Topic: Question about tokens' viability (Read 250 times)
Don't mind that they are so at all, tokens are good for short term projects but current their strengths are too small to be confident in the future and in benefit. I think that they could be actual in future but in real time they are not stable in value so much.
I also think of tokens that are worthless and undeveloped, I wonder how to survive these tokens? I've heard that if they are lucky there will be other companies that will buy and acquire the tokens and rebuild tokens. I don't know the truth about this news.
replaceable does not mean that it is a viable one as well as token will lose its viability for reasons.
I not sure that you can to say no with 100% guarantee. Look at the forks bitcoin, some from them the more perfectly, which were before but also continue to exist. Again, a complete alternative can be seen rarely , it's have any differences in the any case.
Can we say that a token is not viable if it can be repacable by another?
Being replaceable doesn't automatically mean it's not viable.
There are a lot of car brands available. They can all replace each other. But does this mean that cars are no longer a viable option? I guess not..
One existing viable options doesn't get non-viable through a second viable option appearing. This wouldn't make sense at all.
Viability (in terms of usage/adoption) is not depended on the uniqueness. It rather depends on the amount of pro-/contra- arguments for the usage of this coin.
A lot of benefits together with no massive disadvantages creates a viable option.
Can we say that a token is not viable if it can be repacable by another?
If it was replaced by another one with the same source of investor ,is not viable anymore because it's only the name of the token was change and not the market availability of the coins so it's just like it was been replaced by another brand name of the product and no more production of the other one.
From my opinion tokens have chances for viability but their value is not so reliable in the case of trading, for example. I prefer more stable alternatives in this situation.
I think the majority of tokens will die out. In the past year many of these new projects had no business being on a blockchain, they were only here because of the hype. Most of these projects don't need to be decentralized, a normal database works fine for these new ICOs.
I agree, many do not need decentralization, the base is quite suitable. Some projects, of course, have good ideas, but there is no way
to collect such large sums at once, and such credits in the real world can and do not give.
Therefore, they try to decentralize everything that is possible and impossible. In this case, a significant part of the funds is spent on advertising
The rest of the tokens are not totally die if the token are listed in exchanges the big possibility that the price of it will be down but will not dead. But discussion about the future of token it may possibly don't have a big future, that's what I think.
Not really. For example, many blockchains are much faster and cheaper than bitcoin but btc already has a big following and recognition.
The viability of token does not depend on the ability to be replaced of that token. Tokens can be replaced with another without losing its viability. Actually, its viability is rather dependent on the services and type of projects itself.
Well no, this is not right. In market obviously there will be so much options and all token can be replaced. But that doesn’t mean the replaced token lose its viability.
Yes, of course in some time it will always happen where it changes every time, where many ICO projects and tokens are spread everywhere by promising success to attract many investors, it will always be a big waste and begin to be replaced with new innovations, many people expect Bitcoin and Ethereum, other people start by taking small turns to take more certain steps.
I believe that it is more reasonable on the off chance that it very well may be supplanted in the fact that that implies you can depend more on the tokens. obviously not, numerous things supplant each other in view of human needs. in any case, this does not imply that things move toward becoming non-reasonable. The suitability of any token doesn't depend on the way that it very well may be replaceable or not. here are numerous different elements that are more impressive. Being replaceable doesn't consequently mean it's not feasible. A considerable measure of advantages together with no monstrous hindrances makes a feasible alternative.
There can be many tokens in the market which can replace each other. But they remain viable in their own position. They don’t become lose viability for being replaced.
No it’s not like that. If a coin is replaceable it doesn’t mean that it is not viable. Many token can replace each other but it’s not making them to lose their viability.
No, I think it is a misconception. There are many companies in the world which has been replaced by another ones. That doesnt mean that the company is not vaiable. I think the same rule applies for cryptos also.
No, I personally don't think that you can not say a token less viable if it is replacable. I think that it is more viable if it can be replaced because, that means you can depend more on the tokens.
Being replaceable doesn't naturally mean it's not suitable. Practicality doesn't rely upon the uniqueness. It rather relies upon the measure of ace/contra-contentions for the use of this coin. A ton of advantages together with no monstrous weaknesses makes a suitable alternative.
I figure the dominant part of tokens will cease to exist. In the previous year a large number of these new tasks should not be being on a blockchain, they were here a direct result of the publicity. A large portion of these undertakings don't should be decentralized, a typical database works fine for these new ICOs.
I think the majority of tokens will die out. In the past year many of these new projects had no business being on a blockchain, they were only here because of the hype. Most of these projects don't need to be decentralized, a normal database works fine for these new ICOs.
I agree, many do not need decentralization, the base is quite suitable. Some projects, of course, have good ideas, but there is no way
to collect such large sums at once, and such credits in the real world can and do not give.
Therefore, they try to decentralize everything that is possible and impossible. In this case, a significant part of the funds is spent on advertising
Jump to: