Control of Bad Actor Whales + Need for Weekly Cardano Blockchain Statistics & Analytics Report

Looking at the price at 0.072 USD and the valuation of Cardano being just a bit double then DogeCoin, almost the same as IOTA and like third of EOS I must think something is wrong with the market.

People who understand these projects must realize there is no correlation between the Prices and the Performance & Potential of the crypto projects. DogeCoin is a joke coin, IOTA has fundemental issues & lacks lot of conceptual proofs & logical reasoning, while EOS is a wannabe Cardano project which is not decentralized at all, but may be delusive due to the illusion created with such a heavy marketing budget.

Other interesting characteristic is that Cardano tends to drop much more then the rest of the Top10 coins.

I have the feeling, theory that there were some competitors of Cardano buying into the ICO or early post-ICO phase and became bad actor whales with a different interest & agenda that normally you would expect from a heavy Cardano investor trying to manage & optimize it´s investment over a certain period of time.

So we might have bad actor whales providing constant supply, day traders who are always very active and panic sellers influencing the price Cardano moves.

If competition can´t fight Cardano technology wise, they may try to do so monetary wise. But obviously it´s gonna be a lost cause and may only have short term success.

The bigger challenge apart from this short term flash crash of the coin, will be the Sustainability path of Cardano, how to ensure that governance will only have good actors who act in the best interest of the Ecosystem and their heavy investment, when they start to vote on certain change request items to be paid by the treasury. So there can not be an assumption made from game theory point of view in the sustainability model, that we don´t have bad actors with large stake who want to corrupt & disrupt the system. We need maybe the same 51% of good actors assumption for governance, which we have on infrastructure level. Though here we may have a lot of passive members of the Community, who will not participate in the governance for any reason. Maybe we need something like in case you did not delegate your stake for voting, then there is some sort of automatic & random delegation based on a reputation / rating / credibility model. It should not happen that 30% or even higher percentage of the stakes are passive from Governance point of view.

I would even expect to have whales beyond a certain bag size (everything beyond 10m+ ADA or so) to be enforced to identify themselves would they want to use their power to influence the future of the Ecosystem by participating in the decentralized governance model. Anonymity is a luxury & naivety in such cases. You would obviously have to solve the problem not having a whale spreading it´s holdings to multiple accounts.

The decentralized governance system must have a certain way to control the impact of bad actor whales, not by anyhow taking or locking away their ADA (obviously that´s out of question, capability and the fundementals of a decentralized cryptocurrency), but somehow by limiting their impact in the governance model. You would need some voting process to declare a whale a bad actor whale to supress it´s voting power, but this is also very dangerous and difficult.

I am not providing a solution here, just raising the problem :slight_smile: Pure liquid democracy with the hope it will self-organize will not be enough, we need to adjust it to work in a governance ecosystem with bad actor whales, a passive mass population, etc.

As earlier mentioned in another forum post ( ) a DAO might be part of a solution.

Other related topic:

It would also be nice to receive a weekly graphical report from IOHK, regarding analytics & statistics from the Cardano Blockchain (weekly technical reports are nice, but this would be as essential). Such a report would be also the best way to monitor the health of the Ecosystem. The report should help to understand for instance under such market conditions who are the sellers & buyers (in terms of size of ADA bags they hold), how does the ADA distribution look like, etc. I believe such reports must be already prepared till a certain extent and format internally at IOHK, why not share them with the public?


+1 to everything said! Thanks for the great read.


Creo que necesariamente la importancia de la mala intención de las ballenas no es importante ahora, por el precio de ADA, pero en el futuro si será un problema si realmente hay inversores apostando en contra, tendría que crear una asignación de mínimo responsabilidades hacia los nodos para una mejor descentralización, espero que la tecnología de Cardano hable por sí misma y crezca a medida que las leyes de la naturaleza la rigen.

I definitely understand the concern but I don’t think it’s a good idea to start singling people out because there is a suspicion that they may be a bad actor. That could lead to a dark road. The positive side to the current low prices is that hopefully people who really believe in the project have a chance to build up their stakes and blunt the power of the wales in that fashion.

Also the discussions about how the voting systems in Cardano will work hopefully start in earnest next year. I’m optimistic that fears about whales hijacking liquid democracy can be addressed and mitigated in due course as the concepts are made clear.


I think anonymity is simply not acceptable if you would like to participate in the governance model of Cardano.

I also believe if you participate then you should have a reputation to manage based on the actions you take.

FInally I think there will be a mass amount of population who do not care about governance and you will have bad actors, where both cases should be covered in the governance model.

See more here:

1 Like

Nope. Its making a problem out of something where there is none.

Its simply a myth that Cardano drops more, it went up more also, thats why.

And no, there is nothing mysterious about ADA pricing, in fact it should be priced a lot lower with all the other coins, most coins should be 0. Which will all happen. Maybe Cardano should be 0 too, we dont really know. That is why pricing at this point is completely irrelevant, as long as we are in top 10, eveything is al right. Even if we fall out of it, it doesn’t matter at all, it changes nothing from the project. Al though it could be seen as we have a little of a marketing problem but again… we dont even have a product yet, so who cares. There is nothing to market.

Your bashing dogecoin, but what fail to understand is that Cardano at this point, is nothing more than dogecoin. They both do exactly nothing. The only thing that differentiate them are future prospects… but future is not actual… and you cannot expect it to priced as actual for things that hasn’t taken place yet. And dogecoin has a lot more people than we do.

Everyone likes to blame manipulation when they are losing money, in any market, instead of taking responsibility they just bought in too high.

Ive already covered many times before that there is no point for bad actors, not only is it technically infeasible, it is simply not in their interest when Its based on staking and amount. As soon as you remove this, you suddenly open the door for bad actors.

