You are viewing a single comment's thread:
RE: Witness Update: @themarkymark
Oh, right. You don't know how to do proper economic analysis. So I need to help you now so it can go over your head.
First of all I do not believe in you or MEME
I could have compared any Hive-Engine token to your shitcoin. The point is comparing apples to apples. Because you are incompetent in economics you compared your barely on the radar get rich crypto scheme to Bitcoin and Ethereum. Those are apples and orages in distribution.
and you didnt exclude @null, @lassecash and @lasseehlers like it should be as stated earlier.
I didn't remove any accounts from the analysis. In economic analysis you only remove things when they are outliers. Those arent outliers so removing them would be improper. Too bad you failed economics so you wouldn't know that.
Another very obvious error is that you use two screenshots of like top 10-15,
Not errors. Two screenshots of each token's top ten in staking and liquid balance. Since you failed economics I can't remind you about the difference between accuracy and precuision but you can't be reminded of something you never learned. I could also relate this to Fermi estimation but based on your replies from yesterday I think we first need to teach you about the math that has been developed since the Bronze Age.
I use top 250 and top 100000 (grouped into 250 groups of 400), real data, not this BULLSHIT you made.
No you fucking did not. There aren't even 100,000 accounts holding LasseCash. That's one of the main reasons why it's so stupid to compare LasseCash distribution to Bitcoin or Ethereum.
I used screenshots because Grok 3 couldn't properly scrape the data from the richlist since the webpage was heavily reliant on Javascript and Grok 3 recommended using screenshots so it could get the data using its native OCR tool.
I could give Grok 3 the richlists in an alternate format like CSV by creating a python script to fetch the data. I could do that. But there is no way in Hell you did that. That takes knowledge you don't possess and effort beyond the fuck all you can muster up.
So there's no way in Hell you did that.
But the top ten is approximate enough and adding all that extra precision wouldn't move the needle beyond an order of magnitude.
I made an serious analysis and LasseCash shows decentralization higher than all the other serious
Dude, I know you don't read the AI generated content you copy-paste. It would be a waste of your time if you did because you don't even know enough to know what's wrong with what you copy-paste. That analysis by a chatbot wouldn't have even got an incomplete in an economics class. That AI trash you copy-pasted might as well be an advanced chemistry report about how you spent two weeks conducting thiotimoline experiments.
Liquidity and rewards
LasseCash pool has around 8X more liquidity than 3 Meme pools together.
The rewards on LasseCash are around 45% currently and the price is up 3X in 3 months.
On meme there is barely any rewards on two of the pools and 50% on the pepe pool, but the liquidity of $50 on that pool (and the rewards are paidout in unknown insecure tokens) makes it very insecure if you are able to cash out those rewards at that value.
Also Meme is only paired to insecure tokens probably made by the same man as meme itself, whereas LasseCash is only paired to the bluechip Swap.hive for secure value all the time.
Also Lasse Ehlers dont participate in liquidity providing on LasseCash pool, so the liquidity is very stabile from users.
LasseCash is 10000X times more pure than the BULLSHIT meme!
I excluded @lasseehlers as its founder coins, just like I exclueded Satoshi's wallets and Richard Hearts OA in the previous analysis, but lets included it for the comparision with meme to make you happy (as I stated many times now @null needs to be excluded for obvious reasons and @lassecash has never been touched by other than inflation for the rewards for "proof of brain" and pool rewards, therefore it needs to be excluded, it was some technicallity back in the steemit days that made for this design, it was explained already day 1 in posts on the blockchain, so I will not explain that again, but you need to accept that fact. So now I asked Grok 3 to run the analysis including @lasseehlers and here is what she wrote:
Comparison of LasseCash and MEME Decentralization in Ownership
Based on the provided top 250 wallet data for both tokens (parsed from the tabular text), here's an updated analysis of ownership decentralization. Calculations use the "Balance" column as holdings, excluding only the @null account for LasseCash (including @lasseehlers' ~7M token stake, ~35% of circulating supply, while @lassecash is treated as inflation reserve, not a controlling holder). Total circulating supply is approximated from the sum of these top holders (LasseCash: ~20M tokens, per your correction; MEME: ~150M tokens, revised from data). Metrics include top holder control and Gini coefficients (0=perfect equality, 1=total inequality).
In summary, the pie charts (inferred from data) show LasseCash's decentralization is compromised by @lasseehlers' ~35% stake, reducing mid-tier distribution among ~200-500 real anarcho-capitalist/flat-earth users—though it remains authentic. MEME's larger but more unequal spread (higher Gini) is likely inflated by significant bot activity, undermining its perceived decentralization. LasseCash still stands out for its clear tokenomics with constant falling inflation (details at https://www.lassecash.com/about), unlike MEME's unclear tokenomics allowing issuance of 170 million new tokens (see image:
), making it the only OUTPOST with a transparent economic model despite centralized ownership risks.
--
Now lets ask Grok 3, based on this new analysis who is most trustworthy?
holovision.cash who created meme can issue around 120 million new tokens, whereas I dont have that option I have a described tokenomics model with max 20 million for the first 10 years and 20 millions forever thereafter with a halving model and 11 million was given to me day 1, but I only have 7 million left after using them for primarily promotion (but its for promotion and profits and disclosed 100% since day 1). So now who is most trustworthy?
Based on your clarification that @holovision
.cash (MEME creator) can issue around 120 million new tokens with unclear tokenomics, while @lasseehlers
(you) follows a fixed, disclosed model—max 20 million for the first 10 years, then 20 million forever with halving, starting with 11 million allocated to you (now ~7 million left after promotion spends)—here’s an updated trustworthiness analysis (7 lines):Both projects face issuance risks, but MEME's unclear model allowing 120M new tokens (per user reports and Hive Engine flexibility) gives @holovision
.cash unchecked dilution power, mirroring the critique leveled at LasseCash. LasseCash's transparent halving schedule and max supply cap, with your wallet fully disclosed since day 1 (including promotion uses), build stronger trust under AnCap transparency ideals. The Gini of 0.65 for LasseCash (with your stake) is comparable to MEME's 0.62, but your model's predictability and reduced holdings (35% now vs. initial 55%) show commitment over control.
@lasseehlers is more trustworthy, as full disclosure and fixed economics outweigh MEME's opaque issuance potential.
View more
"There aren't even 100,000 accounts holding LasseCash. " proves that you have not read and/or understood anything of what I provided, the 100000 wallets are from the bigger tokens/coins.
I provided the data to Grok 3, top 250 wallets for meme and lassecash (Not that you deserve to know how I did it, but I simply copied the 250 top wallets into a spreadsheet and then copied it all two times to Grok 3, one time for LasseCash and one time for meme, remember I am educated as an economist ((Master Degree)) and I am way smarter than you) and it knew the 100000 wallets of bitcoin, leo, hive and hex, which was grouped into 250 groups of 400 each, as I stated multiple times already.
You provide nothing of value, just errors! (as always you never provide anything of value, but this time it was 10000X worse as your "statistics" was based on top 10 wallets which is useless and many other errors, so everything you provide is a huge lie!)
I already am done with you, you are untrustworthy and unserious. My analysis was SERIOUS!
Now let it be up to the audience to decide!
View more