You are viewing a single comment's thread:

RE: Witness Update: @themarkymark

4 days ago(edited)

Conclusion: LasseCash very decentralized in ownership.

ok thanks finally... now lets take a look at the DISTRIBUTION on LasseCash, I exclude @lassecash as its only for inflation for the first 10 years and I exclude @lasseehlers as its the leaders account that always should have a lot to be able to resolve disputes amoung other stuff:

So here I am doing all the hard work for you again:

Take a look at top 250 which is a lot of users on such a small crypto product:

Now compare that with Hive: Took top 100000 wallets and grouped them in 400s to mimic 250 top wallets.

Now compare that with Bitcoin: Took top 100000 wallets and grouped them in 400s to mimic 250 top wallets (Excluded Satoshi's wallets).

Now compare to HEX: Took top 100000 wallets and grouped them in 400s to mimic 250 top wallets (Excluded OA's wallets).

Now compare to LEO: Took top 100000 wallets and grouped them in 400s to mimic 250 top wallets.

Now this is a very fast analysis and there is many ways to do this, but I think this is very earnest. LasseCash is VERY decentralized in ownership compared to Hive, HEX, Bitcoin and LEO. Now I know you dont like HEX, but many people do and it will do a 10000X.

So yes LasseCash looks very decentralized in ownership!

Lets ask Grok 3 for a fast analysis:

summarize the distribution of tokens in the biggest cryptos compared to LasseCash, 2 lines https://www.lassecash.com/@lasseehlers/conclusion-lassecash-very-decentralized-in-ownership

Searched for "token distribution concentration top holders Bitcoin Ethereum HEX PulseChain"
10 results

Show All (2)

Major cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin (top 100 holders control ~15-20% of supply), Ethereum (staking contracts and exchanges hold ~80%, with Beacon Deposit at 50%), and HEX on PulseChain (top 10% holders control ~65%, with founder-linked addresses at ~90%) exhibit high concentration, while LEO and Hive show moderate decentralization (top 100k ~85-95%). In contrast, LasseCash demonstrates superior decentralization in ownership, with its top 250 wallets (excluding founder and inflation accounts) holding a far smaller share than comparable groups in Hive, Bitcoin, HEX, and LEO, promoting broader distribution among holders.

LasseCash demonstrates superior decentralization in ownership

Checkmate crypto noob!

0.00000000 BEE

1 comments

@holovision.cash59

4 days ago(edited)

summarize the distribution of tokens in the biggest cryptos compared to LasseCash, 2 lines https://www.lassecash.com/@lasseehlers/conclusion-lassecash-very-decentralized-in-ownership

As they say in computer science "Garbage in, garbage out." You froontload your prompt with a shit source to get a misleading conclusion.

A real "crypto expert" would not compare distribution of a Hive-Engine token with a marketcap of less than $15,000 to Bitcoin and Ethereum. That's stupid.

When I did real grownup economics comparing apples to apples this is what Grok 3 gave me:

Overall, MEME is significantly more decentralized. Its supply is distributed across many more holders relative to total cap, with top concentrations under 1%—a hallmark of healthy tokenomics (e.g., comparable to more established decentralized projects). LASSECASH, while having some staking spread, is dominated by 1-2 whales holding ~20-25%+, risking single-point control. If full data showed even more small holders for MEME, this gap would widen. For true decentralization, metrics like Gini coefficient (inequality index) would be ideal, but based on this, MEME wins handily. If you have full rich list data or holder counts, I could refine this.

Prompt: Here are four screencaps of LASSECASH and MEME token richlist, top 10 MEME and LASSECASH balance and stake holders and two links to richlist token holders (LASSECASH and MEME). LASSECASH max cap supply is 51 million tokens and MEME max cap supply is 250 million. Which one is more decentralized? : https://he.dtools.dev/richlist/LASSECASH https://he.dtools.dev/richlist/MEME. Give your analysis.

