I don't agree. There's no reason why there should be only one big cryptocurrency, a lot of them have different advantages, different communities. That's the same thing with e-mail. Many use g-mail, but there still is a considerable percentage of people who use hotmail, the address provided by their ISP or company, TORmail or other anonymous services, some communicate by facebook messages with the e-mail address associated to it, etc.
There's enough place in the market for many cryptos, and there's definitely a place for those with PoS, ie. to use as a saving account.
Well said - over time there should be a huge contraction to a few viable coins. Will any of the current ones still be around then? Tough to say.
I think the better comparison is search engines - look back to the 90s and see how many there were and how bad some worked. Over time, that market has contracted to a big few. There are still lots out there and some come and go, but for the most part they are making enough to pay the bills. There just aren't millions anymore and a very few got very good at what they do.
Something needs to appeal to the masses.
If I had to bet, I would think it will be currencies that dump the idea of being anonymous and start to have some central control. I would far rather use a coin that has names, pictures and real world information about who maintains it. And, I suspect a lot of others would too.
I'm not talking about making a coin that prevents users from being anonymous - but rather the people who make the coin work being well known and "dependable".
I've been working with the Coino group for a bit - and its a perfect example of how bad things can go when a coin has a single anonymous developer. Since the community started rebuilding it, good things are starting to happen. The price is even up a few percent. To me, thats better than hoping for the price to skyrocket. Things that go up too fast are just fads.
Different coins for different folks
I, for one, would never put money in a coin controlled by a central entithy; that's the reason I invested in crypto-currencies in the first place. Being controlled by a single anonymous developer is another type of centralization - the only viable way, imo, is with open-source cryptos where everyone can verify and potentially contribute to the code. The main problem with identifyable developpers, is that they could be in danger from any organization opposed to the coin, wether for economic or political reason. He could very well receive threats to add an exploit to the program, for the benefit of the NSA, or a concurrent currency, or whatever.
I think peercoin has a good developpement system, where all is open source, but there still is a genius pseudonymous developper deeply involved with the project since a long time.
Also, personally, I don't mind if masses never get into cryptos. Wether there's one million users or one billion, they still efficiently serve the same purposes. The only difference is that in the second option, I'll be rich
Let's have a toast to long and sustainable growth over short-lived fads.