Lets say one implemented the identity system you wanted… suddenly there are many large holders who wouldnt want to identity… hence giving smaller holders more power than their interest in the project… this is a bad moral hazzard and opens the door for bad actors… because the interest and stake is not alligned with power.

Another thing is… they could just be split into many smaller accounts… problem solved…

What you suggest will never be done, Charles has made this clear, and hopefully he will put in all the protective measures in, so this can NEVER EVER be implemented by anyone in the future. Without a hard fork.


There is a product already for Cardano.

Marketing should not start when product is ready, but before in companion of education.

It’s not impossible to imagine competitors buying in at ICO stage and acting as bad whales later. It’s a very logical and likely scenario.

Would you require that only accounts with identity might participate in the governance model you would make it much more effort & complex for a whale to spread its holdings.

Keep your anonimity when you use your ADA to do any kind of business over the Cardano Blockchain, but once you decide about its future show your identity also to allow to manage your reputation. Read up the DAO topic on this.

If you owned 80% all ADA (which wont happen in real life if we go big) and had all the power… What bad things could you do?

Give me one example of how you could benefit yourself.

Btw I see much more frustration in your sentences.

Price should reflect (1) current use and (2) potential & risk for future utility (3) performance of the project (well this goes along the risk in a sense). So I am sorry to say but you can’t expect cryptocurrencies to be solely priced on their current value proposition, supported use cases and activity of the network. That’s simply saying there is no room for speculative factor when investing in a crypto startup venture.

Right now, no one is using any crypto for anything real on any serious scale, there is no usage… Everything is future speculation and current speculation. There is no real demand in the market, that is not speculation.

The product is not Cardano… Cardano is a project, but there is no product yet… No one can use it for anything real yet. So there is no real pricing mechanism, other than just market supply and demand of speculation. There is not pricing mechanism you can apply, to where the project should be. This is a early stage venture project.

There are a lot of people who bought in at 0.0024 USD and yeh they will take profit, and more to come. Thats one of the reason we have a more severe down turn… This is ADAs first bear market.


A bad actor might start proposing and voting on insane roadmap items.

A bad actor might flush its ADA temporary on the market on low prices to push toward the downtrend. In the meantime whatever he puts on the table from his right pocket he could pick up and put back in his left one. It’s not that simple as described here :slight_smile:

The thing is you don’t need 80% of ADA for this. We are seeing volumes of 50m USD, which is 2-3% of ADA our there.

The same issue may happen with voting. You will have a high percentage of the Community not voting or delegating their votes, so small percentages will have quite an impact.

1 Like

And crash his own holdings? who is going to lose most? the biggest holder.

The biggest loser would be the 80% holder, and not the 20%

There is simply no way, the large holder can squeeze the 20% in any way… He will always lose more than he can get by being a bad actor. Thats why it will never happen… and incase someone is a lunatec, there will be lots of large holders to get over the 50%… to prevent any irrational person to do stupid things… so again, this is simply a non-issue… bad actors in a stake environment will never happen.

Though they could be stupid actors, but thats a other talk and tbh, youre best bet is probably the bigger holders rather than the small holders on that front.

Even if the larger holder could vote to steal the 20% of remaining ADA… ADA would crash in price and no one would use it… So even if a direct theft was possible… would be self-destruction.

This is why staking is superior to any other system, like POW where the power is in hands of people who dont even own the thing.

If you socialize the system to 1 person to 1 vote… then you get bad acting… cause you skew the reward and risk.

You must have messed up with the zeros? 0.0224 you mean?

I guess you don’t know you could pay with ADA in Barcelona for a Hotel or in October it will be added to Metaps+ so you can pay with it at any merchant in South Korea. But generally it is a secure way of globally transferring value, having the convenience of this to dramatically increase with the upcoming Yoroi Wallet and Mobile Wallets.

Anyway your reasoning that there should not be a speculative value included in the price simply doesn’t stand.

no, ADA ico was 0.0024 USD - Ye got one zero too much, corrected.

yes and this I can do with dogecoin too… this is because there is speculative liquidity that you can do this and really not any attribute to ADA in itself. I am not saying there shouldnt be speculative value in the price… I am saying that is all there is.

From Charles:

“It’s not at an ATL. ADA is trading at a 4x from launch to markets back in September of 2017. The markets are in a bad state at the moment for all cryptocurrencies. They were inflated, thin, unrealistic and filled with unsophisticated traders. A correction is necessary for growth”

So you tell that the launch on the markets was already 10 times up? Can you send me official link to ADA ICO price?

ADA ICO price was 0.0024 guaranteed, Its on the official page too. Ill see if I can find the link.

But I do not see an issue with this.

That major part of the price is speculative and not from a utility.

This is why we are early speculators / investors taking more risk.

As the time goes we will see this ratio to change until in a few years it will be mostly utility defining the price with a bit of speculative essence on top of it.

Where is the problem?

The drop just tells that most holders believe the speculative bubble was too big for ADA. I personally don’t as the potential / reward & risk ratio is really good considering this is quite an exceptional project, which if success the 1 trillion marketcap envisioned by Charles won’t sound out of this world.

1 Like

There is no problem, I have not mentioned that is a problem. You are the one who states there is a problem? with ADA pricing and ADA whales.

my position is there is no issue with both.

0.02 USD

Don’t create fear with 0.0024 that would have been insane.

1 Like

They made a typo. Just calculate it yourself with their numbers. Their amount raised and token amount is correct. If it was priced at 0.02 they would have raised 540M - the website is wrong by their own numbers.

ADA ICO was priced at 0.0024 USD.

I am not spreading fear, it is just fact.