Monero distributed their coins to insiders in the first years
this is also the reason why it holds so strong, despite the delisting
its a small group of insiders who got all the coins
Zcash had the same model as Bitcoin,
only difference is 20% going to founders and developers
which made the distribution much more fair and open than Monero
what in your opinion is more important?
price or fair distribution?
Monero mocking Zcash for the dev fund, but truth is Monero founders took much more than the dev fund in the first years by “fast mining”
Although chatgpt didn’t give me any precision, I could see that both Zcash and Bitcoin have identical inflation, but Zcash was launched a few years after Bitcoin, which makes inflation higher today, due to the fact that Zcash is newer.
My initial intention was to try to understand inflation, any correlation with Bitcoin, whether Zcash has higher or lower inflation than Bitcoin and Monero.
Although the source is not so reliable, using only chatgpt to obtain inflation data, it was possible to see that both Zcash and Bitcoin have identical inflation, but as Zcash was launched years after Bitcoin, I concluded that Zcash is still in a phase of high inflation, but it decreased drastically with the last halvin in 2024.
I found chatgpt a little imprecise, I couldn’t get accurate information, at least in this comparison, but it gives you a slight idea.
I don’t know that this is the most important topic for this time… but what are the options when launching a new, public PoW chain? Aren’t the only options pre-mining and open mining?
Zcash did open mining but also included a ‘dev tax,’ which subsidized the launching-team on an ongoing basis (as well as rewarding early, pre-launch, venture capital, if I understand correctly).
You criticize Monero for a “fast mine” but the only thing they did was to issue coins (again if I understand correctly) at the same rate as BTC and Zcash, but without a ‘tax.’ This setup rewards early adopters significantly, but does not divert new supply to selected entities as a network-wide blockchain rule.
Did Monero insiders mine among themselves before going public? If that’s the case why did people accept this arrangement?
The only thing I can think of improving might be a lower curve of emissions, where early adopters are rewarded, but not on the same scale as what happened with Monero (and Bitcoin).
Also, the emissions above are correct to my knowledge, Monero is set to have a (small) forever inflation, where BTC and ZEC are not, at a future date there will be no more issuance, according to present-day network rules.
Sources differ but what I believe the “fast mine” is referring to is that allegedly there were two different versions of the mining software released. One optimized, one crippled and only the “insiders” had access to the optimized version giving them an unfair advantage.
I have to stand corrected on a point above, the rate of emissions of Monero was issuing more coins over the same period of time than BTC or ZEC… and then what Shawn said led me to…
…this document, through the internet archive. I won’t link through there because some of the dates seem to cause some loading problems for me. Still, I believe this is from 2014 as the URL would suggest:
This seems to show that somewhere early in Monero’s existence, (or very possibly before, as there was a precursor coin, Bytecoin, that one had a huge pre-mine) there was an intentional crippling of mining software, and that software was the only code publicly available for a time. So, the idea is that about 1 million Monero were mined during a time period where non-crippled miners were not generally available, but might have been available to some people who knew the details of the PoW. I don’t have statistics on this, but it is a fascinating story I didn’t know before today.
