It seems to me that Counterparty has a lot going for it but will it always be considered "slow" compared to other 2.0 tech since it's based on Bitcoin which takes a long time to confirm transactions?
The developers chose Bitcoin because they think it's the most secure blockchain (this is debatable). I agree with you that Bitcoin's slowness is a major drawback for Counterparty and that it is hindering its adoption. However, it's possible for Counterparty to move to another blockchain. If enough people complain about it then they might do it.
The reason I still haven't sold anything is that they could port it to any other blockchain anytime and Counterparty has the least legal baggage which is an asset. The Counterparty team has all it needs to come out as a big player in the industry. I just wish that they would think a little bit more visionary since Bitcoin / Proof of work and running a meta protocol on a (Bitcoin) network that is secured/powered by inflation is economically flawed.
Bitcoin has the most secure and time-tested blockchain. To new businesses, Bitcoin is the only crypto worth using. It is the reason Medici is using Counterparty. One can argue the virtue of other cryptos, but they are all theoretical unless they see actual adoption and move beyond their initial development phase. XCP would not be close to where it is today without Bitcoin. It's a good thing that XCP doesn't use it's own blockchain as I've seen dozens of cryptos fizzle away, and when they do, their mining network follows.
I doubt that the Bitcoin blockchain it is the safest option given (delegated) proof of stake (DPOS) alternatives like BitShares. DPOS is more decentralized and cheaper than POW (Bitcoin's funding of security through dilution /issuance of new coins is a real cost; simple calculation: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6852307). Whether it is more "safe" depends on your definition of "safe" and security is hard to measure anyway (different attack vectors). To me it is obvious that Bitcoin in it's current form (POW) can not serve the purpose of a global ledger at scale. I guess that the Counterparty team is thinking about alternatives but it would be nice to see that they do.
An Overstock representative here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkiyRV99eEI (dont find the exact spot atm) also said that a crypto asset that has the value of a fiat currency is needed to facilitate buying of company shares. Who would want to buy a completely volatile asset in order to buy company stock with it? That volatility is a risk for a non trader. BitShares has solved this too with BitAssets / market pegged assets (http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2014/12/18/What-are-BitShares-Market-Pegged-Assets/).
I am not saying Bitshares is the solution. What I want to say is that I as an investor would be more confident if I saw a publicly visible long term vision to those problems (Bitcoin's POW and volatility risk) by the Counterparty team. I do believe though the Counterparty team is capable of meeting the market's needs.
You peg a Counterparty asset to the fiat of your choice so that you have a digital token with a constant value. The process is...
1. Some company makes a Counterparty asset that is always redeemable for $1 per unit. They sell those tokens on their super reputable bank site for $1.00 per unit (or more to build in profit model).
2. Users who want to buy stuff, like a stock on Medici, would buy those crypto dollars with regular fiat, skip all the volatility of Bitcoin, and have digital dollars in the cloud, so to speak.
3. Users could trade away the digital dollars to other people, sell them back to the institution they were created by, or simply buy things with them. They would always be redeemable for $1.00 unless whoever issued it went broke.
This just puts fiat on the blockchain, kind of.
