I would strongly advise that you consider what you're doing a little more deeply. We're currently in this manic phase of new alt-coins, where every idea, ranging from the *very* few good/interesting ideas, to the irrelevant tweak/scam-coins, gets a day or three in the sun. It's clear that 99+% of the alt coins out there will not last, and that almost definitely includes what many would consider some of the top alts today.
The damage to crypto-currency in general caused by the current alt-mania is non-trivial. The existence of non-technically-interesting alt coins gives credence to the crypto-currency naysayers who insist that the entire space is a flash in the pan because alts prove you can't have digital scarcity. We only play into the hands of this argument by supporting alts.
I'm a firm believer that we'll only end up with 3 or 4 coins long-term (and we have *no idea* which those are going to be yet) and that they'll serve distinct market niches due to meaningful technical differentiation. This situation would actually be somewhat analogous to how the precious metals markets developed; there are only a few that carry non-industrial value.
I just hope that leading companies in the crypto space *do* consider these meta-dynamics and aren't just looking for short-run boosts to their own userbase at the expense of the long-run health of the entire community.
Choose wisely.
The damage to crypto-currency in general caused by the current alt-mania is non-trivial. The existence of non-technically-interesting alt coins gives credence to the crypto-currency naysayers who insist that the entire space is a flash in the pan because alts prove you can't have digital scarcity. We only play into the hands of this argument by supporting alts.
I'm a firm believer that we'll only end up with 3 or 4 coins long-term (and we have *no idea* which those are going to be yet) and that they'll serve distinct market niches due to meaningful technical differentiation. This situation would actually be somewhat analogous to how the precious metals markets developed; there are only a few that carry non-industrial value.
I just hope that leading companies in the crypto space *do* consider these meta-dynamics and aren't just looking for short-run boosts to their own userbase at the expense of the long-run health of the entire community.
Choose wisely.
Hive is a supporter of Token Neutrality:
• We do not believe it appropriate that wallet makers hold bias towards one token or another.
• We find arguments for artificial digital scarcity well-reasoned, but ultimately delusional.
No doubt the semantic framing of this topic is responsible for most of the confusion. If one swaps the word 'currency' for 'shares' as Daniel and Stan of Clan Larimer have been suggesting, things look quite a bit different. These two brilliant pieces are recommended reading for everyone:
http://bitshares.org/a-bitrose-by-any-other-name/
http://bitshares.org/the-end-of-cryptomoney/
We at Hive agree that so-called crypto-currency is not money—even if it can be used that way, and even if it is sometimes convenient to describe it that way. We're actively working on our language, but let me be crystal-clear about that perspective now.
I know that $1,000,000/BTC was an exit strategy for a handful of people, but there's nary a prayer of it playing out that way. We of Earth love our novelty, and I in particular find the idea of artificial digital scarcity so painfully fucking boring that I'm going to spend my time making your world view more difficult to sustain, as both a career and a hobby.
So...how's HIve doing now, one might ask?
https://hivewallet.com/
Guess pretentious jerks who don't understand crypto *do* get what they deserve sometimes.
