RE: Witness Update: @themarkymark

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.