Topic: Which is the best platform for holding an ICO right now? (Read 96 times)
Any suggestions?
Hello, everyone!
It's been a while since ETH has been around and it has managed to gain a reputation of a truly tricky cryptocurrency: on the one hand, it has smart contracts, which are secure and useful for participants and it's also a rather stable coin in terms of it's value, which makes ETH a good option. On the other hand, the value of hosting your contract is extremely high now and it makes many ICO's avoid using smart contracts. What is more, the etherium network has proved to be rather unstable as bankor ICO or even crypto kitties can keep the whole network busy and put a hold on all transactions with little gas amounts gained. At this time the question arrises: is ETH still good enough for ICO's or are their other cryptocurrencies at hand, which can easily compete with it?
A list of options, which I personally see, would include:
NEM- a relatively good project with a very affordable value of contract hosting, which has proved to be good with COMSA ICO. It's cheap and rather useful. With the coming soon catapult update it might be an interesting coin for holding an ICO. However, there is one negative thing for some ICO's about NEM- the proof of importance concept. Many ICO simply store more than a half of their crypto assets in ETH and hold till they need. This might not work with NEM as goos as it Works with ETC.
NEO- relatively good and still affordable copy (I guess it's holders are already angry with me at this point) of ETH. It has many advantages of ETH. Nevertheless, it used to be based in China, so the fluctuations might still endanger the financial well being of the project.
WAVES- it's major advantage is that issuing a token with it is relatively easy and your coin has value as it's connected with WAVES itself. However, such a connection might also be a dangerous one for your project as it's run by Russians. I don't want to offend anyone as Russians are great people, who are pretty good at programming and IT in general, but not that good in finance. For example, they couldn't care less about SEC or regulation as a whole, which might turn out to be a fatal blow for a developing project if things go really bad.
LiteCoin- many ICO's have added this coin as a third option to mainstream BTC and ETC. And not without a reason. LiteCoin is obviously extremely user-friendly and transactions are no big deal for it's Network, however, lack of smart contracts and it's transparency might be regarded as disadvantages (at least for some users).
DASH/Monero/ZCash - I really have no idea why nobody is holding an ICO with those tokens- they are so perfectly secure and there market cap is high enough for a dozen of big projects. though, I still have to admit that it's security is a mixed blessing.
So what do you think? Does your opinion coincide with mine or have I failed to cover something? Please feel free to share your opinion on the matter- it is highly appreciated.
It's been a while since ETH has been around and it has managed to gain a reputation of a truly tricky cryptocurrency: on the one hand, it has smart contracts, which are secure and useful for participants and it's also a rather stable coin in terms of it's value, which makes ETH a good option. On the other hand, the value of hosting your contract is extremely high now and it makes many ICO's avoid using smart contracts. What is more, the etherium network has proved to be rather unstable as bankor ICO or even crypto kitties can keep the whole network busy and put a hold on all transactions with little gas amounts gained. At this time the question arrises: is ETH still good enough for ICO's or are their other cryptocurrencies at hand, which can easily compete with it?
A list of options, which I personally see, would include:
NEM- a relatively good project with a very affordable value of contract hosting, which has proved to be good with COMSA ICO. It's cheap and rather useful. With the coming soon catapult update it might be an interesting coin for holding an ICO. However, there is one negative thing for some ICO's about NEM- the proof of importance concept. Many ICO simply store more than a half of their crypto assets in ETH and hold till they need. This might not work with NEM as goos as it Works with ETC.
NEO- relatively good and still affordable copy (I guess it's holders are already angry with me at this point) of ETH. It has many advantages of ETH. Nevertheless, it used to be based in China, so the fluctuations might still endanger the financial well being of the project.
WAVES- it's major advantage is that issuing a token with it is relatively easy and your coin has value as it's connected with WAVES itself. However, such a connection might also be a dangerous one for your project as it's run by Russians. I don't want to offend anyone as Russians are great people, who are pretty good at programming and IT in general, but not that good in finance. For example, they couldn't care less about SEC or regulation as a whole, which might turn out to be a fatal blow for a developing project if things go really bad.
LiteCoin- many ICO's have added this coin as a third option to mainstream BTC and ETC. And not without a reason. LiteCoin is obviously extremely user-friendly and transactions are no big deal for it's Network, however, lack of smart contracts and it's transparency might be regarded as disadvantages (at least for some users).
DASH/Monero/ZCash - I really have no idea why nobody is holding an ICO with those tokens- they are so perfectly secure and there market cap is high enough for a dozen of big projects. though, I still have to admit that it's security is a mixed blessing.
So what do you think? Does your opinion coincide with mine or have I failed to cover something? Please feel free to share your opinion on the matter- it is highly appreciated.
Jump to: