/legal side of things or truly understand nano's best in class position wrt to fees/speed/scalability. Further the really really don't understand the aforementioned reasons behind the extended consolidation, the underperformance looks like a red flag when actually they are probably overperforming in their underperformance.

>>9351425
this anon gets it

>>9351425
>claims I don't understand economics
>doesn't talk about economics in his post

Fuck me dead anon, you're a proper stitch up.

If you honestly think cost of production of a good/commodity/service has no bearing on the price you're an idiot. That cost establishes a BASE price at which to begin further valuations. It's the break even price a seller would sell at before they take a loss by going below that. Your idea that cost has no effect on price is so unbelievably moronic that I have to think you're "just pretending to be retarded".

Explain to me why every business calculates profits as the equation of "sale price minus cost price"? How do you think miners who are operating as companies calculate their taxes? There's a cost involved. The cost of bitcoin for them is below what the market values it at, that's their profit incentive for them to mine.

>>9351521
>no inflation ever
A bad thing long term for their marketing strategy as a micropayments coin for reasons already established.

>>9351558
no inflation ever is not a bad thing because usage is not even the primary driver of value. The primary drivers of value actually are memes and monetary policy.

Again, consider picasso. Great monetary policy: he is dead and can't make more art. Memes? Obv one of the most memetically secured painters of all time. Even if you hate picasso you would kill to buy a picasso oil painting for a million because you know its worth 10x+. Picasso's don't have high velocity though. They could in theory but they definitely don't.

It doesn't matter if ostensibly nano is supposed to be a cash substitute but the store of value component lowers its velocity. Think about the implication! The argument is literally is that "this money is worthless because its too valuable to ever spend"


no value because its too valuable? hard to argue with that logic.


re: cost of production. The production for bitcoin is fixed. you have causality reversed, people will buy up mining hardware in accordance with price not the other way around. Just fucking think about it, you produce a widget for $10 and I produce a widget for $20 is my widget worth more? No, Im just going to be out of business because you can sell for $19 in the long run and I'm out of business. I have no claim to say my widget is worth 20 and your widget is only worth 10.

offshore oil can be >100 dollars a barrel, saudi extraction cost is like 10 dollars. Can a offshore guy put "certified offshore oil" on the barrel and claim its worth more? fuck no. demand is equal for the two products so equilibrium price is equal.

>>9349919
It is not deflationary. There is no more coins being added to circulation.

>>9350973
There will be fiat pairing this year

>>9351687
just to drive it home. Do you think bitmain spending millions on asic technology made bitcoin worth billions or do you think a company spent millions on mining technology so that they could aquire a lot of an asset worth billions? its stone cold obvious the business invested in the asset by proxy by developing the mining technology.

IE, what if spend billions building monuments out of human shit? what are the monuments worth? fucking zero because nobody fucking wants my piles of shit, it doesn't matter what I spend on something if nobody wants it.

>>9351787
>>9351521

do either of you see nano replacing btc/ltc/bch and other currency coins long-term?

>>9351558
wrong. It doesn't matter that it took me a bowl of chili and a few hours to produce a fart.
Is anyone willing to pay for my fart gas?
No. You are using the absolutely fucktarded marxist LTV idea that labor = value.
If I spend 10 years rolling a rock back and forth on the ground, is someone willing to pay 10 years salary for the rock?
It does not matter what I spent on the rock, that has no bearing on what other people are willing to pay for the rock.
things are only worth WHAT BUYERS ARE WILLING TO PAY. if that happens to be more than what it took to produce the product, then the seller can make a business out of it. If not, (which happens frequently), then the place goes out of business.

Bitcoins value has ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY NOTHING to do with the electricity used to mine it. If it did, wouldn't that mean NANO should be worth $0.00 because negligible electricity was used to mine it? Clearly nano is not worth $0.00 because there are willing buyers at $7.50

>>9351716
>It is not deflationary. There is no more coins being added to circulation.
See if you can follow along:
1) no coins added
2) coins lost through lost wallets, retards sending them to wallets that don't exist, literal holders dying
What happens to the supply?

