Topic: Forbes' ‘Good for Nothing' Blockchains (Read 320 times)

Well, it maybe to seek attention again. We know sites like this, they are always like that or want that and it doesn't matter if they are out of the limelight already or are still popular. Like you, I won't also agree on what they say for the most cryptos in the list because they are old and great. Up until now those cryptos are still kicking.

It's only great that they clear it out that it was only just their opinion because if not, I'm sure people will take them seriously. I checked if they are truly a government-owned or based organization but I only found out that one of their team was once a government official. Guess that is another reason and they try to discredit cryptos again.

 According to some readers and commentors of Forbes articles in the blog sites that most of his information are not correct and misleading. Even at that most of those coins really bad while some of them are manageable. But Monero is not a bad project or coin to invest. I have checked the whitepaper and other articles concerning Monero project and it is better than most of those tokens that have nothing to offer in the cryptocurrency market. Even this is to tarnish Monero, those who understand cryptocurrency and how it works will not give up in it.

And probably it the new comers that will be deceived and not well established members of cryptocurrency.

I saw the list few days ago and I actually agree with most of them. But i think this research was done few months ago as some of the project like ICP and AR are working with unique narratives that already helped them to pump upward. Kaspa, ADA, BSV, XLM there are actually zombie chain but XRP developed their own technology that can be used to build payment network. This is quit bullish for XRP and their community. I agree with the author about most of the project but not about all of them.

There are several steps related to crypto in blockchain, you might be wondering what are those things in crypto market, here it will be explained, currently in crypto market many blockchains lead you, you can get a lot of profit if you enter blockchain and explore other currencies. if you want to find tokens in the current market, you have to visit the market, many have evolved into blockchains,

You could pick any amount of altcoins at random and most of them would probably be almost completely useless. It wouldn’t be surprising if they came up with this list by throwing darts at a board and wrote something basic that vaguely makes sense, without bothering to do much research.

Out of all the coins mentioned XRP is probably the most overhyped and overrated. I don’t know how it’s still in the top 10 in market cap when it barely has any organic support. Most of their paid shills have disappeared. I’m not aware of a single person who uses it, holds it, or is even interested in it and I don’t see anywhere that it is accepted as payment.

Is it even a blockchain if it’s just a centralized database?

The fact they dared to include Monero as a "Good for Nothing" coin or project tell a lot about the lack of knowledge or bias of the author of this list.
Monero does exactly what it was designed to do, to be a cheap, fast and private Proof of Work Coin which puts privacy as a priority for their holders and users. It is something many other Proof of Work coins have failed to do in the past. Obly because of that detail we should not take this list seriously in any way, shape or form.
Also, they are belittle coins which share characteristics with Bitcoin but are fastest and cheaper to move around, specially when the Mempool of Bitcoin is congested with much garbage. The only thing which could do this list to feel more non-sensical would be if the author included Bitcoin as well. 

I am starting to believe these kind of articles are nothing but subtle ways for people not to get interested in Monero, as a form to attack liquidity of that specific project. It has already been banned from my Binance, next step would be to scare people off investing on it.

What's wrong with Monero?
Our most liked privacy coin has been a "good for nothing" blockchain for Forbes? The author should research more before including that.
But maybe he's pissed off with the government tracking down exchanges where it is listed asking them to delist XMR.

Kind of surprised to see cardano, algorand and fantom here. 

Also even if forbes articles are not high quality, I think this kind of stuff reaching many ears causes FUD for these projects and I prefer to stay away, even if I consider them good tech.

there are so many good-for-nothing blockchain they could list but the ones that i expected to be on the list weren't on their list. whether they spread fud for these projects or not, the memecoins and others that were more considered shitcoins by the altcoins community aren't on the list. with this, i don't think they are generating legit info, the comments they provided on the left made them misinformed.

it would have been clearer to see which teams paid forbes to list these if they had a list of recommended blockchains.

Crypto market has been on an ever increasing trend just because of speculation of it. But the value of money is limited. Even if we are generating more coins, they need to be bought using fiat currency and there are so much fiat people are ready to invest in crypto. The market valuation of crypto is already large and with son many new entrant, there are limited money that's coming in as new investment and a lot of it jumping around looking for trend. The market won't be able to rise equally for all coins.
In that situation, these are the large cap coins that would fall first.

Forbes have their own reasons to ruined the images of crypto projects because they've thoroughly spoiled the basic essential information and portray, on the other hand, are they really doing this for engagement or for heavy flow of traffic? Crypto is another dimension to earn stable income and we should always brings our best ideas to explore for our own good. Forbes is reliable but certainly not on all trends because they're just like other bodies when it comes to generating legit information to the society.

