Topic: Bitcoin vs. Altcoins – projected Marketcap (Read 969 times)

Hello, dear paid2 

Of course, it would be very nice to have your French translation, especially when an upcoming bull market might propel tons of shady shitcoins back up.
I've reserved your spot in my list:

Language	translated by	Title
___________________________	_____________________	_______________________________________________________________________
Français	paid2	reserved

When you are ready, you can announce your translation here in my original topic and I'll add it to my list. 

Hello dear 1miau,

I would like to continue to translate your topics in French, are you ok if I continue with this one ? 

Well done, all translations are approved and added to my list:

Language	translated by	Title
___________________________	_____________________	_______________________________________________________________________
العربية (Arabic)	Nalain420	البيتكوين مقابل العملات البديلة – القيمة ا&
Urdu (Pakistan)	Publictalk792	بٹکوئین بمقابلہ آلٹ کوئینز-متوقع مارکیٹ ک

It's always helpful to inform about shady shitcoin practices and misleading marketing strategies to make people buy such crap coins.

---

One question left @Nalain420, in your translation headline is a "&". 

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--5482707

Is it intended or is it mistakenly in your headline? 

   Bitcoin may pass its all-time-high of $69,000 at the end of 2024 and get new all-time-high in2025. The market cap for Bitcoin today is @ 777 billion ,showing a Bitcoin dominance of 47.98%,while Bitcoin price is $3.764.42 USD with a 48hrs trading volume of $29,185,157,788 USD . Global cryptocurency market cap is $1.63 Trillion ,-0.52% change in the last 48hrs,.Bitcoin to USD in real time while Bitcoin is 0.57% in the last 48hrs. Bitcoin has the highest market cap of 786,503,985,236.

   Bitcoins and Altcoins market cap to reach 1.itT and 2.2T from Analyst also predicted surge of crypto market as Bitcoin target  $1.2Tmarket cap while altcoin $1T  making investors to think of f March 2024 rally .

Hello @1miau!

Hope you are doing well!

Thanks for giving me this opportunity to translate your useful and important topic in my Local board Arabic and I have completed my translation.

Here is the link of Translaion: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.63546884

I wish to translate other your topics in future and spread your words in Arabic Board.

Have a nice day 

Nalain420 ~

Dear 1miau sir,

I have done. That is a good and informative topic. Thank you very much for providing this information. I am sure that my community members also get information from this topic. Here is my submission sir.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.63528401

Thank you very much for giving me an opportunity to translate your topic in my local language. And let me know if it gets approve.

Regards:
Publictalk,  

Yes, translations were not available for some time but it's available now again for my topic "Bitcoin vs. Altcoins – projected Marketcap". 

---

Your requests are approved and I've reserved your requested languages in my translation list accordingly.

Language	translated by	Title
___________________________	_____________________	_______________________________________________________________________
العربية (Arabic)	Nalain420	reserved
Urdu (Pakistan)	Publictalk792	reserved

Once your translations are ready, you can link your translated topic by announcing it here. 

I submitted my application for translation of this topic about 10 days ago(quoted above). Unfortunately that wasn't available for translation. If this is open again so I want to submit my application again.
I hope you will reserve my seat for my local language Urdu. When you will approve my application and reserve my seat so I will start my work on translation and try to translate as soon as possible.

Waiting for you reply.

Thanks,

Publictalk.

Hello @1miau 

Hope you are doing good

I want to take a permission to translate this topic to my local board Arabic and please reserve my seat to this translation in Arabic community.

Have a nice day 

Thanks

Nalain420 ~

Translations are available for my topic again.
We will accept and check translations manually to prevent any abuse and we reserve the right to check each translation diligently by local board native speakers.

Please always check OP if translations are available:

Hello 

Unfortunately, reserving new translations is still not available for now until further notice.
So far, we have just settled old ones or pending ones and the message in my OP is still valid:


But I'm sure you'll find plenty interesting topics in this forum for translation to your local board. 

Dear 1miau sir,

I want to translate this topic in my local language Urdu. I want to reserve my seat for Urdu translation. If you will allow me then I will start my work.
My goal is to spread your words and your informative posts to my local community.

Waiting for your confirmation. Thanks.

Publictalk...

I tried to give my opinion and there are many important points that you conveyed above, where a story like that could be a sign of a bubble market, but if so, when and how it will end is impossible to say, but what I am paying attention to if adaptability, the ability to evolve over time, and respond to market and technological changes, they will be able to survive even centrally regulated cryptocurrencies can become progressive.

Hello, Dzwaafu11 
Nice to have your translation about a very important topic ready, now also available for our local Nigerian board.
Your translation got approved and it's added to my list now:

Language	translated by	Title
___________________________	_____________________	_______________________________________________________________________
Nigeria (Naija)	Dzwaafu11	Bitcoin vs altcoins-projected marketcap.

Also many thanks to Hatchy and your local community for being supportive of good quality translations.

Hello, 1miau. My translation is ready here is the link https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.63341462

Hello, Dzwaafu11 

I would be happy to have your translation and have officially reserved it in my list:

Language	translated by	Title
___________________________	_____________________	_______________________________________________________________________
Nigeria (Naija)	Dzwaafu11 (reserved)	reserved

When you are ready, please let us know by linking your translation here and I'll add it to my list.


Please also avoid pyramid quotes in my topic. 

Hmm, Senior is it mean that only a decentralized cryptocurrency can survive in the long run? I'm sure only decentralization also cant help in a long journey, what's the offer in it matters (Narrative)  I do agree that recently appreciated cryptocurrency doesn't mean it'll keep gaining, Shitcoins can be used for a better explanation but I don't think this is what we are discussing.

In the Altcoin space, the Bubble theory works, I can still mention a couple of projects that are centralized and they're still surviving, I can be sure about their progress but at least they are surviving, as NEO, EOS, BNB can be one of them but with Binance, I can they'll maybe one of those proving this that even a centralized-governed crypto-currency can be progressive.

Well inflation from 2022 to 2052 in the USA if it is 5%

a 1 dollar bottle of hand sanitizer will become $4.32

So Ath of 69 k would need be $298k

 So to me 819k would work nicely if we get there.

You are right that such fork coins are from a numeric perspective scarce, only 21M BCH, only 21M BSV, so technically scarce.
But all of them pretend to be BTC and there are several ones pretending that. It's up to the people to decide which one is real Bitcoin and people have decided to go for BTC - currently all Bitcoin Shitforks are below 1% of Bitcoin's market cap. 
= The Shitfork "inflation", as forks are done from time to time, doesn't affect Bitcoin.


Yes, BCH and BSV are different coins but Faketoshi launched it as forged copy.

The problem is when they wrongly pretend to be BTC.
But luckily, people will reject such Fork-Altcoins as cheap Shitcoins. 

---

I'm not a friend of PoS as well and I agree that PoS has many flaws.
But we haven't discussed PoS here so far because my topic is just about marketcap and inflation (where Polkadot, a PoS coins, is also showing weakness).

Discussing dangers of PoS might be interesting, too. 

---

Well, if 819k USD will only buy you a hand sanitizer in 2052 and 1 BTC will be 819k USD, too, then it would be an issue. 

Not really!
In PoS you are generally receiving a "reward" for having a balance that is printed out of thin air. In LN you receive a fee for processing the transaction that is paid by the sender not out of thin air. Not to mention that the amount of fees are too small that it is negligible.

It most likely won't do much, because the system must already be dependent on transaction fees by 2052.

Not at all. Proof-of-Work is a necessity for lightning to work. On-chain activity is also necessary, otherwise people will just utilize it due to empty mempools. For lightning to have effect, there have to be lots of on-chain transactions.

But over all, if you zoom out, you can see that it does benefit miners, because it benefits the users, and therefore the miners due to rise in demand.

819k USD by 2052 seems easy-peasy. We will hit 7 digits later this decade.

The dollar won't even exist by then though...

None of us will understand what the ½ ing will do by 2052 until we make it to 2052.

but in order for mining to work in 2052 we need 819,000 a btc price unless we can figure out how to balance LN fees and standard block fees.

If we move towards LN fees staying with LN and not going somewhat towards standard block fees we push BTC closer and closer to POS

as it is BTC is now a POW / POS hybrid since LN has pulled some small change fees away from the miners.

I meant inflation in general, not currency inflation schedule.

If there's no guarantee for that, at the same time there's guarantee that bitcoin won't change monetary policy, then it is a flawed comparison.

