Topic: does a new coin have more value than an old one? (Read 1109 times)

Only if the new coin has a feature the old ones are lucking of.

lots of them think the coin will reach the bitcoin's value in a month but forget that bitcoin got to 500 in 5 years. Most of them want to get rich now and forget that with quick bucks comes great risk and most of the time they get burned.

no but generally it's more cheap to buy, this is why you see hordes of investors jumping on it quickly

I agree with this completely, and it also being discussed in this thread, bitcointalk.org - Re: How we crypto-geeks get it wrong & the reality of altcoin success

Only in the formal, economic-theoretic sense. Outside of the rarefied study room, the answer is "no." What you're seeing merely reflects the pervasive faddishness around here.

Totally agree with you but i don't think the CC community is ready for this. We'll know the community is ready to go a forward when the shitcoin launched will drop and only a few will follow the hype.

In general old ones have more value, because they had time to proof themselves.

Isn't it obvious?

right but if he doesn't have the vision for the big picture and a clean massadopted coin or he doesn't have that gamechanging new feature then i think his charakter is a fail if he insists on creating one more shitcoin instead of joining an exisitng coin.

"i want because i want" is what children say ... truth is: 90% of times it's a quick buck for them ... get-rich-quick on the expense of everyone else.

I'd look at the coin: is it aimed at being 100% clean and fair and massadopted or if not: does it provide groundbreaking new features (already finished - not only the promise of it)?
If the answer of both questions is: 'no' then i think we can assume the dev is in for the quick buck since he could have joined any other coin but didn't.

I'd really recommend to people to have high standards and expectations from coins.
If they are not works of art and genius they are not worth bothering.

Features are needed if it can help the coin to be used more easily  i'll try to write the word ''use'' a little less. Right now cryptos are not for everyone, you need a basic knowledge on computer if you want to get into it. On all aspects: mining, buying, storing. If a features helps make things easier on one of those, it's worth it. The joy of open source is if a coin die and have good features, an existing or new coin can implement it. The more it happens the better the chances to get more people involved into CC will be.

we need no new coins we need more devs getting in on existing coins. Only the newest and most experimental shit needs new coins. Everything else can be done with existing coins. Ironically we have a flood of coins that provide nothing new but if you look for a dev to resurrect an old coin you are in trouble and when looking at existing good/solid coins: they are understaffed.
Many devs are greedy scumbags that exploit the space aswell.


Most coins lost sight and are aimed solely on the pump and dumpers already here. There is very few coins with higher goals of massadoption which are fit for that at the same time.
All in all the mess this space is in comes from low standards and stupidity of the 'investors'. Crap exists because you buy it.

[/quote]

True but it,s no everyone that will accept to get into a coin already running. A new dev might want to create something by himself because he want to. The idea of creating something is great, we can't take it away from someone who want to try. What we need is less members investing blindly in coins without any proof of dev. If a coin is not a least a month old, i don't invest in it.

congrats. You won your btc.


agree. People are gullible and the 4-5 keep doing it because they know it works. Seen them on different coins. Same shit different day.

now it's features? Wasn't it usecase a moment ago?
I think the 'it's all about the features'-think is an error. For example: inflationrate of the coin has a larger impact on price and that is frequently overlooked.
Also: features are bugs and clusterfuck in 95% of cases since all that shit is coded badly and introduces more problems.
Features is experiments. Enough wonderful feature-rich coins lie in the dust to reevaluate on that (see many pos-coins, Fluttercoin, Guerilla, etc, etc)

Litcoin doesn't have many new features - still the cap is high. Uno doesn't have many new features still the cap is relativeley high for a long time.

How come fluttercoin never went anywhere? Are there explanations for that? I would have some explanations: features are secondary as long as they are not gamechangers and mayor (happens maybe once a year maximum). Money doesn't need 'features' - money needs 'security', reliability, solidity, stability and userbase/ acceptance. If i want to play a game i go on steam and not into a wallet-software
I use ICQ or facebook to chat - not my wallet ... just a thought

we need no new coins we need more devs getting in on existing coins. Only the newest and most experimental shit needs new coins. Everything else can be done with existing coins. Ironically we have a flood of coins that provide nothing new but if you look for a dev to resurrect an old coin you are in trouble and when looking at existing good/solid coins: they are understaffed.
Many devs are greedy scumbags that exploit the space aswell.


Most coins lost sight and are aimed solely on the pump and dumpers already here. There is very few coins with higher goals of massadoption which are fit for that at the same time.
All in all the mess this space is in comes from low standards and stupidity of the 'investors'. Crap exists because you buy it ... and you bought it because it was new (to come back to topic) because you thought others would buy it too. So a bunch of fools speculating on each others stupidity and from then on it's playing moving chairs and the one holding the bag in the end is the looser. And then people cry about the bad coins but they bought into it just because it was freshly released and they thought it could pump once ... but their exit was too high because the dev dumped before them or the fud kicks in before they can sell since the shitcoin attracts the fud and then they hate the dev and the evil fudders because they themselves failed but can't admit to their low standards.

No to all of those


A lot of people follow the hype created by 4-5 members on a coin. Hype is not what's suppose to lead you in an investment, it's features.
We need new coins, not as much as we get right now but still we need them. But only those with improvements, people only look for the get-rich-quick scheme and most of the time they get burned.

true to some extend. Other question: You are holding cld, right? And you were also buying ETH presale, right? Syscoin bagholder too? You don't have to answer.

I think exchanging/trading is a primary use for the coins including bitcoin. Then some people would say they could/should also be a store of value - but that has been forgotten around here by most ... oh well, the use, the use ... what is it good for? Exchange, send, store money ... that's why premine, ipo, ico, flashmine, etc is never justified because that ruins the real use ... oh well huge offtopic ... could discuss endless.

Thread wasn't about use. It was about how idiotic the pumps on pure novelty are ...

That logic "oh look, the coin is new - it must be pumped"

.

Most of the coins that can be ''use'' are switch to BTC before being really used, so they are not really used since the transaction is made in BTC. Most of the coins new and old are only speculative and are worth only what the community is willing to invest in it

you can use any of these coins as much as you can use bitcoin. What does 'use' even mean? ... but that leads off topic ...

The value of a coin stand on the usefulness of it, do you use it? (yes, it hold a value)(no, what's the point of owning it except from speculation and hoping to make a quick buck)
If you can't use a coin, whales will dictate the value and you can't do a thing against that.

sure.
But from observing the markets one comes to ask himself if novelty alone is a thing of value.
I have seen shitcoins traded with higher volume and at higher compared prices just because they were new. That's why i ask if novelty alone is a factor of value.
What we see are a lot of small bubbles based on novelty alone (not real innovation but just pure novelty).

nope all these new coins are ipo or premined scams which try and make it seem like these "features" no one cares about will overtake btc/ltc.

generally speaking: does a new coin have more value than an old one?
Is 'fresh released' something of value?

Serious question.