I think to a point it doesn't matter, I view crypto currencies as the next/new stores of value for the digital age. Sure we will still have NYSE, Nike and Komatsu however. For the younger generations I suspect a digital asset of mathematical rarity will make as much sense as a company that makes shoes fairly well. Or more specifically I don't think a coin has to be widely traded to be of use. I think MINT could be a purely speculative investment that might really pay off regardless of if it finds much Utility.
The world seems hungry for Crypto, who knows what is going to happen next.
I think utility might not be entirely pertinent at least as a means for speculative adjustment. A few of the major coins with utility will start to become indispensable. Although admittedly with the wrong adjustment we can still see hyper inflation (regardless of being a capped coin supply or not) in the same way we have external risk factors influence financial crisis.
It seems to me that the younger generation is clutching onto things like crypto as many struggle to make serious financial gains through traditional means. I wouldn't explicitly refer to any crypto in the same way as I'd see public companies because production and service value are major factors in their market valuation. They're not entirely speculative, it's not a chicken and egg scenario. Their production value signals market adjustment. Rather than arbitrary 'out of thin air' adjustment.
Crypto like Mint is more in line with gold/silver/art/diamond/ruby holdings, where crypto like BTC/Doge are seemingly set to be more in line with USD/Euro/etc currencies that are dependent on their utility. ie the amount of produced goods or services that their 'money' (crypto) can buy. In a lot of ways Mint is a little more sincere than a lot of commodities where we have a difference between 'perceived' and 'actual' supply that is itself manipulated a great deal. But it's also a little naive to think that because we're here right now we will benefit most from the next financial instrument. What's to stop the next kid deciding they didn't get their fair share, so they want a large chunk of the crypto market by creating their own coin? Not a lot at the moment. The barriers to entry are tiny. As a matter of fact, it's exceedingly easy to start a new coin. There needs to be differentiation, and something involving more than a nice green tinge that determines value.
I'm interested to see what happens to the entry requirements of crypto over the long term, and the adoption of new crypto. If you consider we currently have less than 100 cryptos that make any sort of long term sense, will we see another 100 over the next year? Or will we see more like 2,000 additions over the next year? The reason real world (natural) commodities serve as a valid indicator for 'wealth' is that there aren't any new ones to be found. Other artificial commodities like art are entirely speculative, new artificial (and limited) commodities come up on a regular basis, but it takes skill/talent (and a lot of luck) to become the next Picasso.
The technical side of coin creation is moot at this point. Anyone can create one. Community building, competent & responsive devs & a fast/secure network are what makes a coin succeed. As a community we have the ability to move this coin to the top. We as a community still have issues to address, but over-all we are going great.
I am supportive of a strong community and accountability of the devs. I do not support the creation of a 'foundation' or central cabal. The basis of crypto is that if a coin changes for the worse( ie doge infinite inflation) the community has the ability to accept/decline that change by mining. This is a fallacy since the coin devs are usually inline with the major pools and mining continues on the new fork.
Just my 2 cents.
Thanks 
