Topic: Question about tokens' viability - page 2. (Read 250 times)
of course not, many things replace each other based on human needs. but this does not mean that things become non-viable. so and tokens. do not immediately say goodbye to them.
"The viability of any token doesn't rely on the fact that it can be replaceable or not. here are many other factors that are more considerable. There is a simple explanation of what we are discussing, may help: https://medium.com/@jdh/questioning-the-viability-of-crypto-tokens-as-a-store-of-value-a22a0bfa6d3c"
I agree that token are less popular to the users but that doesn't mean we should think that it doesn't have any place in the business or it it will be vanish from here cause this place is very unpredictable and things can be changed here anytime so much have patience till then.
Can we say that a token is not viable if it can be repacable by another?
Many similar tokens are present in the market and will continue
But some of its perform some functions that do not exist in the other tokens
This may be why people acquired these codes.
The market is still in developmental phase, not all the coin will survive the market till the end. They will get replaced by one token or another in the coming future based on the new features that the new tokens will come up with. However, that doesn't make it less viable in any way. Just look at any industry and their products that are replaceable. They never become less viable among the users.
I believe that while the project went out to market their tokens are not viable and are useless. only the appearance of tokens on the market makes them capable of life.
token and coin both are part of cryptocurrency market but if you analysed the market then you will able to know that the investor has doubt on token and they still don't like much to deal with it but we can expect that on the future things will be changed.
Indeed, even in spite of the way that tokens are replaceable, it basically doesn't make them less suitable. The greater part of these undertakings don't should be decentralized; a typical database works fine for these new ICOs.
Given it is replaceable, that does not mean that it is a viable one. Even though we see a lot of the items being substituted, it does not mean that the token will lose its viability.
Based on this it is replaceable but it is not the viable one also we can see there is lots of items being substitute but it’s not mean that token will lose their viability.
Tokens can be considered as viable whether it is replaceable or not. One needs to realize that there also other factors that influences its viability. Therefore, even it can be replaced by another token, one should not worry about its viability.
I think the viability of token depends on many things rather than only its ability to be replaced. One should judge token’s viability by taking other factors such as its potential and services in consideration.
token still doesn't have that much popularity or demand among the users, and some are also predicting that this market may not last for very long cause if you analyzed the previous few years record of the market then you will find it very poor
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.
Even despite the fact that tokens are replaceable,it simply doesn't make them less viable.
Numerous items replace eachother without losing its viability,that also applies to tokens.
Numerous items replace eachother without losing its viability,that also applies to tokens.
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?
Jump to: