Bitcoin Forum

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.

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.

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. 

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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"

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.

I agree, many do not need decentralization, the base is quite suitable. Some projects, of course, have good ideas, but there is no way
to collect such large sums at once, and such credits in the real world can and do not give.
Therefore, they try to decentralize everything that is possible and impossible. In this case, a significant part of the funds is spent on advertising

I figure the dominant part of tokens will cease to exist. In the previous year a large number of these new tasks should not be being on a blockchain, they were here a direct result of the publicity. A large portion of these undertakings don't should be decentralized, a typical database works fine for these new ICOs.

Being replaceable doesn't naturally mean it's not suitable. Practicality doesn't rely upon the uniqueness. It rather relies upon the measure of ace/contra-contentions for the use of this coin. A ton of advantages together with no monstrous weaknesses makes a suitable alternative.

No, I personally don't think that you can not say a token less viable if it is replacable. I think that it is more viable if it can be replaced because, that means you can depend more on the tokens.

No, I think it is a misconception. There are many companies in the world which has been replaced by another ones. That doesnt mean that the company is not vaiable. I think the same rule applies for cryptos also.

No it’s not like that. If a coin is replaceable it doesn’t mean that it is not viable. Many token can replace each other but it’s not making them to lose their viability.

There can be many tokens in the market which can replace each other. But they remain viable in their own position. They don’t become lose viability for being replaced.

I believe that it is more reasonable on the off chance that it very well may be supplanted in the fact that that implies you can depend more on the tokens. obviously not, numerous things supplant each other in view of human needs. in any case, this does not imply that things move toward becoming non-reasonable. The suitability of any token doesn't depend on the way that it very well may be replaceable or not. here are numerous different elements that are more impressive. Being replaceable doesn't consequently mean it's not feasible. A considerable measure of advantages together with no monstrous hindrances makes a feasible alternative.

Yes, of course in some time it will always happen where it changes every time, where many ICO projects and tokens are spread everywhere by promising success to attract many investors, it will always be a big waste and begin to be replaced with new innovations, many people expect Bitcoin and Ethereum, other people start by taking small turns to take more certain steps.

Well no, this is not right. In market obviously there will be so much options and all token can be replaced. But that doesn’t mean the replaced token lose its viability.

The viability of token does not depend on the ability to be replaced of that token. Tokens can be replaced with another without losing its viability. Actually, its viability is rather dependent on the services and type of projects itself.

Not really. For example, many blockchains are much faster and cheaper than bitcoin but btc already has a big following and recognition.

The rest of the tokens are not totally die if the token are listed in exchanges the big possibility that the price of it will be down but will not dead. But discussion about the future of token it may possibly don't have a big future, that's what I think.

From my opinion tokens have chances for viability but their value is not so reliable in the case of trading, for example. I prefer more stable alternatives in this situation.

If it was replaced by another one with the same source of investor ,is not viable anymore because it's only the name of the token was change and not the market availability of the coins so it's just like it  was been replaced by another brand name of the product and no more production of the other one.

I agree with you because even though it has been replaced, it's still feasible, but usually the new one will be better because the new one always fixes the shortcomings of the old one

I not sure that you can to say no with 100% guarantee. Look at the forks bitcoin, some from them the more perfectly, which were before but also continue to exist. Again, a complete alternative can be seen rarely , it's have any differences in the any case.

replaceable does not mean that it is a viable one as well as token will lose its viability for reasons.

I also think of tokens that are worthless and undeveloped, I wonder how to survive these tokens? I've heard that if they are lucky there will be other companies that will buy and acquire the tokens and rebuild tokens. I don't know the truth about this news.

Don't mind that they are so at all, tokens are good for short term projects but current their strengths are too small to be confident in the future and in benefit. I think that they could be actual in future but in real time they are not stable in value so much.