With that said, it is true that Ethereum doesn't advertise itself as a crypto currency, but I wouldn't be surprised if a few years down the road it will be worth more than bitcoin, or that Ethers (the coins) are used as crypto currency.
You are reflecting your own biases in assuming I meant anything negative with my comment.
You may wish you could communicate while disregarding how your words will be perceived. But that says more about your willingness to be understood than it says about the other person.
Whereas an ICO should be algorithmic. There should just be something in the rules where some number of coins are given to a creator's wallet at the start. Everyone can see it and it's a feature of the design. You can price it in.
In fact I've never heard of a coin that was pre-mined in a sneaky way. This term was always used to describe a coin that had pre-allocations before the genesis block. People didn't like that, so this new term "ICO" is Orwellian double speak to get people to think differently about dumping their money into a pre-mined alt-coin. It's a professional sounding word for the same thing.
One of the reasons so many people avoid and have a hard time grasping the financial industry is precisely because of the obscurification of the langauge surrounding it, and I will not participate in that charade.
Yes you have. People complain about Bitcoin for that. It's a flexible term.
> so this new term "ICO" is Orwellian double speak
If someone just uses the new term, yeah. But if there's an actual algorithmic difference...
> to get people to think differently about dumping their money into a pre-mined alt-coin.
When you buy stock at an IPO you know not all of it is up for sale and that the "value" was set by fiat.
> I will not participate in that charade.
Sorry we're oppressing you. Fight the power.
I don't really see an economic difference between putting money into a presale, and putting money into hardware and electricity for early mining.