Cryptocurrency CANCER exists on coinmarketcap.com -- do you see it?

[particlewave]

Coinmarketcap.com listings also seem to have an issue with its circulating supply versus total supply metrics for calculating total market caps and inflation.
https://blog.sia.tech/want-to-deflate-the-token-bubble-fix-the-market-cap-indicator-d50f7f1e1ec4

[Stan]

You're right!

I made a post about it, and I want many people to realize it as possible:

https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@intelliguy/do-you-know-what-coinmarketcap-com-is-i-do-not-think-you-do-we-have-a-serious-problem

I'm tired of watching bad coins race to the top, and legitimate coins and assets fall...

We have an elephant in the room that most of us see. No one talks about it. We just seem to accept it.  I won't anymore.

Let me make you feel better.
Coinmarketcap has no relevance at all to the future of BitShares.
We don't need no stinkin' speculators.

[fluxer555]

He complains about coins that are "forked" or "premined", but bitshares falls into that category. Let's not forget our bitshares history, folks!

We made up the term "sharedrop", but all it really is is a gentleman's premine.

No, it's not.  People complain that our chain isn't private enough.  Everytime a Bitshares user makes (or receives) a transaction, you can observe it.  This is a lot different than most coins where they just have a garbled hash for a wallet address.

Bitshares wallets are easily identifiable and thus, auditable when a sharedrop occurred.  There was no foul play with Bitshares.

However other coins, like the ones where the developer releases buggy code, the chain starts, and 90% of the people can't get it to run correctly allows the developer to get his hands on a sizeable number of coins fraudulently, and then release working code an hour or two later.  This has happened multiple times.  If I remember correctly Dash / Darkcoin started this way back in the early days if you can read the original Darkcoin launch threads that have not been edited.

And that was the whole point of Protoshares (PTS).  You had to mine them and that gave you rights to our first upgrade to BTSX.  Subsequent upgrades brought those mined shares up to ownership of BitShares 2.0. 
Then AngelShares (AGS) gave everyone a 100 day chance to smartmine - donate to fund work instead of fake work (burning electricity).  How innovative was that?

If you insist on calling all that a "premine" then every single chain that has ever upgraded with a single hard fork will have to be called a premine too. 

Sharedrops are just adopting a previously fair distribution across a different demographic than geeks with gnarly CPUs.

I agree with all this. I didn't mean to imply any negative connotations with "premine" as a word by itself. There are fair premines and unfair premines. I was attempting to differentiate its fairness by using the "gentleman" term

[Stan]

He complains about coins that are "forked" or "premined", but bitshares falls into that category. Let's not forget our bitshares history, folks!

We made up the term "sharedrop", but all it really is is a gentleman's premine.

No, it's not.  People complain that our chain isn't private enough.  Everytime a Bitshares user makes (or receives) a transaction, you can observe it.  This is a lot different than most coins where they just have a garbled hash for a wallet address.

Bitshares wallets are easily identifiable and thus, auditable when a sharedrop occurred.  There was no foul play with Bitshares.

However other coins, like the ones where the developer releases buggy code, the chain starts, and 90% of the people can't get it to run correctly allows the developer to get his hands on a sizeable number of coins fraudulently, and then release working code an hour or two later.  This has happened multiple times.  If I remember correctly Dash / Darkcoin started this way back in the early days if you can read the original Darkcoin launch threads that have not been edited.

And that was the whole point of Protoshares (PTS).  You had to mine them and that gave you rights to our first upgrade to BTSX.  Subsequent upgrades brought those mined shares up to ownership of BitShares 2.0. 
Then AngelShares (AGS) gave everyone a 100 day chance to smartmine - donate to fund work instead of fake work (burning electricity).  How innovative was that?

If you insist on calling all that a "premine" then every single chain that has ever upgraded with a single hard fork will have to be called a premine too. 

Sharedrops are just adopting a previously fair distribution across a different demographic than geeks with gnarly CPUs.

[fluxer555]

If you're right about the market being swayed by incomplete information on CMC, congratulations! You now have an edge over the masses, and can profit from this knowledge if you know how to use it to your advantage.

[fluxer555]

I don't think it's CMC's job to be a judge of the currencies/assets. Their job is to report the current/historical price/volume/marketcap of cryptographic assets/currencies, and that's it. If you're using this as your sole resource for determining what you should invest in, you're the problem, not CMC.

To be clear, I am all in support for services or websites in addition to CMC that attempt to fairly make these kind of judgements.

[intelliguy]

He complains about coins that are "forked" or "premined", but bitshares falls into that category. Let's not forget our bitshares history, folks!

We made up the term "sharedrop", but all it really is is a gentleman's premine.

No, it's not.  People complain that our chain isn't private enough.  Everytime a Bitshares user makes (or receives) a transaction, you can observe it.  This is a lot different than most coins where they just have a garbled hash for a wallet address.

Bitshares wallets are easily identifiable and thus, auditable when a sharedrop occurred.  There was no foul play with Bitshares.

However other coins, like the ones where the developer releases buggy code, the chain starts, and 90% of the people can't get it to run correctly allows the developer to get his hands on a sizeable number of coins fraudulently, and then release working code an hour or two later.  This has happened multiple times.  If I remember correctly Dash / Darkcoin started this way back in the early days if you can read the original Darkcoin launch threads that have not been edited.

[fluxer555]

He complains about coins that are "forked" or "premined", but bitshares falls into that category. Let's not forget our bitshares history, folks!

We made up the term "sharedrop", but all it really is is a gentleman's premine.

[intelliguy]

You're right!

I made a post about it, and I want many people to realize it as possible:

https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@intelliguy/do-you-know-what-coinmarketcap-com-is-i-do-not-think-you-do-we-have-a-serious-problem

I'm tired of watching bad coins race to the top, and legitimate coins and assets fall...

We have an elephant in the room that most of us see. No one talks about it. We just seem to accept it.  I won't anymore.

[chryspano]

What I find unacceptable is that coinmarketcap doesn't have a disclaimer to warn visitors/viewers that the majority of listed "coins" are scams/shitcoins, that their listing can easily be "manipulated", even at top 10 and that everyone should do a vast amount of research and be prepared for every coin to reach 0 value, even BTC. Not that this would change much, it would just be the right thing for them to do.

[intelliguy]

A friend of mine ppcman on Peercoin has explained that a cancer problem is existing on coinmarketcap.com which exists on why Bitshares is undervalued.

I feel the need to share it with all of you.  I won't repeat what he said... but this is the one instance where I feel comfortable sharing it:

https://talk.peercoin.net/t/serious-flaws-with-coinmarketcap-com/4687

QUOTE: "THERE IS AN UNSPOKEN PROBLEM IN THE CRYPTOCURRENCY INDUSTRY.  re: (coinmarketcap.com) This is a serious cancer in the legitimacy of which coins are shown"

This is EXACTLY why Bitshares and Peercoin both suffer from being undervalued... It's a good read.