Great, so moral of the story: don't use altcoins.

Which doesn't necessarily mean it'll continue ad infinitum. It's more complicated than it seems, linking to: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/surprisingly-tail-emission-is-not-inflationary-a-post-by-peter-todd-5405755

If anyone want to have more information, check Controlled supply and How is the 21 Million Bitcoin Cap Defined and Enforced?

The question was answered by satoshi years ago. satoshi predicted that there are two possible scenarios for Bitcoin and it seems we have a positive one because the Bitcoin network has become bigger (in total hashrate) and more decentralized (after the Great Hash Migration from China) as well as it has gotten more adoption (more use cases and higher trading volume).

People say this in every cycle and they even named it "downward spiral" at some point claiming that because the reward was cut half from 50 to 25 then bitcoin must die because miners no longer make any profit. Today the reward is 6.25 and miners are still making a lot of profit and the hashrate is unbelievably high compared to when they were making 8 times more bitcoins for each block.

Dudes and dudettes.

Not one word about Pow vs pos.

shameful.

all pos = piece of shit.

some pow may be good.

if you don’t believe this you are missing the entire basis of why btc was made pow.

hint pow can be decentralized and trustless.

pos can not be decentralized and trustless.

as to future value of btc because it shrinks maybe it works.

but look at doge in 2113

it is 100 years old.

and x coins were printed each and every years.

so 100 x coins
next year

101x which is a mere 1% inflation rate.  so there will always be an identical reward every year that does not vanish

but inflation  rate shrinks every year.

and btc in 2100 reward will almost have vanished with all the ½ ings

2024  = 3.125
2028 = 1.5625
2032 = 0.78125
2036 = 0.390625
2040 = 0.1953125
2044 = 0.09765625
2048 = 0.048828125
2052 = 0.0244140625. if it cost 20000 to mine a btc we need 819000 price  btc
2056 = 0.0122070313
2060 = 0.00610351565
2064 = 0.00305175783
2068 = 0.00152587892
2072 = 0.00076293946
2076 = 0.00038146973
2080 = 0.000190734865
2084 = 0.0000953674325
2088 = 0.0000476837163
2092 = 0.0000238418581
2096 = 0.000011920929
2100 = 0.0000059604645

when you see these numbers btc may be in very serious trouble unless LN works and feeds enough fees back to the main chain.

no mining = no security or low security.

look at btc and the 2100 lookout vs doge and the 2100 look out.

87x mintings by 2100 then 88x mintings seems to me that doges 2100 outlook is more stable and predictable than btcs 2100 outlook.

I don't seem to see the logic. In this case, being a copy or original doesn't have anything to do with scarcity. A copy could be as scarce as the original as the case of BCH and BSV shows. They all have 21 million in total supply. Please note that I'm just referring to the supply here, not their respective demand.

But this so because these coins we call copies aren't really literal copies. They're not literally counterfeit. They're different coins, as you've pointed out, hence BCH and BSV and not anymore BTC.

So, strictly speaking, they aren't inflation. We could have a million forks of BTC which are as scarce as BTC but they're not BTC anymore.

Technically, it's not affecting Bitcoin because it's a different coin.
So indeed, the bold part is important, leading us to:

---

Yearly inflation is the most important part from damaging inflation. The more inflation, the more dangerous. That's what I've explained above.
We just need to look at Polkadot and the fact that in 2050, 12 times of Polkadot's current supply will exist. In 2050 roughly the same number of coins will be minted yearly as Polkadot's marketcap is today. It's like if there would be 20 million BTC printed in 2050 in a single year - every year! - and that number would even be increasing every year = exponential growth!
Maybe I can create a graph of it to visualize it somewhen later but numbers should be clear.
It's like Turkish Lira etc. where inflation is getting through the roof and nobody want to hold such an asset. Same for Altcoins and the yearly inflation is key here. Some inflationary DeFi Shitcoins have already collapsed.


Of course, governance could change metrics like inflation if things are getting bad but there's no guarantee for that.


But instead it's even worse to rely on a few guys "managing" the Altcoins and especially in PoS coins, developers are owners of a large chunk of the premined coins as a "foundation" and it's giving them much power.
I don't know if you have heard about IOTA but one of the reasons, IOTA has so many problems is because developers didn't agree how to proceed and they had some infights instead. This problem will be likely to catch most centralized Altcoins when big promises (from marketing) can't be kept.

