Serious flaws with coinmarketcap.com


#1

Both myself, and @intelliguy of steemit have talked about serious flaws with coinmarketcap.com which seems to be the go-to-source for how well coins are doing.

The crypto industry relies too heavily on this site which is flawed.

I’ll give a quick example, and I’d really appreciate it if some other people do their own research. Look at the points…

  1. Go to www.coinmarketcap.com and look at the page. Look at all the asterix * down the page – these denote pre-mined coins and coins that are not mineable (but given by ICO, etc)

  2. In the drop down box at the top, you can select under Currencies “Filter Non-Mineable and Premined”

  3. Look at the list again, and you see Peercoin as #15

  4. Now question – Ethereum had a hard fork, and gave birth to Ethereum Classic (ETC) as well as (ETH), they are both ahead of Peercoin even though these chains are the same, but with different issues, Should they get 2 listings? They are the same genesis block with same starting chain!

  5. Question again, GMC (Game Credits) the announce thread they point to on that coin points here:
    https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1266597 (Nov 27, 2015)

But the real announce thread is instead here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1010745.0 (April 3, 2015)

But if you look, the April 3, 2015 thread first post admits that GMC was actually released (Feb 14. 2014)

THERE IS AN UNSPOKEN PROBLEM IN THE CRYPTOCURRENCY INDUSTRY.

Bad launch coins, have either:

a) renamed themselves

b) relaunched themselves

c) FORKED themselves

d) RE-EDITED their original bitcointalk threads to change or delete original information. Changed logos, launch information, deleted posts, moderated threads, re-launched new threads (hiding their history). An example of this is DASH and Darkcoin. Search the bitcointalk threads showing right now. The only way to see the truth is to go to web.archive.org and pull up old snapshots of the forum pages. No one does that…

coinmarketcap.com isn’t showing these inconsistencies and are helping bad coins flourish. These coins could have been launched (and have been re-launched) under different names, with buggy code, with premines because of developers, ninja launch, unfair launch, and bug launches.

The coins in distribution for many of these coins are held by developers and people that were aware of the launch and how to mine them before any one else did. When you can pre-mine coins before any one else figures out how to get them, you can buy/sell to your self on exchanges pushing up the price artificially to only pay exchange fees and dump coins slowly to every idiot that buys/sells them. That’s how you pump a coin price and then get rid of them over time. It’s possible when you can control the way a coin is launched and mined.

This is a serious cancer in the legitimacy of which coins are shown.

It is no secret that Peercoin had one of the most fair launches “ever”… pre-announced 9 days before genesis back in 2012 and even if Sunny King were to mine coins, he had to do so, just like everyone else.

(Not only that, but even after the source code for Peercoin with the genesis block was launched, mining still waited 5 full minutes before mining began UTC, which gave time for everyone to download, compile, and start mining even after the full code was released) — THAT is how a fair launch of a coin works. Even then, it was SHA256, so if you knew how to mine and compile a Bitcoin wallet, you could surely download, compile, and mine a Peercoin wallet.

Most coins with strange algorithms (other than SHA256) when released with out good CPU/GPU miners (unlike Peercoin) where advantages were given to the developers who had miners “on the ready” for these new algorithms where ready in advance before the public. These new algo developers where still ahead of the rest of the public so they could mine more before their coin release. Many coins were ,launched with the developers mining before most people even understood the new algo.

No one ever is talking about the fraudulent coins on coinmarketcap.com and these same coins rank higher than Peercoin (no one talks about the problem except me and @intelliguy). It appears every one is taking things at face value which hurts legitimate coins.

We all need to conduct our own personal investigation. It’s not hard to check out this data and observe how facts, figures, coins and chains are obscuring the real data. It is no wonder why we rank so low. We’re not a scam coin. We haven’t forked, been renamed, and re-launched multiple times… Our chain runs from the genesis block unlike many others.

I have no idea why only me, and @intelliguy on steemit seems to realize this…

Go look at DASH. It’s actually Darkcoin, where the initial launch benefited the developer where he premined a bunch of coins before the real wallet was released.

Go look at GMC… It was really launched 2014, but coinmarketcap only accepts the Nov 2015 release…

Go look at most of these coins listed… there are huge problems in their history. Why are people investing in these coins? Because no one does research and coinmarketcap.com isn’t showing the real truth. Their business model obviously shows they are going to list all coins… and get advertising revenue by doing so… even at the expense of not doing a public service by showing the truth.

We have a real problem – let’s look at this…


#2

P.S. If we vetted out the truth. Peercoin would be worth $88/each and not DASH

We’re all sleeping at the wheel and let this happen. It’s time to really look into this and get upset!

If you need a champion flag to run with, know that Peercoin is legitimate. I suggest 70% of coins listed on Coinmarketcap.com aren’t. They really aren’t. These are false numbers, without real investigation.

Peercoin at $1.30 ? REALLY? We’d be above $10 by now if investors, the public, and coinmarketcap.com showed real truth in its data. Quite easily. The gig is up. In 2017 to 2019 expect this to happen. You can cheat people for a while but the best solution and truth always wins in the end.

I’m going to continue buying Peercoin and I expect that not only us, but the industry as a whole will wake up some day and stop chasing the trending dream coins knowing that many of them are hollow technology, launched as semi-scams, that benefit a few, and suck in the majority.

I convinced @intelliguy on steemit to share this post his way, and he did:


#3

Look at this for example:

NEM is trading at 0.05 cents with a coinmarketcap of $475 million USD with 9 BILILION NEM created
PPC is trading at 1.25 with a coinmarketcap of $30 million USD with 24 million PPC created

9 billion NEM created -vs- 24 million Peercoin. There is only 0.26% as much Peercoin out there as there is NEM. Pretty staggering figures.


#4

So how do we rectify this?


#5
  1. Bring awareness by talking about it.

  2. Encourage the owners of coinmarketcap to find ways to correct this problem

  3. Show an industry use case scenario for a competitor to bring a better system if coinmarketcap doesn’t need or want to change

  4. Explore possible ways to create a solution among ourselves or anyone that wants to pick this up and run with it

Failure to do any of the above just hurts legitimate coins and innocent investors who are new to this space. Why do our widely used systems (like coinmarketcap) be part of the problem to keep filling the pockets of scammers? How does that help anyone but them?

It happens, because people are lazy. No one wants to take the time and effort to analyze these things. No one wants to build anything. We take our punches and sit back down. It’s sad.


#6

Is www.peercoinmarketcap.com taken?


#7

I suppose you could register a site like that, and explain why Peercoin is a good investment as opposed to other coins.

However the solution I think crypto needs in general will be a better more enhanced version of coinmarketcap.com that we have now.

We could call it coinmarketcap2.com lol. But really, I think the current coinmarketcap.com devs could work with coingecko and do some sort of Coin ReputationRank like explained on steemit.com/@intelliguy


#8

Exactly. We could call it www.peercoinmarketcap.com

It would be like CMC except without pre-mines, instamines, and other bullshit.

Lots of prominent people have been complaining about CMC.

These people might give an alternative some serious publicity.


#9

etc and eth are clearly different chains. one has a billion$ roll back the other does not


#10

by issuing a lot of coins eg nem even a fraction amount gives a high mkt cap. This is just a choice of the issuer.

i agree ppc is $>100 but people do not understand backbone currency. its all muh amazon/retail/in video came payments