Shitcoins are necessary for the economy

[cheefbuza]

Recently, I have noticed much hate against shitcoins. I totally get that, so many ICOs stealing money and giving nothing in return. Just pure greed by so many people, making over 1,000 cryptocurrencies right now according to CoinMarketCap. At least 95% of them will not seal in history or even survive but does it mean we don't need? I mean if Bitcoin was the only the currency in the market how could we know if it's good or bad. If Usain Bolt was the only runner on the field, how could we know if he's fast or not? We must see the bad to know what it's good. Someone once told me "Only in the jungle lions grow" meaning that we need the crypto market to be a jungle to see some lions such as Bitcoin, Ethereum and etc.

Eventually, it's our choice if we want to fund those ICOs or not. We decide if we believe in this project for a change or not. A lot of money will be lost in the crypto market and that's obvious, like the fact that so much money is made in the crypto also the opposite. If people rather take risks and choose random ICOs it's their choice or even coins that offer nothing special than the other competitors. It's all about comparison, right now we see so many awful coins but in the long-term future, we will realise that it made big legends more determined. Looking at Bitcoin, Ethereum and Litecoin doing this all those years while some coins rise and some fall it's showing how good and stable those coins are. If we want for mass adoption around the world the real coins need to surpass many more, and only after many years of progress and proving themselves again every time then they will become a currency, a real coin.

What I am trying to say is that shitcoins are here and they will be here and I won't be surprised if there would be above 10,000 useless coins and so on.
Because eventually it doesn't matter all the noise and it only matters how the strong coins keep going forward and adopting many targets every time.
And those lack of future coins will fall anyway so our job is to keep focused and let everyone opportunity to prove themselves, technology is the thing that matter and if you can produce you are fitting into the high class and if you can't then you are just a garbage but nice try anyway.

[pinkflower]

Yeah, they are very necessary, if you have the need to gamble lol. But if you dont, then dont trap yourself into thinking that ICOs will solve real world problems today. They wont.

[hugeblack]

Greed is the foundation that is due to the emergence of these Shitcoins.This greed is caused by

• The developers of the Shitcoins are only copy and paste bitcoin codes, believing that it brings millions of dollar.
• Whoever buy this coin thinks it will rise like a bitcoin

If the coin fails to give answers to these questions, it is useless to include them in the market

• Does this coin/project have a purpose?[1]
• Can they solve a real problem?[2]
• How long have they been around?[3]
• How strong is their code base?[4]
• Do they have a road map?[5]

Source:
#1#2#3#4#5 https://hackernoon.com/mastering-shitcoins-the-poor-mans-guide-to-getting-crypto-rich-2e469b762ba9

[davis196]

Having 10,000 shitcoins might be good for the competition,but it`s bad for the newbie investors,who are entering the cryptocurrency community.If I was a crypto newbie,i would be totally confused by all the altcoins and tokens and i would stick to the big coins,like bitcoin,ethereum and monero.
It`s like when you have to choose between 1000 different types of one product.You need so much information ,in order to distinquish the good ones from the bad ones.If you can`t gather that information,you just follow the crowd and pick what the majority picks.

[cheefbuza]

Yeah, they are very necessary, if you have the need to gamble lol. But if you dont, then dont trap yourself into thinking that ICOs will solve real world problems today. They wont.

They don't solve real word world problems but they will prove the real coins' quality so it is helping eventually and not such big threat to the crypto market.
I mean it's not about gambling it's about investing and if people think that this specific ICO will be different and bring some solutions and then it falls it's their own fault because all the coins are on the market and they are aware of the situation but people rather take big risks for the instant huge profit then the low profit or long-term such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. Both ways are completely fine but you have to prepare yourself for the worst, if you take a high risk it means you will probably fall and get nothing.

[Kingofbitcoin12345]

I don’t see the logic here.. 1000 shitcoin is too much.. 500 real coins is good enough for competition with bitcoin.. We can’t deny that creating ICO now is a business to them and crowdfunding for the team to earn.. The victim here is the new investors because of ignorance they’ve suffered and loss much money in the long run.. And dragged the cryptocurrency name into a bad light in mainstream.. We only need 100 Usain bolt and not a thousand of them..

[shulio]

They are not necessary. It is some kind of theft. Create a website and a whitepaper and then boom, sorry, we could not finished the project. And they are doing some serious marketing with lies.

[eternalgloom]

I don't think I agree with that statement, just because that's not the only option.
I'd much rather have 50 solid coins than 1000 shitcoins. These scammy ICO's are nothing but bad publicity for the crypto-sphere in general.