Ethereum and Ethereum Classic are not tokens. They are native currencies of Ethereum network and Ethereum Classic network.

Most of them are not good for investment because many of them will die in one bear market and mostly don't have their lifespan more than 4 year or a full market cycle.

If you say about Ethereum, BNB, Litecoin and Dogecoin, they are good to invest in but you should choose a good entry to join.

Are you sure about it?

If no upgrade, how do we have Bitcoin Segwit, Taproot (another type of Segwit) ?

• Segregated Witness - Segwit
• Taproot softfork and its adoption

I don't see how the inflation per year is relevant with this comparison.

I doubt you can get an even slight picture of a centralized-governed cryptocurrency in 25 years from now. Especially with a history full of centralized-governed cryptocurrencies that reached the bottom after a few hyped years, which brings me to my point again: a hyped, recently appreciated cryptocurrency doesn't mean it'll keep it going in the long run.

That's why I'm of the opinion that there shouldn't be elections at all in the way a cryptocurrency works. Running your own node, writing code, mining the chain, using this forum etc., don't require democracy; and that's why bitcoin has not stopped working properly for over a decade now, against all odds.

Technically no. Imagine you want to purchase something from a vendor that accepts bitcoin payments. You have no way of paying them using bsv simply because bsv is not bitcoin, ergo creating the copy did not cause inflation. They are just cheap useless ripoffs.

Stocks and Altcoins are very difficult to compare in my opinion. Stocks are fundamentally different from Altcoins and most "guidelines" for stocks / traditional markets are difficult to apply for Altcoins. I've written about it previously: Is diversification into different coins really a good advice for Newbies?
Maybe it's because Altcoins are very different from Stocks because Stocks are backed by a company producing a real product, (most) Altcoins aren't. Altcoins are just offering the Altcoin itself. The Altcoin is their product.
But you are right, inflation is only one issue to rewiew. A good Altcoin needs much more than just being scarce. Of course, scarcity is a very important metric and even if all the other metrics are fine, deflation can make a coin very unattractive.


Isn't a fork some sort of "inflation" as well? 
Bitcoin can be forked as often as some self-proclaimed Satoshis want to.
That's why a Shitfork can't be scarce in my opinion. It's just a copy from the original. Only the Original can be scarce.

---

I'm not giving any investment advice, just some input for people to apply when reviewing a coin but most (all?) Altcoins have much more risks compared to Bitcoin. Outlining all the risks would be too much here but inflation is one of the downsides of Altcoins. So, yes, I would say investing in Altcoins is risky (compared to Bitcoin).

Buying Altcoins might also give you high profits, no doubt. But it can also go the other way down and you'll end up with some useless Shitcoins.
We just need to compare some top 20 Altcoins from 2017 / 2018 and where they are now: some aren't even relevant anymore = huge loss.
You can be lucky or not. 

There are also differences between Altcoins. Some can outperform Bitcoin, some will be outperformed by Bitcoin.
But after all Bitcoin has been Coin number 1 since Bitcoin was invented.

---

Sure, it's depending on which Altcoin we want to analyze. And there's also not only black and white because after all the amount of inflation per year matters.
But my calculations are making a difference between Altcoins suffering from 10% inflation per year (insanely high inflation) and less inflationary ones like Ethereum ("sane" inflation). Altcoins suffering from less inflation will be rated better. 
By looking 25 years ahead, we can try to get a picture of it.

Yes, electing Ethereum developers where 1 ETH = one vote wouldn't work of course because it would lead to rich stakers abusing it. Rich stakers will get a big issue for (a decentralized) Ethereum in my opinion. A fair election process for Ethereum developers wouldn't be possible unter these conditions. That's why I'm in favor of giving not too much power to Altcoin developers.
Fair elections where 1 person = 1 vote is extremely difficult to implement for Altcoin governance, at least currently. But such a fair vote would bring decentralisation to Ethereum.
That's why I'm in favor of less inflationary Altcoins, it's better for decentralisation.
As you've pointed out, forks wouldn't end well, too.