>>9352218
>BTC
no
>LTC
yes
>Bcash
bcash lol

>>9351558
>That cost establishes a BASE price at which to begin further valuations. It's the break even price a seller would sell at before they take a loss by going below that.
Most BTC sellers are not miners you absolute dunce. The vast majority of holders are not actually mining the coin and they have no "production cost." You also forget that mining cost goes up with more competition. If the price goes down, less people can afford to mine and it costs less to mine so the price miners are willing to sell for is also decreasing. The cost of mining has NEVER been the primary driver of the cost of a BTC.

>>9349278
The team failed to develop working software. I bought at $3 and sold on the way down at 15 after the bitgrail hack. It was then that I finally admitted that the problem wasn't every exchange in existence. The problem was an incompetent dev team who literally were telling people that funds were safe on bitgrail. Three months later and exchanges are still having massive problems, so I made the right call.

also I realized that you can literally make a nano clone on eos with a one line command using the built on currency contract. Just as fast and just as feeless, with the added bonus of being backed by a much more competent team with infinitely deep pockets, and having an entire ecosystem built around it. Single purpose currency coins are so 2012.

>>9352218
well none of those coins are really in wide use as currency so replacing is maybe not the appropriate word. Overtaking in terms of market cap? potentially... BTC/BCH's claim to the throne is almost purely memetic at this point. It is not better tech, it simple hasn't the highest amount of real estate in people's brains. The maximalist types are basically religious zealots and they will continue to be because they are extremely highly incentivized to be because of their portfolios. A pope isn't ever going to convert to Islam right? His wealth, power, prestige, is all contingent on that not happening.

Chipping away at secure memes is very hard. I don't see nano being world number 1 anytime soon. 50 years from now is anybody's guess though.

I think nano is a big favorite to beat LTC/BCH/BTC on ROI over the next few years which is probably what is more relevant to you as an investor.

LTC specifically is a garbage product, Charlie Lee basically did a cookie cutter fork and then did some gangster deals with major exchanges. It literally best in class at nothing and there is zero thesis for it to become best in class at anything in the future. This is a winner-take-most market, I think LTC is an lock to be an under-performer, I think Charlie even knows that and is why he opportunistically sold during a parabolic run which ended up being the ATH.

>>9352310
the problem with exchanges is that they offer a bunch of products and they won't bother to write software for a particular coin. most coins are erc20 or bitcoin clones and thus require little effort.


there are zero problems with nano and there weren't any in the past. Exchanges just need to use multiple wallets and seed withdrawals and deposits properly, nano didn't bother to create custom software for them because its not their job. Admittedly, that was very shortsighted of them because the exchanges truly don't give a fuck and it looks really bad for nano. they should have built a custom wallet for exchange level usage and packaged it all for the exchanges for free. the dev team went full autism on that one but that was a business strat mistake and had nothing to do with the protocol in any way.

>>9352381
Here's the thing though. Nano has only one possible path to success, and that's by being adopted by retailers and merchants. If crypto exchanges can't keep a nano wallet running, mr. Shekelstein sure as hell won't be able to, and they're sure as hell not going to risk pissing off customers and being accused of stealing people's money and other such nonsense just so they can use this hip new tech.

>>9352434
wrong on multiple counts. it is not the only path to success, there is zero reason to believe that. maybe coins are most successful haven't been widely adopted for merchant use. this includes bitcoin.

further, you are completely backwards. merchant will have a much easier time than exchanges. there are zero issues if you are doing less than a transaction per second. merchants will be fine using the same wallets every other consumer uses unless they are doing 80k transactions a day. Once, you have start hitting those barriers you just need to use multiple wallets and have customers use wallet # = previous wallet used + 1. real simple since merchants are going to not going to be doing withdrawals there is no need to rebalance regularly.