I don't think it would be such a bad thing if we'd see a bit more regulations in that regard. Some are just outright scams or ponzi schemes.

[Hydrogen]

There are two quotations which come to mind here: "necessity is the mother of all invention" and "nature abhors a vacuum".

Unfortunately, the emergence of numerous ICOs and altcoins we've witnessed are bad for bitcoin and crypto brand name recognition. Long term HODL'ers don't want the store of value role bitcoin represents to be devalued or diluted by spamcoins which are often petty short term get rich quick schemes carrying a potential to diminish the credibility of both bitcoin and crypto currencies over the long term.

There is a question as to whether this phenomenon is random or fueled by necessity or an intrinsic need for a vacuum to be filled.

Altcoins and ICOs may provide best candidates for low network transaction fees as well as additional scaling bandwidth for transactions. Those two aspects may represent the best pros for the uptick ICO and altcoin introductions we've witnessed as well as the major area where they provide benefits for crypto and bitcoin in general.

This could also imply that if scaling issues and transaction fees relating to bitcoin and crypto are solved, we will see the tendency for ICOs and spamcoins to diminish as the necessity they provide and the vacuum they fill are gradually eliminated.

[kryptqnick]

I mean if Bitcoin was the only the currency in the market how could we know if it's good or bad.

Eventually, it's our choice if we want to fund those ICOs or not. We decide if we believe in this project for a change or not.

If we want for mass adoption around the world the real coins need to surpass many more, and only after many years of progress and proving themselves again every time then they will become a currency, a real coin.

Because eventually it doesn't matter all the noise and it only matters how the strong coins keep going forward and adopting many targets every time.

I tried to reduce the post to its main arguments to analyze them. It is true that if there's only one coin, it is hard to say whether it is good or not. Nevertheless, there's still always a lot of fiat, so crypto can be compared with fiat on the basis of both being types of payment. Moreover, as there are many other coins, it is still hard to determine which is good and why is it up. Bitcoin is #1, even though it has the most expensive transaction that require the longest time to proceed. Pretty much any shitcoin will work faster.
As for ICOs - yes, it's one's own responsibility to decide whether a project is worth putting money into it. Blaming scamming icos or even banning them altogether seems unfair and too protective of people from the government, while cryptocurrencies are generally about giving up the protection and acquiring freedom instead.
Finally, strong coins are truly likely to move forward no matter what, but still there's this thing that as bad coins are the majority, the overall reputation of cryptocurrencies is suffering and might be a great obstacle for good coins.

[Harlot]

I don't want to argue but. I really don't think shit coins are necessary to our market because we have other altcoins right now who have real use, and they can be a bearing or a tool of comparison for other Altcoin and also Bitcoin. And I mean even if there are better cryptocurrencies out there compared to Bitcoin, it is still the reigning king of all cryptocurrencies.

[Digital Mutant]

yeah

digital assets and crypto actives (what all of us call generally and ironically shitcoins) are fertile humus of cryptomarkets
think about a lot of new enterprises and business ventures that start new incredible projects based on blockchain.all of these are shitcoins and tokens

among this ocean you can find raiden network, aion, dragonchain, vechain, komodo, iconomi, substratum, kyber network, etc etc etc

these are all projects that from a generic point of view we call shitcoins, but if closely analized, they are teams of great devs working 24/24 in order to create the new fintech tokenized economy.....

[13abyknight]

Its quite debatable to say that shitcoins become a necessity for the crypto economy as there is a need to understand from both the sides of the coin while it seems like a double edged sword. Assuming it to be a scummy ponzi scheme, there is always possibilities of innocent investors falling prey and this has happened a lot in the past.

[jseverson]

Recently, I have noticed much hate against shitcoins. I totally get that, so many ICOs stealing money and giving nothing in return. Just pure greed by so many people, making over 1,000 cryptocurrencies right now according to CoinMarketCap. At least 95% of them will not seal in history or even survive but does it mean we don't need? I mean if Bitcoin was the only the currency in the market how could we know if it's good or bad. If Usain Bolt was the only runner on the field, how could we know if he's fast or not? We must see the bad to know what it's good. Someone once told me "Only in the jungle lions grow" meaning that we need the crypto market to be a jungle to see some lions such as Bitcoin, Ethereum and etc.

Your example only holds true because running is a competition. Bitcoin was not made to compete with anything; it was meant to solve real world problems, and it will continue to do just that with or without competition. People knew it was good even before altcoins showed up, so it definitely doesn't need them.

I don't really have a problem with alts as some of them are legit projects trying to make the world a better place, but most shitcoins just exist as a way to make money. They just give crypto in general a bad name in the end, so it may even be argued that they're harmful.

[DesmondHayes]

They are not necessary. It is some kind of theft. Create a website and a whitepaper and then boom, sorry, we could not finished the project. And they are doing some serious marketing with lies.

Actually, these same shitcoins are attracting more investors to te market that have never invested. These certain investors are actually losing their investment after the developers of the shitty coin start to flee but in the end, these investors ain't leaving the market but instead they are starting to support more popular coins and with that circle of investment market is growing and it has already grown to the phase no one expected.

Noneducation of the certain investors is actually very good for the cryptocurrency market; ask yourself - would they all invest if they would really now the truth behind the most of the ICO projects?

Most of the advertisements are lies and lies are needed for a little push up for the community to sustain itself and to prevail over time. A market is prospering right now no matter of the red mark that is currently ongoing trough it and we can in some percent thank so hated shitcoins for that.

[tomahawk9]

Shitcoins are not necessary, the cryptocurrency market can survive with the 10 or 15 altcoins that actually have real world use cases. Tbh, the rest of +1550 pump and dump scamcoins selling dreams and promises in a whitepaper to naive investors/people in the need to gamble their money because of greed can dissapear and the market would be fine without them.

Because eventually it doesn't matter all the noise and it only matters how the strong coins keep going forward and adopting many targets every time.

It does matter because these shitcoins give cryptocurrencies a bad reputation which in the long-term can cause a negative effect on the sentiment from the general public regarding cryptocurrencies.

technology is the thing that matter

Let's be honest, this narrative is no longer true, people don't care about the technology anymore, it's all about making profits off the shitcoin surrounded by hype.

[Spazzer]

I agree with most of the comments here. 1000+ shitcoins are not needed, but I would like to argue that there has to be some room for growth. If all the coins were similar to BTC, ETH and NEO in value it would slow down investor money. I still think there is a negativity towards owning fractions of a coin.

[Betwrong]

Recently, I have noticed much hate against shitcoins. I totally get that, so many ICOs stealing money and giving nothing in return. Just pure greed by so many people, making over 1,000 cryptocurrencies right now according to CoinMarketCap. At least 95% of them will not seal in history or even survive but does it mean we don't need? I mean if Bitcoin was the only the currency in the market how could we know if it's good or bad. If Usain Bolt was the only runner on the field, how could we know if he's fast or not? We must see the bad to know what it's good. Someone once told me "Only in the jungle lions grow" meaning that we need the crypto market to be a jungle to see some lions such as Bitcoin, Ethereum and etc.

Eventually, it's our choice if we want to fund those ICOs or not. We decide if we believe in this project for a change or not. A lot of money will be lost in the crypto market and that's obvious, like the fact that so much money is made in the crypto also the opposite. If people rather take risks and choose random ICOs it's their choice or even coins that offer nothing special than the other competitors. It's all about comparison, right now we see so many awful coins but in the long-term future, we will realise that it made big legends more determined. Looking at Bitcoin, Ethereum and Litecoin doing this all those years while some coins rise and some fall it's showing how good and stable those coins are. If we want for mass adoption around the world the real coins need to surpass many more, and only after many years of progress and proving themselves again every time then they will become a currency, a real coin.

What I am trying to say is that shitcoins are here and they will be here and I won't be surprised if there would be above 10,000 useless coins and so on.
Because eventually it doesn't matter all the noise and it only matters how the strong coins keep going forward and adopting many targets every time.
And those lack of future coins will fall anyway so our job is to keep focused and let everyone opportunity to prove themselves, technology is the thing that matter and if you can produce you are fitting into the high class and if you can't then you are just a garbage but nice try anyway.

I agree with you. Although I feel for the people who lose their money to scamming ICOs, I think all such cases should be dealt with post factum by the law, not preliminarily. Banning all the new ICOs, like some people demand, would be a big step backwards on the way to free market. Developers should have the right to try their products, there would be no progress otherwise.

[jamesclark]

Thats is tons of shit altcoins which nobody need that , and its just have same scheme like everyone , release - top high news hype  pump - dump - dump again - sold all - nobody need that , close - new alt and again and again we see the same scheme all this years.

[krauzzer02]

As long as we want to, those coins need to vanish from the pits of the oblivion, you don't know how those useless coins and their greedy and drooling devs behind it cost much damage to the existing legit and long-term coins, can't blame for those people who got scammed by this coins due to the lack of knowledge, experience and understanding the proper analyzation over the promising coins or projects what's the effect? we lose potential investors, thinking that crypto coins are all scams expect articles, post and blogs on the next day, the community and the market has a big NO for those coins.