Analysis of Decentralization Between LASSECASH and MEME Tokens

To determine which token—LASSECASH or MEME—is more decentralized, I'll base my evaluation on the provided screenshots of their rich lists (top holders by balance and stake). Decentralization in the context of tokens, especially on a blockchain like Hive-Engine (where these appear to be traded), is typically assessed by how widely ownership and control (via staking/delegation) are distributed. Key metrics include:

Concentration of supply in top holders: A higher percentage held by the top 1, 5, or 10 accounts indicates centralization (whale dominance). Lower percentages suggest broader distribution.
Number of significant holders: More accounts with meaningful holdings (e.g., top 10 or 20) imply better decentralization.
Staking and delegation distribution: Staking locks tokens for network participation (e.g., rewards or governance), and delegation allows voting power transfer. Heavy concentration here could centralize influence, even if balances are distributed.
Total supply context: LASSECASH has a max cap of 51 million tokens; MEME has 250 million. I'll calculate percentages relative to these caps using the balance column (available tokens) as the primary ownership metric, as it's the most direct indicator of control. I'll also consider total (balance + stake + delegations, adjusted for ins/outs) for effective control.
Assumptions and limitations: The screenshots show partial/incomplete top lists (ranks are non-sequential, likely due to cropping), so I'll use the visible data to estimate top 10 where possible. Values are in tokens (decimals omitted for simplicity, assuming whole units). No full holder counts are provided, so I can't assess tail distribution (e.g., thousands of small holders). Data is as of ~September 16, 2025. Screenshots for MEME show two pages with overlapping ranks, so I'll deduplicate and prioritize the higher-balance entries.

I'll first tabulate the extracted data, compute key percentages, then compare.

Extracted Data from Screenshots

LASSECASH Rich List (Visible Top Holders, ~Top 10-20 Based on Ranks)
Total supply: 51,000,000 tokens.
The list shows a mix of high-balance accounts. I focused on unique accounts with balance >0, sorted by descending balance for analysis.

Rank	Account	Balance	Stake	Pending Unstake	Del. In	Total
1	lassecash	8,878,318	0	0	751,075	8,879,069
4	null	401,668	0	0	0	401,668
5	airnmillian	243,995	151,468	0	0	395,464
3	signumpizza	1,122,344	0	0	0	1,122,344
18	spswhale	220,515	0	0	0	220,515
22	sm-usd	199,327	0	0	0	199,327
23	marshmallowman	194,300	0	0	0	194,300
9	megumiyo614	157,705	96,538	92,307	0	346,551
2	lasseehlers	1,510,382	517,679	0	553,588	3,778,958	(From second screenshot)
7	sbi-tokens	264,608	369,256	0	0	369,521	(From second)
10	zaxan	35,457	302,385	0	0	330,273	(From second)
6	apprentice01	52,860	316,878	0	0	369,548	(From second)
8	aggromed	47,074	302,368	0	0	349,439	(From second)
13	ironsheild	3,441	286,367	0	0	287,118	(From second)
14	onwrapped	33,464	251,612	0	0	251,645	(From second)
15	angelextrême	1,025	250,255	0	0	251,250	(From second)

Notes: Only ~16 unique accounts visible. Many have 0 delegation in/out, suggesting limited delegated control. Top holders include what appears to be the official account ("lassecash") and community names like "sbi-tokens".

MEME Rich List (Visible Top Holders, ~Top 10-20 Based on Ranks, Deduplicated Across Pages)
Total supply: 250,000,000 tokens.
Combined and sorted by descending balance; negative totals (e.g., memehive) likely indicate net delegation out exceeding other holdings, but balance is positive.

Rank	Account	Balance	Stake	Del. Out	Del. In	Total
1	greywarden100	125,483	13,186,837	200,000	0	11,444,166	(High stake skews total)
2	lol.meme	2,966	3,281	0	482,445	8,106,699	(High del. in)
9	andy.zaphed	31,575	880,611	0	2,696,130	1,181,742	(From page 2)
10418	memehive	539,019	2,024,588	1,141,690	156,048	-8,502,592	(Net negative total)
7	krazeworgen	69,840	1,598,541	0	0	1,668,387
8	nomeme4u	262,631	1,052,809	0	5,000,000	6,314,889	(From page 1; 5M del. in)
30	captaincryptic	372,134	2,109,342	1,147,273	0	278,515	(From page 2)
14/5	offgridlife	1,207	665,509	0	0	667,858	(Deduplicated)
16	antisocialist	9,543	650,813	0	0	650,828
22/30	meme.nft	340	0	0	0	340
6	dynamicrypto	1,855	736,762	572,828	2,000,000	2,211,248	(Del. in boosts total)
32	oneup-cartel	250,561	0	0	0	250,561
33	marshmallowman	245,774	50,221	5,000	0	245,995
31	null	236,409	110,949	0	0.0002	250,735

Notes: ~14 unique accounts visible. Delegation is more active (e.g., high "del. in" for some like nomeme4u and lol.meme, suggesting concentrated voting power). Some accounts have massive stakes relative to balance, indicating locked control.

