As far as I know, there is no difference when it comes to credibility.
I have seen more and more tokens start with ERC20 to gather funds and then continue with building their own blockchain for it.
Topic: Native blockchain or Token? (Read 126 times)
IMO, it doesn’t matter whether it is a coin with its own blockchain or ERC20 token that determine the project credibility. Some project does not need its own blockchain and ERC20 token is good enough. You should be looking at the project idea, business model, team and etc.
If there is no block like scalability for using existing blockchains I think tokens have real world usage can be successful.
But obviously some needs more or can give more and those are developing their own blockchains, and if they are capable of providing more I think those also can be good investment.
But obviously some needs more or can give more and those are developing their own blockchains, and if they are capable of providing more I think those also can be good investment.
If you consider them project wise or not, I prefer crypto currencies with native blockchain. Anyone and their grandmother can create an ERC20 token, or pay someone to create it for him. Crypto currencies with native blockchain are more complicated to start and require some technical knowledge. And you can vet them more easily. You can see the total number of coins, total number of coins in circulation, block time, block reward, current hashrate, and other available information. With ERC20 tokens, everything is in the experimental phase.
for an investor to invest in either, there is no difference. the only way he can make profit is if the project is hyped up and also if the creators know how to pump it properly. they both can get pumped big or fail horribly if the creators have no idea how the manipulation market works.
for the creator to make profit from what they create, obviously creating a shitty ICO token is much easier than creating a blockchain because it requires much less coding and work and also it will have a lot more hype thanks to the fact that despite ICO hype dying it still is a strong one.
But if we look project wise i.e. the future of project then? for the creator to make profit from what they create, obviously creating a shitty ICO token is much easier than creating a blockchain because it requires much less coding and work and also it will have a lot more hype thanks to the fact that despite ICO hype dying it still is a strong one.
for an investor to invest in either, there is no difference. the only way he can make profit is if the project is hyped up and also if the creators know how to pump it properly. they both can get pumped big or fail horribly if the creators have no idea how the manipulation market works.
for the creator to make profit from what they create, obviously creating a shitty ICO token is much easier than creating a blockchain because it requires much less coding and work and also it will have a lot more hype thanks to the fact that despite ICO hype dying it still is a strong one.
for the creator to make profit from what they create, obviously creating a shitty ICO token is much easier than creating a blockchain because it requires much less coding and work and also it will have a lot more hype thanks to the fact that despite ICO hype dying it still is a strong one.
Which is better to invest in:
A project planning to launch its Native blockchain right from the start of ICO (Luanching its MVP as well).
OR
A Exactly similar Project which issuing tokens (ERC20)?
Which one is more credible?
A project planning to launch its Native blockchain right from the start of ICO (Luanching its MVP as well).
OR
A Exactly similar Project which issuing tokens (ERC20)?
Which one is more credible?
Jump to: