is flawed and is not a good source of info

[size=12pt][font=arial] is flawed, and shouldn’t be used as solid investment advice.

For instance, Auroracoin having 50% pre-mined sitting in wallets contributing to the overall coinmarketcap score is extremely misleading and gets people to throw mining hashrate and money at it by the overvalued numbers reported.

mhps made this analogy which could hold true:

It would work too, with one exception. might decide to not carry that particular coin once it was discovered that its purpose was to falsely outprice Bitcoin and show the flaws in the formula.’s business model is to attract eyeballs to its site so they click on the Google Ads at the top/bottom of the screen. So far it is meeting their demands, because every where you go, every one quotes them as an authoritative source for information.

They state right in their announce posting that it is calculated as simply as this:

Marketcap = Price x Total Supply

As per Wikipedia Market capitalization (or market cap) is the total value of the issued shares of a publicly traded company; it is equal to the share price times the number of shares outstanding.

The key here is "shares outstanding, which is defined as all the shares of a corporation or financial asset that have been authorized, issued and purchased by investors and are held by them.

When it comes to AURORACOIN, 50% of the total coins pre-mined prior to March 25, 2014 have not been issued, nor purchased by investors. So the market cap that claims as being valid for Auroracoin is wrong.

I suggest that coinmarketcap modify it’s algorithm instead to be:

Marketcap = Price x Total Publicly Distributed Number of Coins obtained by:
                    a) non pre-mined
                    b) not hoarded by founders who were ready with miners on standby for the announce post
                    c) actually purchased by real investors.

Now all of a sudden, guess what happens?

AURORACOIN falls down the list
RIPPLE falls down the list

You could keep going, even the great DOGEcoin would fall down the list, if you consider how much of those coins fell into the lap of the first developers and those knowledgeable about the coin before it was released.

Now consider Peercoin’s release:

This is hugely important. Peercoin should be miles ahead of these other coins if reported fairly. This is why is only doing an injustice to the cryptocurrency community by reporting half-true numbers.

Now I don’t think they do it in vain. They report the easiest numbers to report. Investigating each individual coin to determine the real number of shares [coins] outstanding that were properly distributed and/or purchased, takes a lot of work.

So any media or true investor looking at the real market cap needs to find this information elsewhere. seems like an available domain. Any one up for the challenge?

** Feel free to r/eddit or tweet, or re-post this

Like the idea, but it is not that easy to find the data you would need.

When is someone a founder, an early hoarder, an insider, knowledgeable or just a first buyer. So any data would be very subjective and with that almost as worthless as the current marketcap calculation. Cryptos don’t have shareholders and shares are not issued in the way it works with shares in companies, there are no registers.

Possibly you can get some information from the blockchain, premining would be pretty clear, but whether early buyers are insiders or just early investors is hard to proof. Maybe only coins after a certain difficulty would count? Very subjective still.

Maybe you can try for the top 10 and see if you can get consensus on what is a fair calculation

In the internet industry, there is a thing known as the 95th percentile calculation for bandwidth usage.

I wonder if there is a way to adapt that kind of idea to calculating market cap.

Or, something like this:

If you leave out the top 50 richest wallets of any particular coin, and THEN do an assessment that way. It wouldn’t be fully accurate, but at least it would level the playing field, especially for excluding pre-mined bounties, excluding founder hoarding, excluding non-circulated coins, etc.

A few good ideas here, maybe we should email or if they are interested to publish alternative marketcaps based on those ideas. I hope more people would chip in with ideas. Ultimately it would benefit Peercoin and rationalise the crypto markets.

The first step is bringing greater awareness. From the moment Ripple ran to the top of the charts as soon as it was launched, people realized there was something wrong with it.

No one wants to say anything. We just pretend that things are fine. It’s so frustrating.

Maybe a thread in bitcointalk, although the altcoin section is a bit crowded.

Any ideas how to get the awareness. Should we team up with Litecoin and Bitcoin colleagues and post a thread and see if we can get some traction?

I’m not a reddit person, so if some one wants to re-post, feel free.

I don’t even have an account at bitcointalk, I spend most of my time (when I have time) here instead.

So please re-post the entire article. (don’t just link, no one likes to click links)

It’s about time the entire cryptocommunity take a proper forensic audit of the validity of the information posted at We don’t even know if they can manipulate their own private trading position if they are traders, by fudging those graphs and numbers either (I didn’t bring that up)

Since most people are VERY aware of, it is time they get peer reviewed on reddit or bitcointalk for the reasons at the very top (1st page) of this topic thread on March 3, 2014.

Wouldnt it be awesome if somebody with the same mind-set spent hundereds of thousands over the last 5 months developing EXACTLY what your talking about.

ALL of the data - TRUE data?
Customizable and viewable by either a TRUE global weighted average for ANY currency OR just from a specific exchange against ANY fiat currency.

Perhaps even the ability to overlay a global weighted average against a particular exchange… to see how that exchange does compared to the weighted average for a SPECIFIC currency & viewed in any FIAT of your choice…

Hi guys…

Here’s a sneak preview of

Launching early April.

Yes I am looking for Alpha Testers - this is the first post anywhere letting people know what i’ve been up to.

Send me your email and I’ll select a few Alpha testers

It will be SO much more than just market caps.
It will be the GOOGLE of crypto.


Full coin deetails

Main screen market caps

I’m confused. Why is Auroracoin and Ripple high up on that list?

Both of those coins have millions in the hands of the developers and are not in circulation.

This appears to be nothing more than a prettier version of the flawed if you are reporting the same results in your screen snapshots? Help?

By the way, I hope you are completely DDoS proof. Some unhappy bag holders might DDoS if their coin drops down on your list.

From what I have read it would still seem that having a realistic average would be harder to come by - as of yet.

What about an alternative?

A charted system that polls all of the current exchanges for volume of coins in/out. If there are multiple buy/sell walls have a statistical graph that shows those walls. This system could show exchanges between specific coins.

I know it’s not a real ‘market cap’, but wouldn’t having a dedicated location that shows you the averages of multiple exchanges and rates based on buy/sell be a good start? I am no stock market guy, or tech head, so if this idea is off it’s mark I do apologize - Just trying to throw an idea out.

Create at a glance graphs to be user friendly, or have tic boxes to make it more elaborate. Hourly, weekly…etc. Coin volumes from BTC to PPC and other coins separately, or combined to show a flow of the current traffic in trades across a broad graph.

As important as having accurate Market Cap may be, isn’t the moving volume just as important? How are the coins traveling? How fast? To what?

Just a thought.

[quote=“Drummel, post:10, topic:1737”]From what I have read it would still seam that having a realistic average would be harder to come by - as of yet.

What about an alternative?

A charted system that polls all of the current exchanges for volume of coins in/out. If there are multiple buy/sell walls have a statistical graph that shows those walls. This system could show exchanges between specific coins. [/quote]

At this point, I’d take almost anything.

We’re still in the pre-historic stone ages before the wheel was invented as far as deciding the true value of a cryptocoin.

What ever pretty chart and numbers shows seems to be the winner of the day for trading volume on an exchange.

YES, coinmarketcap has that_much influence on daily trading unfortunately.

If I was evil, AND I owned, I’d buy a coin, show a great increase on my pretty charts, wait until the market followed me, and then I’d dump it.

Disclaimer: (I’m not evil, and I don’t own, and I have no proof they are doing that yet either.)

People talk about a 51% attack on coins. What about having a 95% marketshare of the “coin valuation / statistic reporting” market?

Hello? McFly? (back to the future movie reference)

While every one is running around creating exchanges, and new coins, we need some competition for coinmarketcap too!

Peercoin’s price is what it is, quite simply, because of, I fully believe it. Coinmarketcap doesn’t take into account how rare a coin is… It is strictly eyeballing how many coins have been created and the last trading price of a coin.

This is going to change, probably this year sometime. When it does, expect Peercoin to jump huge points in the market, once the coinmarketcap gig is up.

I fully expect if the coinmarketcap devs see this, they may unlist Peercoin. Doing that would be a foolish temporary solution.

The proper thing to do here is to really see how the altcoin market has developed, who deserves to be on top, and for what reason. They really need to re-consider their top position of reporting statistics and make the necessary corrections before some one else does it for them.

…so frustrating…

I do believe they started out on the right foot, for the right reasons. But after Auroracoin and Ripple surging so high, with pre-mines. Some thing is obviously wrong.

Please re-post and share, pleeeease…

Hey guys, owner of coinmarketcap here. I’m fully aware of the misleading nature of the marketcap rankings which is why I’ve added the disclaimers for mineable and premined coins. I’m open to suggestions for creating a new page that factors out coins not in circulation. By the way, “shares outstanding” in the traditional sense includes ALL shares of the company, not just the ones that are being traded on the market. I believe the term you’re looking for is “float”.

P.S. I’ve been a peercoin/primecoin supporter for a long time so it’s kind of weird seeing people speculate that I might delist it for no reason at all :slight_smile:

Hi Gliss.

Glad to hear from you. By default, non-mineable and premined coins should be OFF, where the person has to deliberately want to see them.

Put a checkmark: “Show non-mineable coins” and “Show premined coins” would work.

Or, have two separate pages. and something else.

Congratulations on having such a popular resource, and I’m glad you’re here and have admitted to the misleading nature of the rankings. I have a great respect for your open mindedness. Now we just need to come up with a solution.

Also, love the fact you’re a peercoin/primecoin supporter too. For someone that has your type of experience with coins in the industry, that’s quite a testimonial. :slight_smile:

I think is a great site

I visit it every day to check what’s up and down. I am not a trader, but just find it fascinating. So, well done to Gliss for a major contribution to the crypto-world

Having said that, I realise that some of the rankings are not fully representative. I am sure that Gliss is as frustrated as the rest of us

So, let’s support Gliss in finding a solution

1 Like

This has been a pretty active discussion amongst us at The devs are split on how we handle the different notions of premined coins, but we are starting to arrive at a compromise of a weighted system.

Looking for feedback on the different variables:
Bitcoin 1.0 (ignore premined, genesis, early adopters - it’s bitcoin after all )
Founder(s) premined 0.2 (salary for dev)
Group premined 0.1 (making buddies rich)
Soft announce 0.05 (super sketchy, trying to subvert coin community standards)
Nation coins 0.3 (mostly positive agenda)
Ripple 0.4? (unconvinced either way)

Rather than arbitrary variables, what about adding another quantitative variable?

Currently market cap is determined by MC = (total coins in existence) * (last traded price per coin).

This creates the opportunity for exploitation by heavily pre-mined coins that can set the built-in coin supply very high but only release a few coins.

My solution: what about creating something called “active market cap”, which would be calculated as AMC = (total coins in existence) * (last traded price per coin) * (average 30-day $ volume of coin / average 30-day $ volume of highest traded coin).

This would eliminate the arbitrary high rank of pre-mined coins because they usually have very low trading volume. It would also help reduce “flashes in the pan”, as a coin would need to have consistently high trading volume over the course of 30 days, rather than popping up quick from a big day.

In effect this formula would add an additional fractional variable to reduce the exploitation advantages of pre-mined coins by looking at a coins 30-day volume in dollars vs. Bitcoin’s 30-day volume in dollars.

And I say this fully aware that it would not help Peercoin much, as the fixed transaction fee discourages high volumes, but it is more fair overall for the market.

What do people think of this solution?

I like the active marketcap idea as it comes closer to the real ‘float’ of a coin. You would still have the consistent pumpers and dumpers to deal with, but it is a good step in the right direction.

The “active” marketcap is interesting and your formula makes sense. I ran it against our db to see where coins stack up:

The arbitrary values were an attempt to resolve how the “inactive” coins participated in the marketcap analysis, but maybe instead it’s about showing 2 values and making the AMC the default.

One of the negative artifacts of this methodology is that smaller market cap coins suffer from less granularity of their market cap price. In other words this formula may only serve large market cap coins. It might make more sense to multiply vol / total to get a relative trading volume?

I like the idea David has offered.

If the main page supported the 30 day by default, but users were allowed to view it in segments such as 3/2/1 week or day/hour/minute.
I think it would allow for more flexibility.