Key Metrics and Calculations

Using balance for supply concentration (as it's liquid ownership). For total, I used the provided column where available, but noted adjustments for net control (balance + stake + del. in - del. out - pending unstake).

LASSECASH Concentration (Based on Visible Top Holders):

Top 1 (lassecash): 8,878,318 / 51M ≈ 17.41%
Top 5: (8,878,318 + 1,510,382 + 1,122,344 + 401,668 + 264,608) = 12,177,320 / 51M ≈ 23.88%
Top 10: Adding next 5 (243,995 + 220,515 + 199,327 + 194,300 + 157,705) ≈ 13,193,162 / 51M ≈ 25.87%
Staking concentration (top 5 stakes): ~1.34M / 51M ≈ 2.63% (low, spread out).
Delegation: Minimal (only ~751K total del. in visible, ~1.47% of supply), suggesting less centralized influence via delegation.
Effective control via total (top 5): ~14.5M / 51M ≈ 28.4% (slightly higher due to stakes).

MEME Concentration (Based on Visible Top Holders):

Top 1 (greywarden100): 125,483 / 250M ≈ 0.05%
Top 5: (125,483 + 250,561 + 69,840 + 31,575 + 9,543) ≈ 487,002 / 250M ≈ 0.19%
Top 10: Adding next 5 (539,019? Wait, memehive's 539K balance is high but rank 10418 suggests not top 10; using visible high-balance: +2,966 + 1,855 + 372,134 + 262,631 + 245,774) ≈ 1,372,361 / 250M ≈ 0.55%
Staking concentration (top 5 stakes): ~18.3M / 250M ≈ 7.32% (higher, with greywarden100 holding ~5.27% staked alone).
Delegation: More significant (e.g., 5M+ del. in to nomeme4u and lol.meme, ~2% of supply concentrated; total visible del. in ~10M+, or ~4%).
Effective control via total (top 5): ~21.7M / 250M ≈ 8.68% (boosted by stakes and del. ins, but still low vs. LASSECASH).

Comparison and Conclusion

Supply Distribution: LASSECASH shows extreme concentration, with the top 1 holder controlling ~17.4% of the entire supply and top 10 ~25.9%. This is a classic sign of centralization—likely the official project account ("lassecash") dominates, potentially allowing a single entity to influence markets or decisions. In contrast, MEME's top 1 holds just 0.05%, top 5 ~0.19%, and top 10 ~0.55%. Even with a 5x larger supply, MEME's balances are far more fragmented, with no single account exceeding 0.1% in the visible data. This indicates much broader ownership.
Staking and Control: LASSECASH staking is low and somewhat distributed (top stakes ~2-3% total), but the high balance concentration overshadows this. MEME has higher staking overall (~7% in top 5), but it's spread across accounts (e.g., greywarden100's large stake is offset by others). Delegation in MEME is more active and concentrated in a few (e.g., 5M to one account), which could centralize governance/voting power slightly more than LASSECASH's near-zero delegation. However, MEME's effective total control in top holders remains under 9%, vs. LASSECASH's ~28%.
Number of Holders and Other Factors: Both lists show ~14-16 significant holders in the visible top, but LASSECASH's smaller supply amplifies whale impact. MEME's larger supply and lower percentages suggest more room for small holders (potentially thousands, though not visible). No data on total unique holders, but MEME's design (250M cap) likely supports greater participation. Both have similar account name styles (e.g., "null", "marshmallowman" appears in both, possibly shared users), but MEME shows more delegation activity, which can enhance decentralization if spread out (though here it's somewhat pooled).

Overall, MEME is significantly more decentralized. Its supply is distributed across many more holders relative to total cap, with top concentrations under 1%—a hallmark of healthy tokenomics (e.g., comparable to more established decentralized projects). LASSECASH, while having some staking spread, is dominated by 1-2 whales holding ~20-25%+, risking single-point control. If full data showed even more small holders for MEME, this gap would widen. For true decentralization, metrics like Gini coefficient (inequality index) would be ideal, but based on this, MEME wins handily. If you have full rich list data or holder counts, I could refine this.

0.00000000 BEE