Topic: Good fundamentals don't ensure a great investment. - page 2. (Read 330 times)

It was not the sole metric to see if that project/s become successful but having that feature it seems to have a bigger chance.
If I choose a project to invest in, I'm not choosing it because it is popular on social media, it has good fundamentals but also, I consider the most if that project showcases a useful contribution to the crypto space so we can benefit from it. Many projects show great things at first but they don't have sustainable market designs to retain their greatness, they are gradually losing identification and popularity until they lose sight of the investors.

In short there’s a lot of factors that needs to be consider before investing and fundamentals alone is not enough because not all projects are fundamentally good but still they are able to rise and build their empire. The usage of the project, the demand for it and the future plans of the project also matters, look into this details as well before investing, try to use both FA and TA to have a solid result of your analysis.

What I think is you've been using ChatGPT to write most of your posts for you...






These are some of the most common phrases used by ChatGPT when generating responses or re-writing text for people..

I don't really know what your aim is but if its to rank up and join a signature campaign, you're going to want to start writing posts using your own voice and own original thoughts.

Well you dont only based the project strenght on its inflation rate. We should also check its use cases around their ecosystem does those unloaded tokens have usefulness in such horizon or not? Well if its in demand then its price would increase no matter how big the supply being release on specific time. Yes supply and demand of such commodity matter but also its only a part of what we can see on future of different project.

How those shitcoins are considered having good fundamentals in the first place? popular and useful are different, if popular and big market cap are the reasons of good project. A whale just need to create a new coin and invest all of his money to bump the coin into top 10 in CMC, after many investors are buying the coin, the whale can run away and steal all investors money.

How about the layer zero?  They have good fundamentals. Also, they received higher investment from the VCs as well. So most crypto companies invest the money based on the project's unique solution. So layer zero provides an omni-chain solution. If the project has good funding, then users will be trying to use it for targetting the airdrops from the project team. so the project's transactions will increase.

The question is when do you come into contact with it?

The projects that OP mentioned here are all names that have created a position in this market, raising the issue of investment, there are many problems that follow it to lead to a profitable investment and analyzing the basics purely and uncritically into the development plan of the market or project to avoid missing opportunities. For altcoins, the trend happens almost after bitcoin, so for new people they may not understand too much and need time to experience to see the price increase or decrease of whatever they are interested, the inflation story here really doesn't have much of a problem when we are discussing a crypto space that is still small compared to the economy, there is no need to complicate the issue whether short or long term.

a project could gain success when they have good marketing that generates demands, have fundamentally good products that helps to market it, and also sustaining long term planning if a project got all these then success is definitely gonna come.
but some project only excels at one thing, not to mention those that only depend on the hypes making their project completely irrelevant within next months.
thats why analyzation about all these things are required only then you'd have the perfect projects that you can invest on. otherwise it will just losing value in long term.
so its true that fundamental is only a piece of puzzle in this case.

A good project is a combination of many features and fundamentals I have seen a lot of projects that are only good on paper but failed to translate it to success because the people behind that project are not capable of materializing what they intend to do.
A good project to become successful should be relevant to what the community needs and those needs should be long-term and not just hype or a trend that will vanish when a new trend comes.

fundamental is just one factor that determine whether a product is good, such project that add 7% of supply yearly to the total supply is complete waste of time to invest honestly.
even ethereum is having burning to keep the total supply from getting too much.
but sometime even if the coin supply is keep increasing, it could still mantain its value for each coin because the demand is massive and these demand coming from the fact that the coin itself is trendy.
then that would be exception where the total supply increase doesn't really matter that much, the thing is that the market of certain coin sometime could be so abstract getting affected by various factors out there.

There is no "one size fits all" when it comes to tokenmetrics. The tokenmetrics of existing altcoin projects are largely experiment and inflationary token supply has become a new shift in how token supply are structured. Instead of having all the supply available at launch (and unlocked) which could impact the price, most teams just lock some of the token supply and unlock it linearly. It's not the best approach and it has its downside but it's the best for now except someone comes up with a much better way to structure token metrics in the future.