This is precisely my point. If monetary policy is up to someone, it's flawed comparison. The key aspect of cryptocurrency is to replace trusted third parties, not endorse them. It is to eliminate unreliable factors, not include them. A more proper analogy would be between EUR and ETH, both of which have a pro-feudalistic policy.

First of all, they weren't elected. Second, election for having the responsibility of a monetary phenomenon is again precisely the kind of flaw I'm arguing; that is, it brings centralization, and introduces unreliable factors whose decisions can screw the economy up. Third, judging by the Ethereum user base, and the funding of its development from gigantic commercial banks, do you see any user dared to question the decisions, and request a fork? How's ETC doing?

Sorry to say does it mean investing in altcoin presently dangerous?
What I saw from your analogy seems anyone investing in altcoin is at a very big risk, then secondly I know we learn everyday and all time so I can't say I knew it all. If it happens that I found an altcoin to invest, how do I determines the following processes which you have outlined?
Lastly was thinking investing in an altcoin solely depends on project team, use-case and effectiveness of the project because
what actually made me lost interest in altcoin was the effect of 2017 thereabout which few altcoin that tends to have lots of feature couldn't survived the bear which I then drastically change my mind to bitcoin.

it also reminds me of Ethereum Classic. ethereum developers create new tokens for reasons of stronger security. altcoins are not very suitable for investment, especially long term, we will find a lot of drama going on there and it has happened over and over again in many projects. Bitcoin has never been changed or modified since it first appeared and that is what makes bitcoin so unique and special.[/list]

It is a good idea to analyze market capitalization better and try to come up with more realistic values but I'd argue that it is still data not information. In order to process that data to then make a decision you have to look at other factors. At the end of the day only utility is defining whether something is worth investing in and can be a store of value or not.

Imagine you want to buy a stock (or better yet penny stock since they are more similar to altcoins). You don't really look at the market capitalization! Instead you check whether the company has anything valuable to offer. For example if you buy Apple's share you know they are producing a product that is used by many customers but someone working out of their garage and calling that a "company" doesn't make it a valuable purchase.

It's the same with cryptocurrencies. In this existing market we have at least 2 exact copies of bitcoin (bcash and bsv) that have the exact same market capitalization (circulating supply, etc.) as bitcoin. Nobody can call them "store of value" simply because they are useless.
And that uselessness is why Polkadot dumps (86% in the past year) or bcash dumps (97% since 2017) not because of their market cap.

I have to disagree here because issuing more coins constantly can really kill an (Alt)coin. Not today, not tomorrow, not in 2 weeks but maybe in 2 oder 4 years.
In fact, denying that inflation for Altcoins is a big problem and this talking point was first brought up by Shitcoin marketing. It is stupid Shitcoin propaganda, which is pushed constantly by leading centralized Shitcoins such like Polkadot to get more gullible bagholders.  
Bitcoin is designed as a store of value for a reason.
And it's extremely hard to change that, which is very positive.
Of course, Shitcoins want us to believe that issuing more coins is something good. There's a whole bunch of Shitcoin propaganda circulating around that bringing new coins into circulation is somehow beneficial for the coin itself. Most of it is misleading. I would say, yes it is beneficial for centralized PoS Altcoin developers and rich stakers. And for everyone else, it's negative.
So yes, it's positive for probably 10% of the coinholders and not beneficial for probably 90%.

By calculating the numbers from Polkadot, it's pointing out how insane such an inflation will devalue some inflationary PoS-Shitcoins:


That's why I wouldn't touch inflationary Shitcoins.

I’m not talking about Ethereum here because Ethereum is different from my analysis. If we apply my analysis on Ethereum, yes, we will see some red flags. But we will also see that for the current situation, inflation isn’t a problem for Ethereum currently. But it can change, which is a red flag in my opinion. It’s not predictable.
Or take Avalanche, it’s also capped. But it could be changed quite easily which is also a red flag.
And Ethereum + Avalanche are already one of the best Altcoins.

---

Yes, monetary policy can be helpful but it's up to the Altcoin developers which need to be honest. It's not necessarily bad if the Ethereum devs were elected because by electing we could remove them if we don't agree with their actions.