I agree to all of it. All the reasons given are valid and everyone should consider it before investing on any of them. Almost all of them are dying projects.
I'm a bit defensive about Litecoin, it might be my bias but I believe Litecoin would still be popular at least a decade more. It has a good accumulation from whale.
Monero too is still quite popular in dark web but is dying due to heavy restrictions. I've recently been suggesting people Ripple, Cardano, EOS and Steller are dead. Same is for Algorand and Tezos. I got a little bit excited and at times held ICP and Kaspa but a few months and I realized, they are not developing forward. Other coins too are useless.

Those coins are still on the top of the crypto market due to their huge demands and circulations among exchanges and the people behind them are also making good decisions in order to make their altcoins top. on the other hand, they failed to expand the number of usage for their coins which kinda makes their investors less assured about holding such coins for the long term and will leave them in doubt whenever the crypto market is not doing well because they know that compared to other altcoins like ETH and BNB theirs are no match since it does not help anything to change the current situations of the world in any means or sense.

I'm surprised why they can list so many useless coins but they missed Binance Coin which always on the top 5 ranks.

Seriously, BNB is the most useless token that has a very huge market cap, if Binance fell, BNB 100% will falling down. We have seen many centralized sites issues their own token, when their sites had a problem, their token price will decline, there's no survivability if you hold CEX token.

Perhaps, they afraid if Binance froze their accounts or Binance didn't want to have a partnership with them.

To be fair — bitcoin/crypto being the currency of the internet does solve some problems, no? Decentralization, the fact that your funds are always accessible(as long as you don't get hacked/scammed); especially if you're in countries where the government are too 'harsh'.


It's probably just total ignorance from their part tbh.

Forbes does not focus on the quality of its articles, especially in cryptocurrencies, where many people’s information is limited and investments are emotional. Therefore, for example, DOGE was not considered ‘Good for Nothing’ Blockchains, and if this article had been 3 years ago, it would have been classified as such.
Some of these coins are good and need to be re-characterized, and most  are very bad, such as ICP.

It is just a decade-old industry and already the media is contemplating the real-world usage of the listed cryptocurrencies. I guess the media house like Forbes forgot that crypto was never meant to be used to solve real world problems, whereas it was created to be the currency of the internet.  After seeing the list I am certain about one thing that everyone except the crypto community hates Monero. This fear of Monero has been growing so much that they listed it as a useless crypto whereas it solves the biggest issue of the real world which is privacy.

Knowing how much crap we have in this industry, I don't know why of all coins they've chosen to add Fantom, Monero, and Arweave; at the very least these 3 have a small amount of actual usage.

Most especially Monero. It's pretty much the de-facto privacy coin.

i don't know what they mean by posting things like this, but i don't really agree with what they say. because from the list they included, some of the chains they included have pretty good use cases with good development so far. i even saw that the statement they made was just an opinion, without any concrete evidence to support it. so i think that we don't need to take what they say too seriously, because we know that forbes is a government-controlled media, so their articles might be biased.

You’d think that Forbes would do more research and hire writers that aren’t biased and do not run off with just one specific idea to twist an entire project. A lot of their reasoning aren’t objective and seems to be hugely subjective.

They need to do better as their name has already owned credibility and for them to be making pieces like this will not help them. This is why I avoid any article released by Forbes recommending something especially if it’s related to crypto.

There are some quite hilarious errors in the Forbes article (I read the original). For example, when they talk about "spin-offs", they confuse "code forks" like LTC with "chain forks" like BCH and BSV. They put both in the same category. And yes, as others have already written, Monero is not a Bitcoin spin-off in any way, only if you say "all cryptos are Bitcoin spinoffs".

They even admit that some coins they list have some usage, like Litecoin (see table). Litecoin sees actually a lot of usage, about 30 to 50% of Bitcoin'sIn the last three months, LTC had around 200.000 transactions per day, peaking at 400.000 in the last days, with Bitcoin around 400.000 per day.

With some entries I agree though. The big "Ethereum killer" category and XRP are the best examples; most of them offer little to differentiate themselves from Ethereum, and as they are almost all highly centralized they also don't have really an utility as a "public good", because they exist mainly to benefit a team of founders and speculative investors. Cardano having a "cult-like following" is also not far from reality.

However, I also don't think these blockchains have necessarily a bad outlook: If the demands for Turing-complete smart contracts grows, then having a low-fee backup always can open possibilities. So at least the highest-ranked chains of this category have some chances to prevail if they stay up to date with the blockchain state of the art.

I don't really care much since it's people's opinion and they can be proven wrong as time passes by. What I like about the list is the comments - I had my loudest laugh at the "Nakamoto pretender" hehehe.

EOS should be the first one on the list or maybe it deserves to be part of crypto obituary? I think it's as good as dead now.

I'd beg to differ.  When bitcoin becomes laggy or expensive to use its easy to move in and out of places with litecoin.  Say what you want but that blockchain has been running flawlessly forever.  Never knock an old dog.  In time viable L2 platforms will be built that are easily usable that might eliminate the need but for now I still use LTC.

Well this article seems a bit misguided.  I understand these journalists likely dont specialize in covering blockchain technology, but their analysis comes across as superficial and  dismissing entire crypto projects as good for nothing based solely on perceived real-world use is an oversimplification.  I wish they had conducted more thorough research and spoken to some developers actually building on these chains.  That would provide so much helpful context! This resembles low-effort clickbait rather than thoughtful reporting.

they weren't adding memecoins because it's already true and memecoins usually have no own chain. there is no TRON in the list as well. this project by far had not achieved thier goal but ended up straying to be one of the L1 which was not their initial plan.


could just be for the fud some people will not invest and use these tokens.  there are some POW coins in there like LTC, KASPA and ETC which is quite good IMO but it's their article though. but most of the time when articles like this start to float, it's a sign that bull market is going to go full steam.  people who invest late means they are to buy the projects for a higher price.  

I don't know how Forbes got his information though he is a journalist who is Specialized on the analysing the global economy and the individual worth. Monero is a decentralized project that has proof of work, and not like those good for nothing projects Forbes has listed there. And one this is that before Forbes with his team published anything they must ha e tested it to know the outcome and that is why Forbes does not introduced person as the richest person in the continent when he has not k ow your net worth.
And those Blockchains that are listed are not doing good in the cryptocurrency community. And before Forbes says they are unproven then they have seen the sources of those coins.

Probably just a stunt article to gather views, created to shock people so we make discussions about it (like we do right now) while mentioning Forbes and linking to them directly or indirectly so they can earn more ad revenue.

Whatever Forbes writes, it's not worth our time discussing it and decreasing life of our keyboards (just my opinion).

So I leave it at that  

There is no new to it, it's like someone giving his opinion about these projects but this time, it has come from Forbes representative. Nothing to worry about if you've got those projects on your portfolio that are mentioned on that table because every person has their own opinion about the projects that they like and not. But I agree for many that are in there like in Bitcoin cash and EOS. Still, nothing will change that most there have got a lot of market cap.

Monero definitely doesn't fall under "unproven and have little utility other than for speculative crypto trading", that is very wrong, Monero is a great privacy coin and quite a lot of people use it to keep their transactions untraceable, this is a good enough utility from my point of view and that of a lot of people in the industry.

I don't know how they came up with this list and how they determined that these coins/blockchains are good-for-nothing, but just for the fact they have Monero in their list, i am pretty sure they didn't do any research.

They mislead readers with a clickbait site, i am pretty sure you are referring to that with scamcoins
https://www.wsj.com/business/media/brands-paid-for-ads-on-forbes-com-some-ran-on-a-copycat-site-instead-c01609ef

And since we are talking about Forbes, i am linking the original story to get more balanced view, because crypto sites are pretty biased to review anything negative:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenehrlich/2024/03/27/the-rise-of-cryptos-billion-dollar-zombies/

I think it's quite good to realize that Ripple for example was hyped to be disrupting banking industry, and NFTs disrupting method to transfer ownership and RWA. Neither of these happened. But it seems like that maybe the reason for this article was because these writers ate that hype up, and now seem to be disappointed.

Their loath against the crypto just oozes from the text. They don't seem to be able to contain themselves and use loaded words and phrases. I don't necessarily disagree with most of their points, but delivery on this article is just horrible. Just the fact that it ends like this, tells all about the objectivity:

Well, Monero is on the "speculative and unproven" list, what a joke, and calling it a "Bitcoin spin-off" when it started as new project and not a fork of Bitcoin tells me they did absolutely no research and just shitposted because they've got paid.

Forbes was always on my list of badly maintained public toilets right next to reddit, youtube, social networks (all of them) and TV stations.

They have promoted scamcoins in the past, they will post anything for money.

I remember them praising Dogecoin, yeah that has utility - for pumping and dumping, a f... meme coin  

since there is no thread about this yet in the forum. i'd like to post it just so it will be documented here and see what the community has to say about the Forbes list of ‘Good for Nothing' Blockchains which they deemed no real-world use.

they could be right about what they are saying but they are still top coins in the list and with a large trading volume every day. check out the reason why they say the project is good for nothing in the left-hand column.



i found some posts of it on twitter https://twitter.com/tryPluid/status/1784240971204473032
https://cryptorank.io/news/feed/37699-forbes-lists-20-zombie-tokens-with-a-market-value-of-more-than-1b