>>9352434
the actual technical flaw was very minor, and should have been avoided by any competency of any exchange that didn't want to lose money. any dev that saw there wasn't an ID parameter in the api call should have realized it wasn't an idempotent request and they needed to roll their own idempotency. the fix is already in the new release.
now i'll agree the devs were fucktarded for not having it default idempotent, like every other coin, but still.

and EOS is centralized because 1 EOS = 1 vote, and larimer has the majority of the votes. there's also the problem of them advertising 1 million tps, but if they actually do that then they won't be able to have 121 block producers who can store the full blockchain.

but everything will continue to go up it seems, maybe none of it matters, tron is going up just as fast as eos.

>>9352564
Merchants like Amazon and ebay will have as much if not more volume as smaller exchanges like shitgrail and kucoin.

>>9352608
> EOS is centralized because 1 EOS = 1 vote, and larimer has the majority of the votes.
Why even bother talking about something you obviously know nothing about? Nano shills are a special breed of delusional. One of the reasons I sold. Their discord is full of people like you who will just shit on any project for made up reasons because it's not nano

>>9352665
you're telling me you don't even understand how EOS voting works? sorry for you.
EOS and nano are similar, but EOS is inflationary. EOS also has arbiters who are voted in by elections. only 5% of people will vote, and since the EOS creators made $1 billion off the token sale, and the market cap is barely that high, they could a majority of the supply easily.

>>9352713
You're telling me you don't know how their year long token distribution works? Also you don't seem to understand what a market cap is. Life is too short to argue with retards.

>>9349755
This
If you are not buying now you are missing at least x3 in sats

>>9352733
i do. are you so braindead you realize it doesn't matter?
They are the creators they had access first, at $0.10 per coin, or whatever, don't know if they premined or not.
but either way they'd have the chance to buy first. and EOS votes are more powerful in that ecosystem, so there's more incentive for rigging, and guess who has all the power to do that? the first ones in the game!

>>9352793
It's literally designed to make it impossible for whales to buy up the supply all at once. That's why it's taking a year you complete moron. And the market cap is 15x what you said it was despite the fact that that's completely irrelevant.

>>9350212
brainlet. Scarcity = value.

>>9352823
>just buy all your tokens in the first month when no one heard about it
sorry, you must be <90 IQ if you don't understand my argument. Bye

>>9352846
That's literally impossible. They only sell a set amount per day. And the coin was hyped up from the beginning, which you would remember if you were around back then. It was a top20 coin on launch. Christ nano shills are worse than bch fags.

>>9352828
I've got a one of a kind turd straight out of my ass I'd like to sell you

>>9352875
whales had a chance to accumulate for 6 months at an average at $1.00 per EOS.
and they could get even more AT EXCHANGES since the people who buy off the website can sell it on the exchange.
there is literally fucking nothing that prevented anyone someone from getting a good chunk of the supply (even 1% would be enough, since the cast majority of people don't bother voting)
Then they have power over enforcing or not enforcing any stupid constitution that is put in place by gullible morons

>>9352913
>whales had a chance to accumulate for 6 months at an average at $1.00 per EOS.
So did everyone else you brainlet

>there is literally fucking nothing that prevented anyone someone from getting a good chunk of the supply (even 1% would be enough, since the cast majority of people don't bother voting)
You are so unbelievably stupid and unself-aware. Tell me more about how the $15 billion market cap allows Dan larimir to hold a majority stake.
Please, explain how they used their ico profits to buy cheap coins in the beginning before they even fucking sold any. Just neck yourself you low iq pajeet. I'm going to bed.

>>9352973
https://etherscan.io/token/tokenholderchart/0x86fa049857e0209aa7d9e616f7eb3b3b78ecfdb0

hmm really makes you think

>>9352973
10 addresses hold 35% of the supply you dumb fucking nigger
calling me a retard when you didn't even know this shit

>>9352875
Idiot if your turd was one of kind it would be valuable to science. Dipstick