I decided to publicly respond to a PM regarding the OP, as I feel like it would help clarify some of the points I tried to make in the OP.
Only half-humorous.
- Feel free to share your opinion as to what I may be wrong on. Without you completely outlining your theory, it is hard for me to see exactly where I may be wrong, or even refute my points if I still feel like I am right after acknowledging yours.
I respect the effort you've put into this, I'm just trying to prod you into solidifying your arguments. There's absolutely nothing personal about this, other than I'm genuinely seeking countervailing views against which to contrast my own model. I don't see any point in me wasting my time exploring directions which might seem seductively-appealing but ultimately prove unprofitable which I would have otherwise avoided had I a better model.
Thank you, that is the main reason why I have posted this as well.... to get feedback from others so I can improve my own model or theory. Maybe it will help some newcomers not set their money on fire too...
Just on a “feet firmly applied to ground” basis: one issue which should be a complete showstopper for any mention of the verb “invest” (and any of its roots):
ALL altcoin market data is obtained from unregulated sources. IT IS PROFOUNDLY UNRELIABLE. Any analogy with strongly-regulated domains such as stocks and shares or even international currency markets is in danger of obscuring this fundamental and crucial difference.
The term that should be used is “wager” or “gamble” and this context should be omnipresent in any deliberations.
Good point, and I agree with you this. I will reword the OP to state "speculate" which I feel is more appropriate than "wager" or "gamble".
I don't like to words "wager" or "gamble" because my speculation strategy involves much more than blind luck. It is through a lot of hard work and research that I decide which cryptocurrencies I will invest in. I liken it to poker. It is technically still gambling, but you can increase your edge quite a bit by increasing your skills at it by practice and study.
Unfortunately, separating the "scamcoins" from quality investments that have potential is no easy task and there is no exact science.
I get your point but how does it help? It may be litotes rather than hyperbole but the statement remains mere rhetoric.
My intent of this statement is to elaborate as to how much work is required, and that no matter how much work you put in you may still end up being wrong. These were two points I tried to say multiple times in different ways, to make sure that I got those points across, because I feel like it is important to understand those things.
In my opinion there are only a few "network effected" coins... such as Bitcoin, Litecoin, and Dogecoin,
...
I suggest only investing in highly "network effected" cryptocurrencies
That's a feed line if I ever saw one ... What criteri[on|a] do you use to classify Bitcoin, Litecoin and Dogecoin as “network effect” coins? Do *any* other alts cut the mustard here?
I am not sure what a "feed line" is. If you mean this: (
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/feed+a+line) then I can assure you it is not my intention to convey something that I didn't think is true.
Bitcoin is obviously the greatest "network effected" cryptocurrency. It is the only cryptocurrency that is repeatedly reported on by mainstream news outlets, and is the only cryptocurrency with any resemblance of household name recognition. Silk Road, Mt. Gox, The Bubble, The inventor of blockchain technology, Satoshi Nakamoto, and Bitcoin itself are all Bitcoin-related topics that mainstream news has covered. The same cannot be said for any other cryptocurrency.
With that being said, I posit that there are multiple network effects of varying degrees of strength. I consider some of the "sleeping giants of yesteryear" (LTC, PPC, NMC) to be pretty well "network effected" inside the cryptocurrency community. Which is why I conclude that several other cryptocurrencies earn spots in the "network affected" categories. Admittedly, I was pretty strict in the OP when determining "network effected" coins, but I do think there are other coins that fall just inside or outside of this category.
Other than the "sleeping giants", I would consider Doge to have a decent network effect with common everyday people and Reddit through the Doge community. I would consider Ethereum to have pretty well "network effected" smart contracts, as there are several other cryptocurrencies with similar capabilities and they are a fraction of Ethereum's market capitalization. I would consider Nxt and Bitshares to have "network effected" the PoS-supporting community as two of the most popular PoS cryptocurrencies. Etc.