---

I can agree here, Ethereum is quite different from Bitcoin and it's legit to try out new ideas. I can support that.
But the issue is when an Altcoin is flawed from the beginning. Not just technically flawed, like Solana but also fundamentally flawed. And PoS Coins tend to be fundamentally flawed. It's legit to try to solve these problems. But the problem is fraudulent marketing to get more bagholders. Shitcoins are good at fraudulent marketing.
There are various examples for misleading marketing like miscalculating tx/second or downplaying inflationary tokenomics where rich stakers are profiteers or calling dPoS nPoS etc etc. Shitcoin marketing can be very misleading.
Ethereum isn't a coin, which is coming to my mind when bringing up fraudulent Altcoins, but for example, Polkdot is (inflation) or Solana (flawed tech), too.
It's already possible to see the disaster coming. That's what my topic is about: calculating ourself if there will be issues in the future, for specific coins.

---

You are right, Ethereum is only deflationaryif enough fees are burned.
There's a a statistics site about it: https://ultrasound.money/

---

+1
Very important point.

Besides market cap being a misleading measure, isn't the entire topic flawed? Being a store of value, and being a highly appreciated asset doesn't seem to have any direct relation. There's one parameter, among others, that you don't take into consideration, and it's very important: monetary policy. Inflationary or not, infinite supply or not, it doesn't matter if you don't look at the monetary policy.

Take Ethereum as an example. Bitcoin's and Ethereum's monetary policies aren't the same. Bitcoin's is consisted of inflexibility. We know that there will be 21 million coins, and they'll come into circulation according to the given schedule. We've accepted this rule, and we're building on top of it. There's no going back. Bitcoin's monetary policy is non-negotiatable, and it is in fact the single most significant feature we all admire. It is characterized by stability, and censorship resistance.

Ethereum, on the other hand, is characterized by flexibility. The developers have said it themselves that they haven't programmed the proper policy yet. It isn't set in stone yet, and it'll most likely never be. Vitalik, as a highly influencive leader, might as well decide to censor certain transactions (it has happened more than once), or mess with the supply. Therefore, they're apples and oranges in the end. I wouldn't put my money to such subjectively driven project in the long run, even if it's highly appreciated.

Anybody please correct me if I'm wrong. Ethereum's EIP-1559 update doesn't necessarily make it deflationary. The ETH burned is not fixed as it is taken from base fees. Since the amount of transactions in the network rise and fall, the amount burned also fluctuates. So when there are so many transactions and the amount burned is so high that it is higher than new coins issued, Ethereum becomes deflationary. But when the coins issued are higher than what is burned, then it is inflationary.

Ethereum's burning mechanism has been implemented since last year but it remained inflationary. I guess it was only just last month that Ethereum turned deflationary for the first time. That was after The Merge. And it was probably brought by the 90% reduction of ETH issuance, which was one of the effects of The Merge.

I also am not a big fan of altcoins and it's primarily because majority of them are nothing but a tool of greedy developers to make money.

How about the ethereum upgrade that makes some of the transaction fee to be burned. Or is that no more possible again? I think no changes to that in the last ethereum merge that changes its network from PoW to PoS which makes the the coin and its blockchain becoming more centralized and has been the what experts are discussing and becoming worrisome. The reason I do not like most altcoins is because they are centralized and also the fact that the presently over 21600 altcoins that are existing, nearly all are shit coins and anyone among can be like the old Luna and others that led to losses of live savings of some people. People should take anything about altcoins as gambling.

If you are a long term investor then this is supposedly your main goal. But having knowledge on how the market capitalization could hint us a potentiality of the coin or token. This analysis by OP is really a well versed and totally helpful.

---

For certain reasons that some of the new projects are being identified as shitcoin is due to lack of clarity and dishonest approach. Like the tokenomics are bound by a lot of secrecy and tokens that can be monopolized.

Altcoins have many risks and one of them is minting from thin air. Their developer teams can mint new flow of token if they want to use the Mint function. They can mint it to resolve the case of hacks, blockchain compromises or to benefit themselves and make investors poorer.

The risk is we don't know what they will do with that Mint function. If anyone has yet known about the risk, do a research about Terra $LUNA that is rebranded to Terra Classic $LUNC.

It is interesting to note, however, that despite the generally negative perception of coins that don't have a maximum supply cap, a significant number of them have actually made it to the top.

You've already mentioned Polkadot (DOT). Ethereum (ETH) is another-- although recent updates could actually make it deflationary-- and then there's Dogecoin (DOGE), Solana (SOL), and others.

