Why is the capitalization of similar cryptocurrency projects very different?

[Tory-Tory]

For example:
1) Metaverse ETP vs ICON/Tron/Cardano. Recently no one had a main network, but capitalization differed significantly.
2) Verge vs Zen/Zclassic
3) Iota vs Byteball
4) Factom vs Tierion
5) Sia vs Storj
6) Waves/Stratis vs ICON/Tron/Cardano.
And many others...
Why do you think that the competitive market doesn't equalize the prices of the same projects. In the real world, I will not find anywhere that Audi A6 and BMW 5 differ in price by 5 times.

[1713954890]

1713954890

[1713954890]

1713954890

[1713954890]

1713954890

[1713954890]

1713954890

[blockman]

Differences and the number of coins that they are supplying makes sense on why their capitalization aren't from others.
They are different in a sense of projects, focus, value and usage so expect that in no way they are going to be the same. Some of them has more than hundred millions of supplies and others has billions of supply so by computing it, you'll get to know why they have difference.

[Bitcoin_Makers]

Because you analyze only the idea of the project and this is the main criterion by which you compare. Try to learn a little more about the projects and you will understand that they are of completely different quality. The project team is different, contracts with large companies are different and this list is endless.

[Ranly123]

For example:
1) Metaverse ETP vs ICON/Tron/Cardano. Recently no one had a main network, but capitalization differed significantly.
2) Verge vs Zen/Zclassic
3) Iota vs Byteball
4) Factom vs Tierion
5) Sia vs Storj
6) Waves/Stratis vs ICON/Tron/Cardano.
And many others...
Why do you think that the competitive market doesn't equalize the prices of the same projects. In the real world, I will not find anywhere that Audi A6 and BMW 5 differ in price by 5 times.

The price of each cryptocurrency is based on how their platform is performed and also the partnerships of companies. Bigger partners will also lead to bigger prices. Which means competition is healthy, the weak will differ in price to those strong platforms.

[fillippone]

That’s mainly because you are using a bad metric to compare projects.
Market capitalisation is a very bad indicator for cryptos.

Let’s say I want to finance a project: I want to become rich.
I launch an ICO: token is Filipponecoin.
I make a deal, I pay 10BTC to have my coin listed on a few exchanges.
I launch 100 billions of coins.
I sell 1 Filipponecoin to myself for 1 dollar on an exchange.
BAM!
Market capitalisation of Filipponecoin is 100 billions dollar. I Have spent 10 BTC and 1 dollar.
First crypto formarket capitalisation.
Is Filipponecoin more attractive for you because of this? Obviously not.
So that’s why it is useless to compare coins using market capitalisation.

My two cents,
F1

[BrewMaster]

it is because you shouldn't even be using Market Cap in first place! it is wrong and the fact that websites like coinmarketcap.com and many others use it to rank coins doesn't make it right.

for example two of the coins you named:
IOTA has 2,779,530,283 coins
Byteball has 645,946 coins in circulation
and market cap is price * supply. you can't even begin to compare these two coins because of the huge difference between their supplies.

[fillippone]

it is because you shouldn't even be using Market Cap in first place! it is wrong and the fact that websites like coinmarketcap.com and many others use it to rank coins doesn't make it right.

for example two of the coins you named:
IOTA has 2,779,530,283 coins
Byteball has 645,946 coins in circulation
and market cap is price * supply. you can't even begin to compare these two coins because of the huge difference between their supplies.

While we do agree on the conclusion, we don’t agree  N the reasons.
Who cares about supply?
I could split each byte to have exactely IOTA supply, the price would be split exactely the same way... and still you couldn’t compare.

[BrewMaster]

it is because you shouldn't even be using Market Cap in first place! it is wrong and the fact that websites like coinmarketcap.com and many others use it to rank coins doesn't make it right.

for example two of the coins you named:
IOTA has 2,779,530,283 coins
Byteball has 645,946 coins in circulation
and market cap is price * supply. you can't even begin to compare these two coins because of the huge difference between their supplies.

