Market dominance is a shitty indicator [...]
[...]
- Technology has progressed, people studied and has progressed in the understanding of the cryptos and came to the right conclusion shitcoins are indeed...shitcoins. Shitcoins value proposition has since faced and now they are clearly revealed for what they have always been: (kind of elaborate) exit scams by fraudster to transfer your bitcoin in their wallets.
- We are on the verge of an epochal bull run caused by institutional money on the brink on entering cryptocurrencies. Of course the main gateways for this to happen is Bitcoin. I can't see them diversifying their investment into other bitcoins in the near future both because lack of regulations, lack of liquidity and above all security and scrutiny on this coins.
- The more Bitcoin performs versus shitcoins, the more the random investors will be keen on buying bitcoins and abstain to shift to shitcoins, because Bitcoin IS the asset performing. SO kind of self-fulfilling mechanism/shelling point where you don't want to convert your bitcoin into other assets
What are your toughs?
My toughs?
1. I think more non-retail money (increasing constituent, now) seeks the safer bet, along with the liquidity of the largest player / market in crypto.
2. The feedback loop. As long as alts whither and dominance increases, it only reinforces the trend. For now, at least.
There is a tendency to call all coins other than Bitcoin 'shitcoins'. To me, it seems mostly like NPC herd behaviour
I'd rather make a distinction between:
In my vocabulary, shitcoins are coins that serve no purpose, have no vision or (attempt to any) solution. We are in the process of saying goodbye to front_left_tooth_coin, not_solving_even_non_existing_problem_coin (Autorship, I am looking at you...), pump_and_dump_copy_paste_coin and all other projects that were stamped out of the ground and will be put back in that same ground soon. If anything of the numbers in Market cap is still representing shitcoins, it will be pressed out from it like a lemon. Good riddance.
This is to be separate from chance coins. Projects that try to solve an existing problem or create new possibilities. High risk, many will fail, but the label 'shitcoin' would misrepresent these projects. And it would be very close minded to think that such new and innovative (but failure prone) projects won't be initiated in the future with only Bitcoin remaining. Perhaps in once sector (store of value) the competition will be very stiff, but there are many more aspects to cryptocurrency and DLT tech that are and will continue to be explored.
Not meant as shilling and basically a random mentioning of some projects to color my thought of separating 'chance coins' from 'shitcoins'.
- Ethereum: vehicle for the shitcoins that will deflate, but a programmable decentralised machine has something to it
- EOS/TELOS: more centralised (in computing sense) but more powerful. I can imagine this grabbing a spot for dApps that do require accounts/management/high TPS
- Nimiq: a payment solution with full blockchain capabilities, light weight (so some compromises on decentralisation) but excellent for small and fast payments. Nothing exciting in terms of standard POW blockchain, but it has something no crypto had: easy user experience.
Again, I'm not mentioning these projects because I think they will 100% rule the world. I mention these as examples of how time, money and creativity seeks opportunies, time and time again. Just like we do not call all companies with venture capitalist investors 'shitcompanies', I won't call all cryptocurrency projects 'shitcoins'.
'Shitcoins' and 'chance coins'. Remember this.
edit: giving up on this shitty markup language from the 2000's
[/list]