This is perhaps a testament that many do not actually prioritize whether a coin has a max supply cap or not as their basis for buying or investment. Although it certainly matters, a lot of other factors matter more. 

Inflation is a very important criteria in my opinion but if you are just loking for a quick profit, inflation isn't an important metric. Inflation is getting relevant for your coin in the long term.
Short-term, inflation can be significant if it's a highly inflationary DeFi shitcoin where 50% of the supply is dumped in the first year.
But still, scarce coins will attract more buyers and especially large ones (institutional investors), even in short-term considerations.


That's true, most Altcoins are Shitcoins. But I wouldn't call all Shitcoins which are obfuscating their coin metrics a scam, but still a very shady move of course. Let's take Polkadot, Polkadot is obfuscating statements about their circulating supply in the future. They have deleted documents and even the original documents were rather nebulous. It's a common tactic for Shitcoins to keep it vague and even from Ethereum we know that decisionmaking is very centralized. The difficulty bomb got delayed multiple times. Now Ethereum is advertising to be deflationary (if enough fees are burned) but it's very hard to predict, how many fees will be burned. Still, Ethereum can be considered far more scarce compared to Polkadot, where roughly 10% more coins are issued every year.
Especially large investors don't like unpredictability.
And we, as small investors, have many reasons to reject unpredictable and inflationary Shitcoins, like Polkadot, too.

You are right that it's essential to know how to evaluate marketcapitalisations of different coins and the Altcoin industry is also trying to make it very difficult for us to find it out. (advertise good characteristics, hide bad ones; it's how Altcoin marketing is done).

---

That's true, when evaluating an Altcoin, many characteristics need to be checked. Inflation is only one of those but a very important one, especially in the long term, in my opinion. As we have seen, the bear market can really destroy weak shitcoins as it exposes all the weaknesses of Altcoins.

This analysis seems to be superb, And can be applied, while searching for new crypto project except for Bitcoin to dump some cash into and gambled upon.

In my case of deciding which project to invest on, I usually don't sight the influence of market capitalization even those it seems to be very very important, I usually look out for their Utilities, their road map, what have they done and stuff like. Let's not forget that every established project today were once new too.

If we're to make use of this analysis, it will help us a lot, but at the same time, I also think it will rekt us along the way, we just can stick our tools into farming one iteam, we've got to be diversified into things with future potential

On my scale of criterion when checking a cryptocurrency or new project, market capitalization is usually low on the list on what matters when deciding whether or not to buy that coin or token.
But knowledge on how to check predictable market capitalization would help save a lot of time in checking out shitcoins; if it is not possible to calculate the market cap, due to infinite supply or uncapped supply, then it is not worth considering at all.

99% of altcoin are already shitcoins. Clouds of secrecy around the functioning of a project is highly indicative that what you're looking at on your screen is a scam.

From a speculative point of view, it is essential to understand how to review market capitalisations of cryptocurrencies. Because current market capitalisations will only partially reflect if a cryptocurrency is suitable as a good store of value long term.  
Current market capitalisations are very deceptive, especially for Shitcoins – caution!

---

Current market capitalization vs. projected market capitalization


When considering market capitalisation, a distinction should be made between current market capitalisation and projected market capitalization.


Current market capitalisation only includes all coins having so far entered the circulating supply. Potential inflation by additionally issued coins is not taken into consideration here.


Very important to know:

• Circulating supply:
  Current circulating supply (also including inaccessible coins, such as from lost private keys, etc.).
• Total supply:
  Current number of all existing coins, including coins which are currently already existing but still blocked by coin developers (e.g. at XRP) or coins which are not yet mined. Burnt coins are not part of it, as such coins do not exist (anymore).
• Max(imum) supply:
  The definitive (coded) maximum number of coins which can ever exist. For some coins, total supply and maximum supply are identical.
• Infinite supply:
  Some coins don’t have a caped supply at all and there will be issued more coins constantly.
  For such coins, we need to look up properly how many of them will be in circulation at some point of time because such coins are at risk of MASSIVE INFLATION.  
  

Keep in mind when a circulating market capitalisation is given because it’s very deceptive, as it only depicts a temporary state of coins in circulation and possibly many new coins will come inti existence later.


It is more reliable to consider an adjusted market capitalisation, where we will always choose a time in the future and look what a specified circulating supply and the resulting market capitalisation will look like.

= > Adjusted market capitalization = choosing a time in the future (for example 2050) and comparing how the projected circulating supply and the resulting market capitalisation will look like between two or more coins.

---

Example Bitcoin:

For example, it is known that Bitcoin will have approximately 20,980,000 Bitcoin in circulation in 2050, which at current prices of $20,000 would result in an adjusted market capitalisation of approximately $420,000,000,000. Compared to the current situation of a market capitalisation of approx. 382,800,000,000 USD (at 19,140,000 BTC), it would only be a difference of just under 10 percent.
The closer this number goes to 0, the better for storing value. Practically, all other competitors of Bitcoin have significantly higher numbers here.

---

Example Polkadot:

Polkadot is considered a highly inflationary altcoin based on nPoS (which is practically dPoS). According to current sources, Polkadot's inflation amounts to about 10% annually, which depends on how much Polkadot is staked. But normally it’s around 10% annually.
In addition, excess Polkadot from inflation can circulate back to Polkadot founders even with a different amount of staked Polkadot, as well as confiscated Polkadot, which can be used or burned by Polkadot developers.

However, there are only a few sources about Polkadot's inflation, since Polkadot's statements of most official sources are limited to the first year or Polkadot even completely deleted most previously available sources, like here: https://w3f-research.readthedocs.io/en/latest/polkadot/economics/1-token-economics.html#inflation-model.
It’s not available anymore.  
Which is definitely a very big red flag!!!!
Some information is only available on third-party sites anymore which analyzed Polkaot’s documents when they were still up, such as here: https://www.coinbase.com/de/cloud/discover/solutions/polkadot-token-economics.

Currently, Polkadot has a circulating supply of approximately 1,150,000,000 Polkadot at a price of $7.36 per Polkadot, which results in a current market capitalisation of approximately $8,464,000,000.

Assuming 10% annual inflation, the amount of Polkadot would increase to an amount of about 16,500,000,000 Polkadot by 2050, which is 12 times more compared to now.
At current prices of $7.36 per Polkadot, it would mean an adjusted market capitalisation of approximately $120,000,000,000, which would be worrisome 1400 percent above today's market capitalisation.
As a reminder: Bitcoin is only just under 10 percent here.
Anyone who knows about markets can only conclude that the price per Polkadot will decrease massively by 2050. Considering the same market capitalisation in 2022 vs. 2050, the price per Polkadot would have to decrease from $7.36 today to $0.51 (!) in 2050.

Conclusion: Polkadot is an inflationary Shitcoin where large quantities of Polkadot Coins coming into circulation in the future will go to rich stakers...
The price per Polkadot Coin will drop massively when looking at Polkadot's adjusted market capitalisation (for example 2050).

---

Summary

Finally, it can be said for solid coins, such as Bitcoin, current market capitalisation and adjusted market capitalisation are very close. For inflationary Shitcoins, current market capitalisation and adjusted market capitalisation is far apart.

---

Predictability of projected market capitalisations


Predictability of the adjusted market capitalisation means if it’s possible for us to find out if the amount of a certain cryptocurrency in circulation will be known in the future. We will need the number of coins in order to be able to classify a certain market capitalisation in the future.

If the amount of coins in circulation of a cryptocurrency cannot be predicted properly even in 20 years, such a cryptocurrency can be considered dangerous or unpredictable and this is an important reason to avoid this cryptocurrency. Because Altcoin developers already know why they are not disclosing such important information.
If there is no predictability of the projected market capitalisation, you therefore buy the cat in a bag.


Lesson of my article: analyzing the long-term assessment of a cryptocurrency as a store of value – by evaluating market capitalisation – and if the Altcoin can match market leader Bitcoin.

---

Translations:

Language	translated by	Title
___________________________	_____________________	_______________________________________________________________________
Deutsch (German)	1miau	Bitcoin vs. Altcoins – bereinigte Marktkapitalisierung
Nigeria (Naija)	Dzwaafu11	Bitcoin vs altcoins-projected marketcap.
Română (Romanian)	GazetaBitcoin	Bitcoin vs. criptomonede alternative – capitalizarea de piață proiectată

Reserving new translations is currently available.