I haven't transitioned, but I have used NFT opportunities as speculation. In my opinion, it is a good tool for speculation. You should not consider NFT as a full-fledged investment at all. These tokens depreciate very quickly, have low liquidity and tremendous competition. I would recommend anyone who wants to try to make money from NFT to use a flipping strategy. NFT trading is good during a high. For example, flipping on the new NFT collections on the Aptos network can be applied quite nicely lately. But investing in such tokens for a long-term period is an extremely risky venture.

I have been a Solana investor since this year. My average entry price into the asset has been around $31. When you're wondering if you should move from Solana to other projects, what do you expect from Solana? If you're expecting the price to rise to $1,000 over the next 2-3 years, you should probably still look for other alternatives to extract that profit. If you take a conservative approach and expect x3-x10 profits by the next bullrun, then SOL could be considered as an investment in your portfolios. Don't think of my post as investment advice, DYOR.

It's too early to tell. Volatility in the market is still very low. Negative forecasts on various economic indicators continue to appear with enviable regularity. I don't believe a bear market can end with the continued trend of rising rates, rising prices and inflation. These are incompatible things. In order for the bear market to end, some initiatives are needed. For example, providing liquidity from central banks. Otherwise, where will people get the money to buy and invest in various assets, especially risky ones?

Some strange calculations. You should not count from the number of all users, but from the number of users who use the service. I'm sure that a full-scale conversion of all users to a paid service will end in failure for Twitter. Many users, including me, would rather leave the social network than pay $8 a month for a useless tick that an ordinary Twitter user does not need.

radarus, репорты не предназначены для комментариев. Отвечайте в своём топике.

Вот ваш комментарий на пост xandry, взятый из вашего репорта:


Хочу от себя добавить, что все  ваши топики (кроме одного) не касаются криптовалют и поэтому находятся в одном подразделе "Разное". Так что, если вы соберёте все ваши топики в один, ничего страшного не произойдёт. А так вы разбрасываете свои топики по всему русскому разделу, в подразделы, к которым ваши боты не имеют никакого отношения. Это называется "оффтоп". Вот вам и нарушение правил

В начале поста указана ссылка на статью.

Burning occurs in many coins of limited issue. Don't think that burning is only relevant for coins with infinite issuance. For example, BNB has a limited issue of 200 million tokens, but Binance constantly reports on the coins it burns. This is necessary to control the balance between supply and demand, i.e. the developers redeem their tokens in order to normalize the price of the asset and prevent a rise in inflation, which would cause the price of the token itself to fall.


Whales buying coins from weak hands doesn't mean there will be lightning-fast growth. Look at bitcoin, in the last 5 months several millions of coins were bought at $18,000-23,000, but for some reason the price has been stomping on the same price point for months, even though the purchases continue. Strange, don't you think? The thing is, until market makers steer the market in the right direction, these accumulative whale purchases won't have the desired effect.

One of the many and unknown tokens on the BSC. Every day dozens of such projects appear on this network. Judging by the address of this smart contract, https://bscscan.com/token/0x391b12Cba7e5848FA1240550D972E477d4cAcaE3?a=0x3be1aca32328d7f3ed97db8f9e36fded4ec055e6, the project is not in any demand, has 6 holders, and 99% of all token issue is concentrated in the address of token owner. The project is more dead than alive. For a year, since the creation of the smart contract, absolutely no development.

Here's the deleted post.


Why are you surprised? You just picked up and practically retold the post you quoted. Naturally, someone among the users sent a report on your post and the moderator correctly responded to that report by deleting your post. So there's nothing to be surprised about.

It is unlikely to benefit the social network itself, and if any paid subscriptions appear, The Indepenndent may be right in saying that the arrival of Ilon Musk to Twitter will mean the death of this platform. If we're talking about introducing DOGE to Twitter, clearly not as a way to collect money from verified accounts. It would make more sense to add DOGE as a way to pay for tips, donations or to pay for some merchandise within Twitter. Surely Musk would make some sort of internal marketplace.

It is only if the number of coins burned exceeds the number of coins generated, for example by mining or unlocking. That is, if the coin will not create deflation, then the burning will not have much effect on the price. As a prime example, we can remember the burning of the Axie token, which was not enough to beat inflation and the increasing supply of coins on the market. As a result, the price of that token began to decline very quickly, despite the fact that there was constant coin burning in the tokenomics of the project.

I can't agree with the fact that for crypto adopting it is more important such indicator as TPS. To prove this, I will give bitcoin as an example. No one will argue that bitcoin has the strongest mass adopsion among all cryptocurrencies, but at the same time bitcoin has an extremely weak TPS. In addition to TPS, a cryptocurrency must have good tokenomics, a robust protocol, interest among investors and the community, strong demand for blockchain, and a deflationary model to strive for mass adopting. No one is interested in an inflationary altcoin with pos and exposure to censorship, even if it has a TPS of 100,000 transactions per second.

This could be a common manipulation to make market participants believe that a bull market is now beginning and thus begin to buy. Don't forget, the market is manipulative and often the big players create purposely needed conditions, which many participants are waiting for. Although this does not negate the possibility that it could be the beginning of a real market reversal, but I would not rush too much and wait for more signals confirming increased demand for cryptocurrencies and new players coming to the market.

Очередная скамина. Проехали и пошли дальше

У меня тоже все цифры на месте. Через 4 часа посмотрим.

На сайте ни слова о токене TRIBL. Или я не нашёл?

Исправьте ссылки. У вас там двойной https://

First of all, it is morally indecent to draw the attention of the community in such a "dirty" way. Secondly, you have a similar thread in the archives. I do not know who moved it there, but it does not change the essence. It's the same "dirty" marketing. I don't recommend taking it out of the archive, otherwise it will probably be deleted as well.

I'm still inclined to believe that people hoped for a hype at the expense of the merger event in order to speculate on the hype as much as possible. I don't think that after the merger, the hype would have continued because the altcoin market is very weak and there is almost no cash flow into cryptocurrencies. While I don't really expect exorbitant prices for ETH, the only thing that really upsets me is the insanely growing rate of censorship and centralization in the new Ethereum network. I'm already thinking of reducing my stock of ETH

Of course, developers also hunt for quick profits through the hype of attracting new users to the project. But even if the developers really want long-term development of their project and do not see the pump-and-dump scheme as the primary goal, the community and bots still ruin any promising business models, because the primary goal of entering such projects is always the same:

• Get in before anyone else
• Make money
• Take everything and leave to find another project.