版权声明：

以下内容来自微信公共帐号“EOS技术爱好者”，搜索“EOSTechLover”即可订阅，译者Lochaiching。转载必须保留以上声明。仅授权原文转载。

本文原文内容链接来自于https://steemit.com/eos/@sensi-stats/the-big-and-small-fishes-of-augur-civic-eos-and-vechain-a-statistical-comparison，作者 sensi-stats ，由本号“EOS技术爱好者”翻译。

全文内容如下：

---

The big and small fishes of Augur, Civic, EOS and VeChain: A Statistical Comparison

统计比较: Augur、Civic、 EOS和 VeChain资产持有者的分布

作者：sensi-stats

译者：Lochaiching

In this article we are going to compare four projects in terms of the distribution of their respective tokens. The projects are Augur, Civic, EOS and VeChain. We are going to show what is the weight of big and small holders in the total token distribution.

在这篇文章中，我们将比较Augur, Civic, EOS和VeChain这四个项目代币持有者的分布。我们将展示在所有代币分布中，权重大和权重小的持有者。

We value your peer-review. Let us know about points we might have missed, all feedback is welcome.

希望能收到您的意见或建议，让我们知道其中可能遗漏的内容，欢迎一切反馈。

Motivation:

We often hear that a good functioning governance relies on a healthy distribution of the project shares. This makes sense as in decentralization, otherwise decisions may end up being taken by a minority holding large amount of shares. This is not necessarily a bad thing, big investors are likely to seek the best decisions since they are so heavily invested. However, aggregating different opinions and perspectives is known to result in better overall decisions (i.e wisdom of the crowd).

动机:

我们常常听到良好的运作管理依赖于合理的项目股份分配这样的说法，这在去中心化的过程中是有意义的，否则决策权最终可能落在持有大量股份的少数人手中。这并不一定是坏事，顶尖的投资者因为投入巨大，自然是更有决策权。然而一般看来，参照更多不同的意见和观点可能会出现更好的总体决策(即群众的智慧）。

Data:

For all the four projects we accessed the lists of all token holder address data from the Etherscan.io website [1].

数据:

这四个项目，我们访问了Etherscan.io网站上所有代币持有者地址数据的列表。

Method:

1. For each token distribution, we sort the token holding addresses from poorest to the richest. 

2. Then, starting from the poorest address, we calculate the cumulative sum of tokens as we continue down to the richest address. 

3. We plot this cumulative sum (on the vertical axis) against the current address' balances (on the horizontal axis). 

4. To make the curves comparable we divide the cumulative sum and the address balances to the total token supply of each project. In this way all values become ratios of total token supply.

方法:

1，我们将代币存储地址从最小持有量到持有量最大来排序。

2，然后从最小持有量的地址开始，累计同一个地址的代币数量，用同样的方法继续到持有量最大的地址。

3，我们将这个累计之和(在纵轴上)与相对地址的代币数量(在横轴上)绘出一个图。

4，为了使曲线具有可比性，我们将累计之和与地址中代币数量除以每个项目的一共发出的代币数量。这样一来，以上的值都变成了项目发出代币数量的比率。

In this way, each point (X,Y) on the curves shows the ratio of project shares Y held by addresses having X or less. 

For example: we see that all curves (except Civic) intersect roughly at (X= 0.01, Y= 0.5) meaning that 50% of all the tokens are held in wallets each with less than 1% of the total supply.

这样，曲线上的每一个点(X,Y)都显示了由X或更少的地址所持有的项目份额Y的比例。

例如:我们看到所这些曲线(除了Civic)大部分都是相交于(X= 0.01, Y= 0.5)这个点的附近，这意味着50%的代币都是在钱包中，其中每一个钱包都不超过总代币数量的1%。

Interpretation:

• Civic is the most centralized distribution among all four. With 66% held by the project [2] and a single address holding 1/3 of the remaining 33% sold in the token sale.

• For Augur the richest address holds the least amount (5%) of all tokens. Although, for comparison, we should keep in mind that the EOS distribution is still going on. The richest EOS address that holds 20% of all tokens will be gradually emptied by the end of the distribution (end of June).

• In terms of broadness of the distributions, EOS is more widely distributed among wallets with small amounts. We see this for wallets holding from 0.00001% to 1%. These wallets' contribution to the total sum is consistently larger when compared to the other distributions. This may be attributed to the novel distribution method that auctions a fixed amount of tokens on a daily basis [3].

分析:

•Civic是所有四个项目中代币持有者最集中的一个。在项目[2]中持有66%的股份， 一个单独的地址持有了剩下33%售出的代币份额，占了1/3的比例。

•对Augur来说，代币持有量最大的地址是所有这几个项目中持有量最少的(5%)。比较之下，值得关注的是EOS的代币拍卖仍在继续。持有量最大的EOS地址占所有代币的20%，将在分发结束前逐渐被稀释掉(6月底)。

•在分布的广度上看来，EOS更广泛地分布在小额的钱包中，从持有量占总量的0.00001%到1%这个比例分布的钱包情况得到这个结论。这些钱包的总额贡献比其他持有量分布的更大。这可能要归因于新的发行方法，即每天拍卖固定数量的代币[3]。

Limitations:

Here we summarize some of the limitations that might affect the interpretation of the data analysis

- Users with multiple wallets: If users are holding their tokens in several wallets with different addresses this will show up as an artificial spread in our distribution analysis. However, since we are comparing several projects relatively to each other, unless users of some projects tend to create more multiple wallets than other projects, we do not expect this effect to change our relative interpretations

- Large exchange addresses: Users might keep their tokens on exchanges and hence they would appear under a single large address. Thus if a token has a higher trading volume it will tend to appear artificially more centralized due to the large exchange presence.

局限性:

我们总结了一些可能会影响以上数据分析的局限性。

- 有多个钱包的用户: 如果用户把代币放在不同的几个钱包里，这将会在我们的持有者分布分析中变成人为的不正确结果。但由于我们比较了几个项目，发现除非某些项目的用户比其他项目更容易产生更多的钱包，不然并不期望这种影响会改变我们的相关解释。

- 大型交易所地址: 用户在交易所存放他们的代币，这样就会出现一个持有量很大的地址。因此，如果一个代币交易量比较大，同时很多交易所支持交易，这种代币将会人为集中地出现。

We value your peer-review. Let us know about points we might have missed, all feedback is welcome.

希望能收到您的意见或建议，让我们知道其中可能遗漏的内容，欢迎一切反馈。

本文图片来源于网络

本文原文内容链接来自于https://steemit.com/eos/@sensi-stats/the-big-and-small-fishes-of-augur-civic-eos-and-vechain-a-statistical-comparison，作者 sensi-stats，由Lochaiching翻译。转载请参照本文文首说明。

更多文章，欢迎关注“EOS技术爱好者”！

如果文章对你有帮助，可以扫描以下地址给我们打赏哦！