While we do agree on the conclusion, we don’t agree  N the reasons.
Who cares about supply?
I could split each byte to have exactely IOTA supply, the price would be split exactely the same way... and still you couldn’t compare.

you are talking about market cap so you do care about the supply since it is based on supply, but you don't know it.
and regarding "split" you can't split anything without needing to create a fork of that blockchain. there is a certain amount of each of these coins available and that is not going to change without changing the entire system. if there is 1 there is 1. if there is 1.000 then there is 1000 times 0.001 nothing else.

[audaciousbeing]

For example:
1) Metaverse ETP vs ICON/Tron/Cardano. Recently no one had a main network, but capitalization differed significantly.
2) Verge vs Zen/Zclassic
3) Iota vs Byteball
4) Factom vs Tierion
5) Sia vs Storj
6) Waves/Stratis vs ICON/Tron/Cardano.
And many others...
Why do you think that the competitive market doesn't equalize the prices of the same projects. In the real world, I will not find anywhere that Audi A6 and BMW 5 differ in price by 5 times.

You see the reason why the price of Audi A6 and BMW 5 won't differ that much is because they are in the same category, servicing the same income level of customers, operate in the same market and most importantly wanting to steal the customers from each other because they are competitors. In elementary economics, some goods are complimentary, while others are competitive. You don't compare those vehicles to a Buggatti, Rolls Royce or Porsche.

In the case of those coins you listed there, even though they might be operating in the same market, they don't have the same market share, they did not start the same time, they did not go with the same approach and they don't have the same level of acceptance. Its just like group of people establishing a bank today and wanting to start comparing their results with the likes of Bank of America, Barclays, or Goldman Sachs etc even though they both operate in the same banking industry. It just does not work that way. The best is for everyone to patiently and willingly run its own race without putting each other under unnecessary pressure.

[fillippone]

it is because you shouldn't even be using Market Cap in first place! it is wrong and the fact that websites like coinmarketcap.com and many others use it to rank coins doesn't make it right.

for example two of the coins you named:
IOTA has 2,779,530,283 coins
Byteball has 645,946 coins in circulation
and market cap is price * supply. you can't even begin to compare these two coins because of the huge difference between their supplies.

While we do agree on the conclusion, we don’t agree  N the reasons.
Who cares about supply?
I could split each byte to have exactely IOTA supply, the price would be split exactely the same way... and still you couldn’t compare.

you are talking about market cap so you do care about the supply since it is based on supply, but you don't know it.
and regarding "split" you can't split anything without needing to create a fork of that blockchain. there is a certain amount of each of these coins available and that is not going to change without changing the entire system. if there is 1 there is 1. if there is 1.000 then there is 1000 times 0.001 nothing else.

BCG has 21 billion supply
BCD has 210 billion supply
For sure I can compare their market cap as the price of the latter is expected to be 1/10 of the first to have the same market cap.
Supply number is irrelevant information taken alone, even more than market cap.

[Tory-Tory]

Differences and the number of coins that they are supplying makes sense on why their capitalization aren't from others.
They are different in a sense of projects, focus, value and usage so expect that in no way they are going to be the same. Some of them has more than hundred millions of supplies and others has billions of supply so by computing it, you'll get to know why they have difference.

Buddy you are hero member and write such nonsense. Besides the etherium, no one has a full-fledged work product, everyone has only desire and technology. In a normal economic world, technology does not cost anything until it is applied somewhere. Look at the example of Tesla, other companies that develop electric cars are far from capitalizing Tesla. All crypto companies grow only through marketing and that's it. All other reasons is rave.

Because you analyze only the idea of the project and this is the main criterion by which you compare. Try to learn a little more about the projects and you will understand that they are of completely different quality. The project team is different, contracts with large companies are different and this list is endless.

Do you really think that the quality of the team or technology in the white paper without having a ready-made product should influence the capitalization of the company?

That’s mainly because you are using a bad metric to compare projects.
Market capitalisation is a very bad indicator for cryptos.

Let’s say I want to finance a project: I want to become rich.
I launch an ICO: token is Filipponecoin.
I make a deal, I pay 10BTC to have my coin listed on a few exchanges.
I launch 100 billions of coins.
I sell 1 Filipponecoin to myself for 1 dollar on an exchange.
BAM!
Market capitalisation of Filipponecoin is 100 billions dollar. I Have spent 10 BTC and 1 dollar.
First crypto formarket capitalisation.
Is Filipponecoin more attractive for you because of this? Obviously not.
So that’s why it is useless to compare coins using market capitalisation.