That is just the way it is, there are many companies that despite having great products and innovative ideas failed at the end, so it is not surprising the same were to happen in this market, after all a great deal of speculators out there are not really looking for solid projects in which they can invest, what they are looking is for the dumbest project which can be conceived but that can still attract the attention of others, which is why meme coins are so popular despite their poor fundamentals.

Isn't it just usual that a project should have a fundamental that makes sense as a start?

Investors won't just throw money if the project doesn't have a reasonable fundamental use-case. If the team were able to show that clearly and the roadmap somehow made sense, investors might think that it's worthy investing in. The next one is the critical part, how the team will manage the project along the way and that's the key in making a strong backed community around the project.

It's really tough to choose a project especially risking money for startups that's why a good-decision making should always be a priority.

Isn't the number of coin supplies included in the fundamental analysis?  So you should have taken into account that with ever-increasing number of tokens/coins, it will impact the fundamentals of the project.  Aside from that the marketing capability of the team is also part of the fundamentals so you shouldn't be surprised that the price of OP will decrease due to its marketing incapability and the ever-increasing supply. With these flaws, I don't think that the project you stated has a good fundamental.

Having a good fundamental is a big asset to the project for the investors think that it will become successful and encourage them to invest. However, this won't give us 100% assurance but at least the chances are pretty high compared to the projects. While choosing a project to invest in, we also bear a lot of considerations and project analysis. As we decided to invest in that project, it meant that we trusted the team and the fundamentals of the project. If we think they can't perform well, then we also have the right to decline.

It would really be just only having two possible path which it would really be going up or down and it would really be in according in overall demand and recognition by those investors or the community on which it

would really be that depending in regarding into its value overtime. Good fundamentals doesnt assure that you would really be that able to hit up the right project but since we are doing our research which it is a must thing then it would really be indicating that this one is really that having the potential.It is way more better compared when you do make out some investment decisions without any basis because on this method on which you arent following any steps or analysis then you are just simply doing gambling in the first place. We know that dealing investment on this space does really involves that kind of risks
on which it is really that normal that you would really be needing to take further step for you to be able to get the chance of progress.

You wont really be able to know unless you do try. To those people who do really take up the risks because of tending to involved into something are the ones who do have that kind of possible opportunity
on making their good profits on which it is really that a common approach or things that could possibly happen but of course losing money is always next in line too.

Well if you are staking and your bag is part of the inflation and growing with it. And to top of that, usually inflation is happening very slow.

The individual coin price dropping a little doesn't matter, because it's the value of your bag of that coin that matters. If it loses value, only then you are losing money .

However high infraltion rate and price of one whole token dropping can be bad in other ways. As people who are doing technical analysis follow only the price dropping, they don't include the staking rate in their chart analysis, and most investors look only the surface and the chart/marketcap movement.

Also tokenomics are just one part of fundamentals.

This is not a bitcoin discussion topic so you should move it from this thread to the Altcoin discussion session or Economics.

There are so many pieces to a good investment, but a good fundamental is a very big part of that. Any project that can get the basics right and build something that is in demand and has properties that investors are looking for, it will be able to market itself giving enough time.

- Jay -

After OP made a planned and private decision to unlock 18% of its treasury tokens, there was a noticeable drop in price, approximately around 6%. It's important to keep in mind that for OP to reach its all-time high (ATH), it would need to see a significant price surge. While this isn't impossible, it's not necessarily a bet worth placing.

Projects like OP, ALGO, AVAX, and DOT are all considered popular cryptocurrencies, but they share a common trait: they have inflationary tokenomics. This raises an important question – why invest in a project that steadily increases its supply by 7% each year for the next three years? Or one that releases large numbers of tokens, potentially leading to price manipulation by large holders?

In essence, even if a project boasts strong fundamentals, a solid team, and real-world value, it doesn't automatically translate into a great investment. This is particularly true for projects with highly inflationary token models. In such cases, reaching previous all-time highs can seem like an even more distant goal.

In summary, a project's fundamentals are only one piece of the investment puzzle, especially when dealing with highly inflationary tokens.

What do you think about this ?