Topic: What makes a good coin? - page 2. (Read 2513 times)

Yes, you need a large and supportive following.  What I'm saying is that there should be more to it than counting the pages of a coin's thread on Bitcointalk as a means to determine a quality coin.  If 400 of the 500 pages are complaints, wallet problems, +1 a long text, goofy pictures, demands for updates, etc, how is quality found in that?  It's too bad there wasn't a way to rate quality posts!  If a coin has a large following of people that are new to crypto, getting them to post is like pulling teeth.   Being active on Facebook and Twitter doesn't guarantee quality.

Without new people being brought into crypto, it won't survive, so I would think this should be an important factor as well.  What has the coin done to bring new people from outside the industry into it?  We need everyone to make this successful and to do that everyone has to feel like they fit in some how.

Maybe these coin analysis sites need to delve much deeper into what is actually going on within the currency / community, before they rank them.  What do you think?

A good dev team, and a plan for the coin. And its not complete without an active community. Without a community, there is no coin.

I agree.  With 80% of coins gone within the first 30 days of launch, age is definitely important.  As far as CoinGecko goes, you have to take these ranking sites with a grain of salt.  If you told a financial analyst what CoinGecko used for ranking criteria, you would be laughed out of the room.  I'm sure not all developers are active on Github. Community strength based on how much is posted on a forum or on Twitter may mean the coin hasn't found it's way into the hands of everyday people who don't have the time or desire to post anywhere.  What exactly does +1, page after page, contribute to a coin?  Some coins pay to post and that is usually evident in the quality of the posts.  

The list on CoinGecko is very similar to the ranking on CoinMarketcap, give or take a few places.  I would like to see an evaluation system that can see beyond CoinMarketcap and social media and find the sleeping giant that everyone missed.  Note: CoinMarketcap is still beneficial for checking stability of coins from date of launch (minimum 6 month chart).

Innovation should target and / or impress the masses, not the just current crypto followers.  Ease of use (for everyone), mass adoption, and security, should be some of the driving factors behind any innovation.  I'm not downplaying some of the amazing things being developed, but will they take a particular currency to the next level, or will they be copied by a hundred other coins?

A successful coin needs trust, stability, and store of value.  It needs a development team that has many years of real world business and financial experience.  The team must have a good long term business plan and the knowledge and capability to take the currency mainstream.  A very solid foundation must be built before it can be used as an everyday currency.  Otherwise, it is the equivalent of moving into the penthouse apartment before the first 35 floors are built.

shursight is right with this comment:  "...many times people in the crypto world get bored with coins very fast and move on."

Greatness takes time.

Keep them coming

a innovative idea, good team and big community behind this
security is must

-fair start
-secure
-innovative
-people actually use it
-people get paid with it

other than that and its a waste of time

-fair start - good initial distribution (no ico, presale, flashmine, instamine, premine, ito, ipo or other greedy crap)
-needs to be OS
-community
-scarcity (low inflation)
-hashrate
-honesty (clean, not a scam)
-good brand
-devteam
-innovation

in that order

Thanks for all your input people Some very good points of view. Keep them coming!

dev is active
coin is for buying real world medical cannabis ( 1 coin is 1 gram ) 1 place only atm

things like this make a great coin

real world assets ( real idee ) active dev  ( non scam one )

Nothing else than a healthy community.
Good or bad dev, it doesn't really matter. What matters is the idea.

Just my opinion although

Thanks for the tip but the purpose of this topic was just to have a conversation about what people think are good coin charactoristics, not coin suggestions. thanks for your input tho

u might wanne try and look into cann ( nice idee ) still risky ( but price is low )

good points that people might not look for. thanks for you input   

Get into projects who's dev are visible and active in the public eye, they attend meetings, give interviews, visit conventions and have decent connections in the industry. This shows they are confident about their product with the goal to succeed.

If they have funds it should be stored in multi sig with a reputable company who does this like Koinify because they choose to cooperate only with projects who they seem to be promising and will actually sit around the table and investigate what you have to offer before accepting to work with you, through them the devs get paid on milestone vesting, paid per development. This keep the incentive much higher. These are positive indicators to invest and if succeeds the return is much higher than the average project. Gems is a good example

All good points It seems that the going consensus is age, innovation and active development team. I would tend to agree. I saw community in there too. I'm not sure I agree with community contributing to quality of  coin tho, simply because I see that many times people in the crypto world get bored with coins very fast and move on. This doesn't make a coin a bad coin. I feel that when it comes to currency( any kind of currency), value should be based on its attributes and not on trendy fads.

You might be interested to look at CoinGecko. CoinGecko evaluates coins based on developer activity on Github, community strength on Reddit & Facebook & Twitter, trading volume on major exchanges, public interest on Bing & Alexa, and market capitalization.

Everyone has their own definition of what a good coin is.

I made my definition into FRK, MicroGuy made his into GLD (which is still the superior coin imho ). Every dev you ask has different goals. Some want short term profits, some just want to learn about btc, some are using their coins as just a smaller piece to a larger puzzle.

I like longevity, stability, age (although frk wasnt always 2 years old obv), transparent developers, innovation, activity, and over all friendliness. This space at times can be incredibly hostile. So its refreshing when the dev team arn't elitist dicks.

Age shows the dev didn't just want to make a quick buck. Value comes from community.

Three things:

Real word services, real world services and real world services .

Maybe I'm boring with this "real world services" stuff but even the worst shitcoin could go to "da moon" if you can buy something useful for it... and the technologically best coin can worth shit if you can't use it for anything sensible.

Innovation
Age
Sustained support and improvement
Community