Topic: A True Cryptocurrency must start with the fundamentals - page 4. (Read 3133 times)

I agree with your observation without reservation, and the crypto space, it is very competitive, but the vast majority of projects out and in the pipeline all seem to be targeting a handful of very narrowly defined niches. Imo, a solid proxy for measuring this is the last five years trading charts for Bitcoin and Altcoins. You will see that they track each other almost as if choreographed. This I believe to be indicative of how narrowly concentrated the competition is.

As to the question of innovation, I believe this to be already on the shelf waiting for a handful of generalists to put the big pieces together, so that the technicians, developers, and specialists can bring the myriad smaller pieces, creating an Apex-Class competitor.

Look forward to continued and constructive dialogue.

i think this is a good write up to have started a peoject with has it will be a good way to develop any project and after getting to market it move along with the technical  analysis which will then depend on the way the demand and supply goes for every reason to be follow and the fundamental  goes.

@OP what do you mean by the above statement? Isn't the majority of businesses rely on the network effect and economies of scale? IMO The flywheel is just jargon to say: "A satisfied customer is the best business strategy of all." - Michael LeBoeuf.

Do you think we need more utility on BTC and ETH or do we need new altcoin to support your vision?

I'll just stick to the term "fundamentals". This is the project's do or die. Or perhaps "fundamentals" is the project itself. A project with a great marketing and promotion, with a nice website, hardworking developers, etc does not necessarily mean they are up for success already. If the project has below quality fundamentals, I'm afraid they will still end up where they are destined to-- at the trash bin. The crypto world is very competitive already. Innovation is a tight race.

I agree. No matter how technically magnificent a project is but when it failed to present and experience solid use-cases then there is a strong probability it will just die down the road. Of course, it is good to be technically flawless but it must make sure that there is a critical size of market that it is going to capture and make sure that it do otherwise it can just be a waste of time. Actually, we already have many good platforms but as always nothing is perfect.

All the Monetary systems I have studied, regardless of the method of exchange, have been built around individual buyers, sellers and transactors, peer-to-peer, without regulating intermediaries, without gatekeepers, without sanctioned rent-seekers and the whole sorted lot of socio-political parasites, seeming to exist without purpose; other than to further their interests through manipulation, malfeasance, and misdirection.

It is precicely your question, "What are the benchmarks or criteria for this?" that I intended this thread to explore and discover.

Appreciate your thoughtful contribution.

Touché.

My being too technical was intended to filter out the usual users and investors of
crypto-systems for a more seasoned, sound and serious discussion.

As to the Flywheel Model, although no longer taught at the business universities, is at least as old as recorded history and far from another concept that a project could make popular. Although much is written on the subject, suffice it to say, that in my humble opinion, the Flywheel Model/Effect is the missing link in strategically unifying the real-world of tangible value creation and the world of crypto-systems.

Flywheel Effect: Why Positive Feedback Loops are a Meta-Competitive Advantage

I don't see Bitcoin as a complete Monetary solution because it lacks the fundamental design, engineering and architecture necessary to serve a community in the hundreds of millions, not to mention the billions.

As I stated in the opening of this thread, the Monetary Eco-system and the currencies that will ultimately succeed, have not been Visioneered and brought to market yet.

In closing, gatekeepers implementing rules and regulations should be sidelined, not complied with.

Thank you for your thoughtful and considered response. I look forward to a deeper exploration of what I intend to be a most productive conversation.

How do you explain this: The Monetary Eco-System and Cryptocurrencies? What are the benchmarks or criteria for this? In actual reality when you talk about fundamentals, you're looking at the utility, is the project ct viable, does it address any reasonable life issues, is it applicable in real world.

of all the listed suggestions I most confess having a solid use-case is the most important feature in a project. It beats me hollow when I see projects with zero or no use-case propagating in the crypto space. No use case equals to know the demand and this further implies no value. Hence its pivotal for a project to have a good usecase in order to ensure value.

I really like the points buttressed here about features a true crypto must posses, especially solid and diverse use cases. From all the points, I think this is the best and others are ideal. Best in the sense that if a project sort for development that will boost adoption of its coin maybe linked to their product, it will give investors more reasons to hold for long term hence preventing sudden massive dump. Talking about self-funding of project development mentioned here, I don't see anything wrong with crowd-funding unless it's done with bad intentions. Nobody knows the cryptocurrency that will be the "messiah" in the long run, for now we only presume.

You are too being technical which can't be understood by the usual users and investors of cryptocurrencies.

What's this flywheel model that you are trying to explain? is this another concept that a project tries to make it popular? Bitcoin is far from a total monetary solution? how could that be if it's the reason why cryptos were born and if its not because of it, do you think ideas of creating newer altcoins will come?

Taking the example of being far from that and let's take it a yes. It's because of the conflict of the gov't implementing rules which others might not agree into its purpose.

Leonardo D’ Vinci was once asked, by a patron,
“how do you create such magnificent works out of rocks?”
His answer came immediate and sure,
“I chip away everything that’s not angel”

A true Cryptocurrency must start with the fundamentals...based on principles of the highest order.
What would a true cryptosystem look like if it had everything in it from the beginning?
Then pruned "everything that’s not angel"?

Some suggestions for inclusion I've read, in no particular order:

An authenticatable mechanism for true open market price/value discovery.
Vertical integration of all key elements in transaction chain, creating a stacked margin or flywheel effect.
Cross-pollinating profit centers.
Solid and diverse uses case.
Perpetual Self-Funding of protocol development.
Community auditable high-value income producing assets, driving price/value appreciation utility/fungibility.
Leverage Existing Communities, Developers, Publishers, Payment Providers, and Merchants to Drive Value, Utility and Fungibility.

The Flywheel model produces these benefits without relying on Network Effects or Economies of Scale at the outset (think Amazon, Walmart, Atlassian).
IMO, Although Bitcoin, Ethereum, et al., may be Directionally and Conceptually Correct, they are far from being Complete Monetary Eco-System Solutions. The Monetary Eco-System and Cryptocurrencies that will Ultimately Succeed, Have Not Been Visioneered, Engineered and Brought to Market, Yet...