Coinmarketcap.com is flawed and is not a good source of info

I just noticed some ** (asterix’s) next to certain coins that were heavily pre-mined or not mineable.

I don’t think those were there before, were they?

That’s a start at least. If that is the only thing that will be changed (at least right now), I recommend this:

Auroracoin** $ 130,710,396 $ 12.30 10,628,226 AUR** $ 145,930

Instead of currently this:

Auroracoin $ 130,710,396 $ 12.30 10,628,226 AUR** $ 145,930

The black stars/asterix’s are easy to miss if you’re not looking for them in the first place. Bold red ones in two places will be harder to ignore or miss.

If that is done, I could live with the current coinmarketcap.com

What do you think?

[quote=“David, post:16, topic:1737”]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?[/quote]

Interesting idea. Though I don’t like the fact that it’s dependent on the highest volume coin, and new coins wouldn’t have a market cap until at least 30 days of trading.

I was proposing Market Cap = Price * Total Public Supply (i.e. excluding pre-mined coins). But the difficulty with that is in figuring out which coins are public and which coins aren’t. For example, with Auroracoin’s airdrop happening in a couple days, the 50% premine will supposedly be distributed out to the people of Iceland. At that point should more coins be added to the public supply? I’m not sure how hard it would be to figure out how many premined coins were released.

[quote=“ppcman, post:21, topic:1737”]I just noticed some ** (asterix’s) next to certain coins that were heavily pre-mined or not mineable.

I don’t think those were there before, were they?

That’s a start at least. If that is the only thing that will be changed (at least right now), I recommend this:

Auroracoin** $ 130,710,396 $ 12.30 10,628,226 AUR** $ 145,930

Instead of currently this:

Auroracoin $ 130,710,396 $ 12.30 10,628,226 AUR** $ 145,930

The black stars/asterix’s are easy to miss if you’re not looking for them in the first place. Bold red ones in two places will be harder to ignore or miss.

If that is done, I could live with the current coinmarketcap.com

What do you think?[/quote]

Yeah, I just added those asterisks yesterday. I will try make them stand out more, thanks.

Hey guys,

Please give feedback on a new experimental page that excludes non-public supply: http://coinmarketcap.com/available-supply.html

Coins affected so far:
-AIRcoin (exclude 2500000 premine)
-Auroracoin (exclude 10500000 airdrop)
-Aphroditecoin (exclude 22500000 airdrop)
-Greececoin (exclude 16000000 airdrop)
-Marinecoin (exclude 9720000000 premine)
-Mastercoin (exclude 56316 reserved for developers)
-Ripple (number distributed as shown here: https://www.ripplelabs.com/xrp-distribution/)
-SiliconValleyCoin (exclude 17500000 airdrop)
-SpainCoin (exclude 25000000 airdrop)

Thanks Gliss, your efforts are really appreciated.

I hope when you’re done the experimental page becomes the “main page”. People are too lazy to click on any thing to see the real numbers. They’ll just key in the standard coinmarketcap.com and what ever comes up must be the caps.

It’s looking more reasonable now, and the coins I expected to see at the top seem right with the exception of Ripple.

-Ripple (number distributed as shown here: https://www.ripplelabs.com/xrp-distribution/)

Those sneaky guys put something in an light grey on a white background underneath the distributed number which says:

02/24/2014

*Totals include business development agreements that are still pending.

So they have completely admitted that those numbers are currently inflated. They’ve been getting a free advertising ride on the flawed coinmarketcap all this time. How nice.

We better get those red bolded red stars on there ** next to the cryptoname and total supply number.

What’s worse is that Ripple’s XRP’s weren’t mined and earned. They weren’t purchased. Many are & were simply given out for various “business development agreements” as per their own website.

If anybody needs *** to *** have ** obvious ** stars ** it ** is ** Ripple ***

I think this is a good approach to start with. But as with Ripple other coins might also give away coins for business developments. They just create a fund somewhere and moves the coins and they are suddenly ‘public supply’. I don’t think you can use the term purchased PPCman. Peercoin and many other coins were given away at some stage during launch (think the faucets).

There is also the issue that this changes, with e.g. Auroracoin many coins are brought in circulation at the moment. In this case that is reasonably clear, but that wouldn’t always be the case. It begs the question of how would you monitor the coins in circulation on a day-by-day base.

So I don’t think this is that simple, it is just an attempt to get a better disclosure of the float of a coin and with that hopefully better investment decisions can be made. maybe a tick box, marketcap including and excluding pre-mined coins would address the issue what would be the first page. At the end of the day people make the choice what information they want, you can only provide it to them, they still need to get it.

Just my 0.02 PPC

This is my dialog with bravenewcoin 8 days ago with no response. I’m sharing it here:

Quote from: bravenewcoin on May 09, 2014, 01:06:10 am

We are def not a pretty version of coinmarketcap

I just saw your website at www.bravenewcoin.com

I assume the beta version you are talking about is not that site.

Ripple should not be in the #2 position. Most of their coins aren’t even in circulation yet. Just because they are created, doesn’t mean they exist.

It also means that they cannot have a coinmarketcap of 599,440,979 USD

So if Ripple is in #2 position or any where near the top of any of these coinmarketcap sites, they share the same flaw.

I hope you have a way of changing this…

I know if I select “Show mineable”, then I see: BTC, LTC, PPC, DOGE (in that order) which is expected.

The the problem here is that users are lazy. If you show them a list of all coins, they will believe that Ripple is more liquid than Peercoin, and it truly can have all ripples sold for 599,440,979 USD which can’t possibly happen.

At a glance, and for features, while your site looks and operates better, it’s flawed even more than coinmarketcap.com

At least they put (*) right next to Ripple, so you can see some thing is different immediately. You don’t mark yours that way, so people at a glance will think Ripple coins and PPC / Peercoin is equal in numbers.

I don’t know if you are willing to take my comments into consideration and possibly incorporate some changes before the final version.

When I see BITCOIN then RIPPLE, it is comparing apples and oranges. It’s just wrong.

[quote=“Bureau Numisma, post:18, topic:1737”]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.[/quote]

I like that.