It was not mined by a closed community in any way. It launched for everyone to mine. However there are MANY coins that are mined into existence. Steem obviously wasnt considered valuable enough by many people. It is their fault and now they are jelly?
Do you really think that if you started a chain and people chose not to mine it (after you post the announcement and started mining)...is this a premine?
The only thing people didnt know the day of launch was that bytemaster (dan larimer...aka one of the most brilliant crypto devs in the space) was the dev behind it.
What makes a coin a "premine" is that others can mine at the same time you are. *Premine = you mine before you tell the world THEY CAN
@Biophil, it is not an instamine either. That is when you automatically alot yourself a % of the supply before mining even starts.
Hope this helps.
This is not the case... please consider changing it to reflect facts. ;)
No, i don't think that.
Well, they may be, but im not. I was just misinformed. Then again, if a (i like to think pretty smart) guy with a couple of advanced degrees gets the impression when hes looking into a potential investment that the coin was premined perhaps there might be a larger problem.
I assume that you meant to say "others can't mine", but i see. This is what i assumed a premine was. My impression reading that thread (and another one on i think bitcointalk)was that this was the case: IE that the 80% was mined, then an announcement was made. I am glad to hear the real story.
incidentally, im not sure if its the same thread referenced by CG, but this is the thread where that led me to believe it was a premine.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=22125.0
the above said, here is a quote from dan on bitcointalk
im going to research a little now because im curious, but i have to say that quote and youre below seem at least a little at odds with each other. theres a difference between complete openness and ninjas, wouldnt you agree?
also this
the blog in question was basically how the best way to raise money for a startup crypto without getting into compliance trouble was to mine that currency with little competition. Basically the strategy it reccomends making a low key, UTR announcement then basically mining in secret so theres no computational competition.
So at the absolute very least, the founders went out of their way to keep this "open" mine of yours a secret from those they believed would compete with them to mine early coins. Good bad or indiffernt, thats a far cry from
I don't think its a terrible strategy, and like i said im not a huge crypto guy i actually agree with dan that the BTC talk ppl are kind of shooting themselves in the foot with a bunch of arbitrary rules that don't make sound business sense.
But glastnost it was not. And trying to rewrite history to make it seem like it was is ultimately worse than just being honest about what happened.
one more point, then ill STFU.
This is actually a pretty interesting compliance issue, because what it really boils down to is what consitiutes a "public announcement". Traditionally, such things involve taking out an ad in a newspaper or trade journal, or going through the preliminaries of listing a company on an excghange.
In the "real world" what makes a public announcemen a public announcement t is that people who had an intrest in the matter or the industry either knew, or ought to have known. But its way tougher to judge that standard in crypto.