i think dont all of them))
maybe because that was cryptobase for new coins and many belive in Eth
Topic: A Realization - Why All ERC-20 Tokens Are Shit (Read 385 times)
ERC-20 is technical standart that has nothing to do with the safety of yours investitions. An official company can give you all guarantees while using ERC-20 tokens.
why could you say that ERC20 tokens are shit coins? you don't know much ERC20 if that is your belief and understanding.
more than half of new altcoins in the crypto market today are based on ERC20 platform token and Ethereum blockchain Backbone. therefore it is the most trusted and more secure smart contract blockchain in the market today.
almost all crypto enthusiasts today basically have Ethereum and ERC20 to their wallets and I can prove it right.
more than half of new altcoins in the crypto market today are based on ERC20 platform token and Ethereum blockchain Backbone. therefore it is the most trusted and more secure smart contract blockchain in the market today.
almost all crypto enthusiasts today basically have Ethereum and ERC20 to their wallets and I can prove it right.
Glad to hear you also get it now.
To all the other shit replies: If you invested in Google or any other fundamental tech startup at the time you would have made at least a x10. In Google's case a x30. Ever heard of angel investing? They also return x10 quite frequently, sometimes x100 or x1000. The only difference with ICOs and traditional investments is that we WILL get screwed over eventually with our useless ERC-20 tokens, myself included.
Also don't you dare use the pro-government strawman argument. If you want real decentralized tokens then these ICOs should be launched as proper DAOs. DAOs are fully decentralized and embrace the spirit of the blockchain, whilst conferring actual ownership of the organization with the tokens. Registered companies that are motivated by profit that issue us shitty utility tokens have nothing at all to do with decentralization or any anti-government movement. In fact they will comply with governments if they're forced to. DAOs don't have this issue. The majority of ICOs are not DAOs. Think of better arguments if you don't agree.
To all the other shit replies: If you invested in Google or any other fundamental tech startup at the time you would have made at least a x10. In Google's case a x30. Ever heard of angel investing? They also return x10 quite frequently, sometimes x100 or x1000. The only difference with ICOs and traditional investments is that we WILL get screwed over eventually with our useless ERC-20 tokens, myself included.
Also don't you dare use the pro-government strawman argument. If you want real decentralized tokens then these ICOs should be launched as proper DAOs. DAOs are fully decentralized and embrace the spirit of the blockchain, whilst conferring actual ownership of the organization with the tokens. Registered companies that are motivated by profit that issue us shitty utility tokens have nothing at all to do with decentralization or any anti-government movement. In fact they will comply with governments if they're forced to. DAOs don't have this issue. The majority of ICOs are not DAOs. Think of better arguments if you don't agree.
From mathematical point of view, the fact the you don't own any equity in any of those companies is just another factor that should be considered in expected value equations. So, if you know that there's a non-negligible probability that you might get robbed and you include that probability into your profitability assessment and you still think that investing is smart and profitable, go for it. This is somewhat similar to a situation where professional poker player decides to play on shady unlicensed poker room: he carefully compares the probability of getting robbed and/or cheated to the "juicyness" of games that are being played there and decides accordingly.
One more advantage of ICO investing over traditional security investing is that you don't have to go though a lot of regulatory garbage. Though with all those KYC rules that are implemented nowadays, this is becoming less and less true.
Is your head really that far in the clouds with investment? It's common knowledge in investment that crowd psychology is what matters, not efficient market hypothesis that you read about in the textbook.
You misread my post. I didn't say anything about efficient market hypothesis nor crowd psychology. My point is that the fact that you don't own any equity is not inherently good or inherently bad thing, it's just something that should be taken into account when you make your decision. It's just one piece of puzzle that should make you more selective. That's all.
With traditional shares, you own a part of the company. You have legally guaranteed protections in place that the board of directors of a company MUST have your best interest at heart at all times, or they go to jail. By us idiots (myself included) investing into ICOs whereby we forfeit all judicial and legislative protections that a company is MANDATED to have our best interests at heart, we essentially take on all the same risks as shareholders do, without any of the benefits. We essentially trust completely private enterprises that they'll always have our best interest at heart as token holders. Stop, pause, and realize how stupid we all are.
Take FUNFAIR for example. This is a huge risk investment with a lot of potential. As an early contributor, you get absolutely no equity, profit, or anything else in the platform, but rather simply the ability to purchase the token that will be used by casinos early. That's it. Investors like us fund companies like this from the ground up, and yet receive absolutely nothing comparable in return in the way of ownership and profit sharing.
Guys, we must all WAKE THE FUCK UP. Honestly. We must unite and STOP this practice whereby we invest in utility tokens. ALL ERC-20 tokens, and platform tokens, should be securities. Nothing else. We should all have ownership in a company we invest in, including sharing its profit.
None of these shit tokens offer any of the reward that we as investors deserve for the risk that we take. Absolutely none, unless you can cite me a specific ICO that gives you legal ownership of the company with the token, then none. The one exception are DAOs. Yes, these do confer you actual ownership, and I wish this is the direction that all ICOs would take, however they don't. Most ICOs are centralized and are not DAOs, and they will give you shit tokens rather than ownership shares that you deserve.
This is a realization we should all make. This practice needs to end.
Take FUNFAIR for example. This is a huge risk investment with a lot of potential. As an early contributor, you get absolutely no equity, profit, or anything else in the platform, but rather simply the ability to purchase the token that will be used by casinos early. That's it. Investors like us fund companies like this from the ground up, and yet receive absolutely nothing comparable in return in the way of ownership and profit sharing.
Guys, we must all WAKE THE FUCK UP. Honestly. We must unite and STOP this practice whereby we invest in utility tokens. ALL ERC-20 tokens, and platform tokens, should be securities. Nothing else. We should all have ownership in a company we invest in, including sharing its profit.
None of these shit tokens offer any of the reward that we as investors deserve for the risk that we take. Absolutely none, unless you can cite me a specific ICO that gives you legal ownership of the company with the token, then none. The one exception are DAOs. Yes, these do confer you actual ownership, and I wish this is the direction that all ICOs would take, however they don't. Most ICOs are centralized and are not DAOs, and they will give you shit tokens rather than ownership shares that you deserve.
This is a realization we should all make. This practice needs to end.
Well, crypto is nothing like traditional shares. It is good that you realize that tokens are not shares, but no one have promise me share of certain ICO, I bet they did not promise you either. We are investing and hope to get good return for our money. Yes the tokens are just a securities.
Glad to hear you also get it now.
To all the other shit replies: If you invested in Google or any other fundamental tech startup at the time you would have made at least a x10. In Google's case a x30. Ever heard of angel investing? They also return x10 quite frequently, sometimes x100 or x1000. The only difference with ICOs and traditional investments is that we WILL get screwed over eventually with our useless ERC-20 tokens, myself included.
Also don't you dare use the pro-government strawman argument. If you want real decentralized tokens then these ICOs should be launched as proper DAOs. DAOs are fully decentralized and embrace the spirit of the blockchain, whilst conferring actual ownership of the organization with the tokens. Registered companies that are motivated by profit that issue us shitty utility tokens have nothing at all to do with decentralization or any anti-government movement. In fact they will comply with governments if they're forced to. DAOs don't have this issue. The majority of ICOs are not DAOs. Think of better arguments if you don't agree.
To all the other shit replies: If you invested in Google or any other fundamental tech startup at the time you would have made at least a x10. In Google's case a x30. Ever heard of angel investing? They also return x10 quite frequently, sometimes x100 or x1000. The only difference with ICOs and traditional investments is that we WILL get screwed over eventually with our useless ERC-20 tokens, myself included.
Also don't you dare use the pro-government strawman argument. If you want real decentralized tokens then these ICOs should be launched as proper DAOs. DAOs are fully decentralized and embrace the spirit of the blockchain, whilst conferring actual ownership of the organization with the tokens. Registered companies that are motivated by profit that issue us shitty utility tokens have nothing at all to do with decentralization or any anti-government movement. In fact they will comply with governments if they're forced to. DAOs don't have this issue. The majority of ICOs are not DAOs. Think of better arguments if you don't agree.
From mathematical point of view, the fact the you don't own any equity in any of those companies is just another factor that should be considered in expected value equations. So, if you know that there's a non-negligible probability that you might get robbed and you include that probability into your profitability assessment and you still think that investing is smart and profitable, go for it. This is somewhat similar to a situation where professional poker player decides to play on shady unlicensed poker room: he carefully compares the probability of getting robbed and/or cheated to the "juicyness" of games that are being played there and decides accordingly.
One more advantage of ICO investing over traditional security investing is that you don't have to go though a lot of regulatory garbage. Though with all those KYC rules that are implemented nowadays, this is becoming less and less true.
Is your head really that far in the clouds with investment? It's common knowledge in investment that crowd psychology is what matters, not efficient market hypothesis that you read about in the textbook.
oh really all erc20 are shit are you sure about that there are alot of better erc20 tokens and you only mention one coin how can you give judgement to all erc20 exist on the market and having no profit why not just get off on the coin your investing switch to promising token like vechain.
Yes this idea is right not all erc-20 based token are shit there stil few erc-20 have been success in the market so dont say "ALL" because this is not true all you need is to find project with intension to create real product not like some promissing project!!!
If icos have a working product then they can't be crap by definition. Another thing is the twisted projects, with aggressive marketing.
Some icos are having working product just like tenx with card payment system but due to the visacrest and it needs to issued a new card again. coindash with its platform just like etoro of cryptocurrency, and santiment with market data just like bloomberg version of cryptocurrency. Some must try to make a clarification regaring the result of development progress rather than blame it directly. 
With ERC-20 tokens you're not expecting to actually own part of the company, they're not stocks, so why would you treat them like shares? You can invest in organizations without buying shares, e.g. bonds, and credit. When investing in ERC-20 based ICOs, you should of course be certain that they have the potential to meet and/or exceed their offer, that way your money will be subject to little risk. Cryptocurrency is still new, it, in and of itself, has still not be properly regulated, so the regulation of ICOs is even less likely.
If icos have a working product then they can't be crap by definition. Another thing is the twisted projects, with aggressive marketing.
Glad to hear you also get it now.
To all the other shit replies: If you invested in Google or any other fundamental tech startup at the time you would have made at least a x10. In Google's case a x30. Ever heard of angel investing? They also return x10 quite frequently, sometimes x100 or x1000. The only difference with ICOs and traditional investments is that we WILL get screwed over eventually with our useless ERC-20 tokens, myself included.
Also don't you dare use the pro-government strawman argument. If you want real decentralized tokens then these ICOs should be launched as proper DAOs. DAOs are fully decentralized and embrace the spirit of the blockchain, whilst conferring actual ownership of the organization with the tokens. Registered companies that are motivated by profit that issue us shitty utility tokens have nothing at all to do with decentralization or any anti-government movement. In fact they will comply with governments if they're forced to. DAOs don't have this issue. The majority of ICOs are not DAOs. Think of better arguments if you don't agree.
To all the other shit replies: If you invested in Google or any other fundamental tech startup at the time you would have made at least a x10. In Google's case a x30. Ever heard of angel investing? They also return x10 quite frequently, sometimes x100 or x1000. The only difference with ICOs and traditional investments is that we WILL get screwed over eventually with our useless ERC-20 tokens, myself included.
Also don't you dare use the pro-government strawman argument. If you want real decentralized tokens then these ICOs should be launched as proper DAOs. DAOs are fully decentralized and embrace the spirit of the blockchain, whilst conferring actual ownership of the organization with the tokens. Registered companies that are motivated by profit that issue us shitty utility tokens have nothing at all to do with decentralization or any anti-government movement. In fact they will comply with governments if they're forced to. DAOs don't have this issue. The majority of ICOs are not DAOs. Think of better arguments if you don't agree.
From mathematical point of view, the fact the you don't own any equity in any of those companies is just another factor that should be considered in expected value equations. So, if you know that there's a non-negligible probability that you might get robbed and you include that probability into your profitability assessment and you still think that investing is smart and profitable, go for it. This is somewhat similar to a situation where professional poker player decides to play on shady unlicensed poker room: he carefully compares the probability of getting robbed and/or cheated to the "juicyness" of games that are being played there and decides accordingly.
One more advantage of ICO investing over traditional security investing is that you don't have to go though a lot of regulatory garbage. Though with all those KYC rules that are implemented nowadays, this is becoming less and less true.
Why should they give you a share in their company if their goals and objectives are absolutely not interesting to you. Nobody forces you to invest in the project. And you decide this yourself, to make profit from it. At you the main task is to earn on sale of tokens, instead of to apply for a part of actions in the company.
oh really all erc20 are shit are you sure about that there are alot of better erc20 tokens and you only mention one coin how can you give judgement to all erc20 exist on the market and having no profit why not just get off on the coin your investing switch to promising token like vechain.
None is forcing you to invest in an ICO. They are mostly aimed to those who believe in the potential of the project, with the hopes of it becoming a success, so you can later take your profits.
It is necessary to understand that the certain negative attitude is formed so called "experts " which quite probably write these statements, not having on hands at all crypto-currency as such:)
i agree that most people do not realise this but at the same time most of these companies would have gone the venture capital route, how would us layman investors get involved then? so we might not get a share of profits but it gives us an opportunity to invest in something that is somewhat correlated to the value of the company
ERC-20 tokens are not a cryptocurrency - nobody is proposing using them as a cash substitute or even a store of value. What you are receiving is a symbolic token, that took nothing to create, in exchange for funding a company that is giving you no equity stake. You'd literally have to be a moron, or an absolute true believer in their technology willing to DONATE, to do that.
Yes, maybe they are shit. But you have to understand that there you can go with a very low threshold of occurrence, which cannot be done in the main projects that are already stable.
first of all , not all ERC-20 tokens are shit . there are some really valuable projects just search well and you'll see . secondly , you can't compare stock market to cryptocurrency as your investment won't do 2-10x in there . high risk = high rewards
I'm not in favor of what you said about the ERC-20 token because most of the campaign erc-20 tokens are used so how to make this shit coin while it is so used to it so be careful with the ones you are referring to do not discredit a if you do not have enough evidence.
Jump to: