Is Ethereum second?
If so wich Cryptocurrency Will be third, 4th. 5th.??
What You think wich coins are competing with Ethereum?
I Think Ethereum and Bitcoin are number one!
3rd. I Think its a BCH.
Bitcoin (BTC) is first, yes. Ethereum (ETH) is second, yes again. Third is Bitcoin Cash (BCH). Nah, think again. It is clearly a spot for Ripple (XRP). Fourth is Bitcoin Cash (BCH). Nah, wrong again. Think of another one. Clue, do not just take your hint from their market cap. The fourth spot is for Litecoin (LTC). Fifth is Bitcoin Cash (BCH). Nah! It is for EOS. Sixth is Bitcoin Cash (BCH). That's a spot for Stellar (XLM). ... 2102nd spot is for Bitcoin Cash (BCH). Nah, it's for Trump Coin. |
|
|
|
Hello! 87 - Periodik  Thanks! |
|
|
|
|
For as long as the altcoins are composed mostly of shitcoins, Bitcoin dominance will remain 50% or more regardless of the price of Bitcoin. The altcoins may be reaching thousands and thousands in numbers but it does not mean that the dominance of Bitcoin will decrease. Investors are wise enough to choose the best coin. And more than any altcoin, Bitcoin is the best option. Some altcoins are rising because many investors are diversifying. But this diversification is not reaching all throughout the majority of the altcoins. Mostly, only the top altcoins are reached.
|
|
|
|
...but the quality of projects has rounded at 4.0. What does this mean? That the quality of projects have decreased? And whose standard is it based? Is it coming from your platform alone? I have also the same question but their metrics and statistics must be from 0-10. So overall the rating didn't even reached the half of it which is 10 in ratings. It's obvious that many ICO doesn't have anything to show anymore and as for the IEO, there's plenty of them that are conducting it right now but same as ICO, only few of them will emerge. That has always been the pattern ever since the ICO market became so crowded and full of scams and mediocre projects. And although IEO has made the market a little bit better, it still carried with it the dirt from the polluted ICO market. As expected, many are going to fail. If their rating is 0-10 and the average is 4, that could mean that the quality of projects has decreased significantly or the projects under review of their site have stopped paying or buying higher ratings. At the end of the day, ratings do not necessarily reflect the quality of the projects. There have been highly rated projects that did not even hit their soft caps. |
|
|
|
...but the quality of projects has rounded at 4.0. What does this mean? That the quality of projects have decreased? And whose standard is it based? Is it coming from your platform alone? 2. Blockstack ICO has raised 82% of overall funds raised during this week I am curious as to the total numbers of ICOs and IEOs. Because if a single ICO has made 82% of the overall funds, that would send the idea that the rest will have to be dividing the remaining 18%, which could be interpreted that the market is indeed full of mediocre projects. 3. The projects FRED Energy and Mindsync obtained the highest ratings of 4.9 and 4.7 respectively Again, on what basis? Could you assure us that there is no "fee" or "payment" involved in releasing ratings? |
|
|
|
If some disciplinary act are been taken against teams and devs greedy habits will reduce in crypto space, bad devs and ceo are showing their faces to the public introducing their project to gain awareness, the teams are even going for blockchain seminars and here we are thinking they are doing the right thing to easily achieve success and increase adoption rate too but in the end the project still turn to scam, in crypto and blockchain tech a piece of paper anybody can just trampled on and do as they see fit? its really unfair, investors are taking risks i think these kind of devs should be dealt with to stand as an example for those who have evil thoughts of using blockchain
If my memory serves me right, there were already several crypto project personalities who ended up prosecuted because of their shady projects. If anyone can still remember, there was Centra, Titanium, Envion, and others whose developers and other higher ups are involved in legal cases. I guess some of the people involved are already serving prison terms. What is needed actually is an initiative to file a formal complaint or case against these scammers and stick to it until resolved. This is going to be the hardest part, needless to say. Others are contented complaining through different platforms while the real culprit is still free. |
|
|
|
|
The poll is rather confusing to me.
The question is "Which currency will dominate the crypto market?" So why is there is no Bitcoin as an option? USD is all over the options. Bitcoin is dominating the cryptocurrency market. Can you not see it in CMC? The dominance of Bitcoin in the crypto market is around 70%. That is crystal clear. Why talk of volume as your argument when you are asking about dominance? If you talk of dominance, you should take into consideration the market cap.
|
|
|
|
|
This is cryptocurrency. As much as we will be happy if our overall portfolio's value in USD is increasing, it is not the main goal. This is as far as my way of looking at it is concerned. I don't think you are gaining if your value in BTC is falling even if your overall value in USD is higher. But since you've made 0.050BTC out of your 0.045BTC then you are indeed gaining. It does not matter if the price of 0.050BTC is lower than 0.045BTC when you bought your altcoins. Just do not convert those BTC of yours into USD or else you will be losing all your gains.
|
|
|
|
|
Like you, I have also a lot of shitcoins that have gone deadcoins now. I am not giving attention to them now. I am willing to let them rot in my wallet. That is also saying I am giving them a chance to possibly recover and possibly give me a better amount in the future. But if your shitcoins are not yet dead, meaning they are still traded in shitty exchanges with low volumes, you could just dump them all. You might make a dollar or two from it. Better than nothing, right?
|
|
|
|
I feel that it is a great marketing opportunity to attract people to invest on the early stages, the only mistake that a lot of teams are doing is the ridiculous discount or bonus, so people would get twice as much tokens or get a 50 percent discount.
The thing is the one OP told us is that an IEO is offering a discount on the last part of the sales. It is kinda unfair for those who get in early, since it should be the early one who get a huge discount since they parted with their money earlier than the last buyer of the IEO. Probably that IEO does not met the needed funds on the prior batches then decided to give a 25% discount on the last batch. That sounds plausable on the developers side but it is very disappointing on the investors. They could have adjusted the scheme giving more discounts on those who bought earlier adjusting the token sales count, and give the planned discounts on the target batch. This will give both the early investors and the upcoming one a good deal. Exactly! The early bird should catch the worm. In this setup, it seems the worm is reserved for the late bird. This is funny. Such arrangement is shady, if not an outright scam. It could only mean that the IEO has failed to attract investors in its early stages. To make up for the low turnout in the early phases of the IEO, and to hopefully cover up the needed funds for the development which is still highly unmet, they are banking much on their final phase. The huge discount offered in the last batch is their final hope to meet their desired funds. In so doing, they are putting their early investors in a disadvantaged position. |
|
|
|
|
We all love it when we hear news regarding blockchain adoption in the world. Especially if it involves billionaire companies such as Samsung. But blockchain adoption does not automatically mean Bitcoin adoption. Blockchain adoption is much easier to happen than Bitcoin adoption. But I would surely prefer Bitcoin adoption by these elite companies rather than simply blockchain adoption. Sometimes blockchain is appreciated but not Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
|
If by buying a utility token you are thinking of getting a profit someday, you are actually wrong. Utility tokens are designed for people to be able to use the particular services or products of a certain project. The truth is that utility tokens are not sold as investments; they are sold primarily, of course, to fund the project's development, and secondly, for investors to have access to whatever the project is offering.
|
|
|
|
|
Indirectly, blockchain could help boost the economy of a certain country. But it would not be because the central banks could make use of it. Central banks do not have significant contribution as far as improvement of the economy is concerned. They cannot increase the GDP nor the GNP of a certain country. They are acting as financial regulators or supervisors but they do not create wealth.
Blockchain will improve the economy if it is utilized in such a way as to make the services of various sectors efficient. This could boost their income and therefore affect the country's economy as a whole. Let us say the textile industry, or the agriculture industry, or perhaps the steel industry, and so forth.
|
|
|
|
|
A shit exchange somehow reflects the quality of the project itself. Why would a high quality project, with good partners, working products, and so on settle for the like of YoBit, for example? Exchange listing is needed as soon as there is already utility. They need that for the investors to be able to have access to their coins. However, if they are listed on shit exchanges, that means they are simply discouraging investors away.
|
|
|
|
like LTC x3 ?
LTC and Bitcoin Cash are two different coins with two different teams and two different reputations. Litecoin is trusted by a lot of crypto fanatics. Although it started as a mere replica of Bitcoin, it was eventually loved and actually used as an altcoin. It has developed into a reliable currency. On the other hand, the coin of Roger Ver, which is an altcoin, is kind of disliked by many. Claiming to be the real Bitcoin by hurling tirades against Bitcoin itself is not the only reason. They have to push for its adoption first before halving could push its price up. . |
|
|
|
|
If you have serious reservations about crypto going to zero, then you will have to invest in something outside crypto. Crypto remains uncertain despite its gradual adoption around the world. Bitcoin has been around for a decade and yet its use as a currency is still very minimal. If it remains to be this way, we'll just have to pray that it will last a little longer as an asset or store of value. Otherwise, people will start thinking that it has no actual future.
|
|
|
|
|
Unlike Bitcoin, altcoins have a starting value. The total supply of Bitcoin has an effect to its price. There is already scarcity as of now and such will rise as soon as more and more people will be acquiring BTC. This may not be the case of altcoins. Since they have a starting price, their supply does not anymore matter. What matters to them is their progress. Even if the supply is only a million if there is no progress in terms of product, utilization, partnership, and promotion, it will still remain cheap and might even get to zero. Why? Because there is no demand.
|
|
|
|
|
To be fair, tokens could actually be very useful within a certain limited ecosystem. So they do not necessarily create their own separate blockchain. After all, it is not as if they are offering itself as an alternative payment to the world. If a certain company decides to simply tokenize a certain aspect of their operation, it is enough for it to make use of the existing ERC20 protocol.
|
|
|
|
|
You have said it clearly OP. I myself am very much against KYC to bounty hunters. In a way, they could be considered part of the marketing team but not clients. They are basically working for the project and not coming to the project as customers. Not to mention that in exchange to showing their very valuable personal identification documents such as passports and IDs, they will only receive a very small value in tokens.
But we also need to consider that once we are asked by the project to create an account in their sites, we are already considered customers. Once we sign up to to their sites, rules might consider us as clients. And to abide with the existing laws the project might ask us to pass KYC.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