There reason why I cut the list short with only BTC, LTC, and DOGE in the OP is because I feel like each rung you go down in the "network effected" rankings the less important it gets, and the less strangth the network effect has. Perhaps I should reword that part however to make sure it is clear that it is possible for other cryptocurrencies also gain their own network effects for various reasons.
Cryptocurrencies that are more fairly distributed have a much higher success rate.
How confident are you that everyone else fully understands what YOU mean by “fair”?
I am not completely sure to be honest, this is probably something I could elaborate on as well. Some people consider all coins with a premine (therefore all PoS coins) or instamine unfair. I am not one of those people. To me, as long as everyone has a chance to donate or participate to receive a portion of the premine, then everyone had a "fair" shot. I even consider premines or block subsidies for development and other things as being fair, depending on if the money is used wisely and efficiently or not.
Some (or most) people would probably not agree with me on those points, so I wanted to make sure that goes into the equation, because I do think that it has some effect on the future evaluation of a cryptocurrency. For instance, I think that cryptocurrencies with blatantly unfair distributions have no chance at success or survival... coins like Dash or Bytecoin. Historically, that has been proven to be the case and I feel like it is only a matter of time for those cryptocurrencies.
Is the cryptocurrency innovative?
See above.
I tried to elaborate on that in the OP... was I not clear enough? To me being innovative is doing something different that has never been done before, whether it be a new technology or a different take on an old technology. Cryptocurrencies that copy other cryptocurrencies tit for tat have little chance as success. Dogecoin is one of the only exceptions that comes to mind, and I certainly would not bet against this not being the case.
Decentralized data storage, programming languages, privacy and anonymity, gaming related, exchanges, markets, social networks, internet, email, voice/video/text chat, VPNs, and "jack-of-all-trades" are all examples of different markets
**Definitely** see above ('cos “exchanges, markets, social networks” ... “are all examples of different markets”)
I am not sure what you're getting at here. I clearly specified that decentralized exchanges (cryptocurrency exchanges.. Bitshares, InstaDEX, B&C Exchange, Etc.), decentralized markets (Syscoin, Bitbay, Shadowcoin, etc.), and social networks (Synereo and apparently TPTB's coin) are examples of different markets. They are going after such different markets that I fail to see how they couldn't be "examples of different markets". Perhaps I could elaborate on each market to specify why they clearly have different road maps and trajectories?
Dedicated and skilled developers are key to a successful cryptocurrency.
I believe that your supporting argument here can only be conjectural in nature because it isn't actually true as stated and so there isn't any factual support to be found. IMO, a dedicated dev should be viewed as a significant *weakness* in a coin.
It doesn't make any sense to me why having dedicated and skilled developers would be a weakness to a cryptocurrency. If a cryptocurrency had none, then it would be stuck in the same shape a decade down the road as it is today. Technology, and more specifically the cryptocurrency space, is evolving rapidly. I fail to see how having a dedicated and skilled developer to keep the cryptocurrency on the cutting edge of blockchain technology can be a bad thing. Not to mention, who will provide the necessary security updates if a cryptocurrency didn't have anyone to provide them? This argument doesn't make any sense to me and I don't see where you're going with it.
A cryptocurrency's value is derived by the public perception of that certain cryptocurrency, since the value is found by the consensus of the free market.
Sure, and which “free market” would that be exactly?
(According to my model, the altcoin domain seems to exhibiting a collective failure to fully appreciate the significance of differing perceptions of “value”.)
Each cryptocurrency is judged separately in their own free market every day. With every buy and every sell, the cryptocurrency is being judged. However, that's not to say there is some (or a lot) of overlap in the way people derive value for alternative cryptocurrencies. I think all cryptocurrencies are all judged on similar criteria, and some of it overlaps judgement of other cryptocurrencies. Such as network effects, who innovated what feature, who is the one to beat in what market, what cryptocurrencies have the same features and which cryptocurrency out of that group is a better pick.
I am fully aware that there are differing perceptions of value. I see it every day on these forums. That is why I like to diversify my portfolio, because if I am being honest with myself I am not entirely sure which group is correct. I think like any investment strategy, diversification is key to hedging your bets against the unknown factors that surely exist in alternative cryptocurrency speculation.
++ I posit that this public perception is a complicated combination of numerous factors, and no one truly knows the correct answer.
No prizes for stating the bleeding obvious.
Well, it is my belief that some people truly think they know the answer and wrongly feel like they can tell the future. At least, reading these forums it would lead you to believe that. I even think some otherwise sensible and "established" people on these forums believe they know for sure.
++ Everyone thinks they know the answer, but the truth is that everyone is fooling themselves because no one truly knows.
Straw man, you haven't got any support for your assertion “everyone thinks” -- and fwiw, I think I know **an** answer.
Meh, the way people converse on the forums it leads me to believe that at the very least SOME people think that. Unless everyone is shilling 24/7... which wouldn't surprise me either. As stated up-post, I repeated a couple things multiple times in different words to make sure I got certain points across. This was one of my points... that is is very hard, if not impossible, to come to a correct conclusion as to what will happen in the future with a valuation of any said cryptocurrency, and that is why I am preaching diversification.
These factors include, but are not limited to (in no certain order):
consensus algorithm, got the technical chops to assess this??
network effect, can this even be defined, let alone measured?
"scalability", got the technical chops to assess this??
transaction speeds, under what conditions?
blockchain bloat, got the technical chops to assess this??
voting, is this even a thing?
programming languages, got the technical chops to assess this??
number of exchanges you can trade it at, got the accurate and reliable data to assess this??
the credibility/volume of the exchanges, got the accurate and reliable data to assess this??
liquidity and volume, got the accurate and reliable data to assess this??
privacy/anonymity, got the technical chops to assess this??
merge "mine-able", with which other cryptocurrency?
decentralized exchange, got the technical chops to assess this??
in-wallet block explorer, trivial plug-in for most alts
recurring payments, got the technical chops to assess this??
decentralized markets, got the technical chops to assess this??
atomic transactions, got the technical chops to assess this??
stealth addresses, got the technical chops to assess this??
confidential transactions, got the technical chops to assess this??
ring signatures, got the technical chops to assess this??
telepods, what?
masternodes, got the technical chops to assess this??
self-funding development, got the verifiable data?
"hire-able" employees, total non-starter
merchant acceptance, got the accurate and reliable data to assess this??
payment processors, got the accurate and reliable data to assess this??
hot wallets, what about hot wallets?
light wallets, got the technical chops to assess this??
mobile wallets, got the technical chops to assess this??
market pegged assets/cryptocurrencies, got the accurate and reliable data to assess this??
stable cryptocurrencies/assets, can't penetrate this
multisignature addresses, got the technical chops to assess this??
file storage, got the technical chops to assess this??
TOR/I2P compatibility,
decentralized application stores/browsers, got the technical chops to assess this??
solid developers, got the technical chops to assess this??
innovative features, got the technical chops to assess this??
fair distribution, can this be anything other than a purely idiosyncratic assessment?
large supportive and productful community, got the accurate and reliable data to assess this??
having a target market or plan for establishing network effect, got the accurate and reliable data to assess this??
Interesting list, looks like two/three items might be feasibly assessed using objective and reliable criteria, the rest remain topics for extended essays. I've add the challenges as obvious questions that people are likely to raise (gotta keep querying the reliability of the data and whether a reliable technical assessment is actually feasible or just a wish).
I don't have time to respond to the entire list right now, but I'd like to at least acknowledge that you have a point. Each of these factors probably deserves its own essay. Perhaps I can add a paragraph or so of elaboration for each, but even still it would never be enough. That is why I tried to hammer home the point that speculating profitably in alternative cryptocurrencies is hard work, which requires many hours of research on many different cryptocurrencies, technologies, concepts, history, and economics.
As I mentioned earlier, it's nothing personal, I'm simpy interested in learning as much as I can from others' models.
No worries, thanks for your response. You gave me more food for thought than anyone else and have made me realize some edits and elaboration that need to be done to the OP.
Cheers