My two cents,
F1

When we talk about companies with a daily volume of $ 500, then probably you will be right. But in our case, the company has too much daily volume to call this metric a non-working

it is because you shouldn't even be using Market Cap in first place! it is wrong and the fact that websites like coinmarketcap.com and many others use it to rank coins doesn't make it right.

for example two of the coins you named:
IOTA has 2,779,530,283 coins
Byteball has 645,946 coins in circulation
and market cap is price * supply. you can't even begin to compare these two coins because of the huge difference between their supplies.

I did not understand why I can not compare two companies on this criterion?
This is just the right criterion for comparison. What is the problem?

For example:
1) Metaverse ETP vs ICON/Tron/Cardano. Recently no one had a main network, but capitalization differed significantly.
2) Verge vs Zen/Zclassic
3) Iota vs Byteball
4) Factom vs Tierion
5) Sia vs Storj
6) Waves/Stratis vs ICON/Tron/Cardano.
And many others...
Why do you think that the competitive market doesn't equalize the prices of the same projects. In the real world, I will not find anywhere that Audi A6 and BMW 5 differ in price by 5 times.

You see the reason why the price of Audi A6 and BMW 5 won't differ that much is because they are in the same category, servicing the same income level of customers, operate in the same market and most importantly wanting to steal the customers from each other because they are competitors. In elementary economics, some goods are complimentary, while others are competitive. You don't compare those vehicles to a Buggatti, Rolls Royce or Porsche.

In the case of those coins you listed there, even though they might be operating in the same market, they don't have the same market share, they did not start the same time, they did not go with the same approach and they don't have the same level of acceptance. Its just like group of people establishing a bank today and wanting to start comparing their results with the likes of Bank of America, Barclays, or Goldman Sachs etc even though they both operate in the same banking industry. It just does not work that way. The best is for everyone to patiently and willingly run its own race without putting each other under unnecessary pressure.

Firstly, the waves started much earlier than tron, the life expectancy of the project here does not matter.
Secondly, the companies generally does not have any market. I understand what you're talking about, giving us an example of banks, but, buddy, the world doesn't use crypto products and it don't use demand, there is  only marketing determines the capitalization of the project.

[stompix]

For example:
1) Metaverse ETP vs ICON/Tron/Cardano. Recently no one had a main network, but capitalization differed significantly.
2) Verge vs Zen/Zclassic
3) Iota vs Byteball
4) Factom vs Tierion
5) Sia vs Storj
6) Waves/Stratis vs ICON/Tron/Cardano.
And many others...
Why do you think that the competitive market doesn't equalize the prices of the same projects. In the real world, I will not find anywhere that Audi A6 and BMW 5 differ in price by 5 times.

Because of its all about speculation, nothing more.
None of those "projects" is anything more than a speculative coin who will be the next bitcoin but all its features are useless and nobody uses them on anything else than tradings and holding.
Marketcap is meaningless for reasons others have already explained but you somehow approve of than it and then coming back with the same question.

Tesla has passed BMW in capitalization, while making 70 000 car sales, comparing to 2 million, unreal, right?
Snap was valued at 24 billion...how is the price per share doing?
It's all speculation and you know it too well.


As for the A5 vs 5-series, you're comparing one finished product (a car) with the capitalization of a company, now if I build a factory and produce some soda that resembles coal and it does get sold at the same price, it means my factory is wort just as much as coca-cola or pepsi? If I enter the nearby Carrefour there are like hundreds of brands of milk, should all the companies have the same capitalization because the price differs by only a few euro cents?

Firstly, the waves started much earlier than tron, the life expectancy of the project here does not matter.
Secondly, the companies generally does not have any market. I understand what you're talking about, giving us an example of banks, but, buddy, the world doesn't use crypto products and it don't use demand, there is  only marketing determines the capitalization of the project.

There is no market for those products but let's throw in a BMW5 vs Audi A5 argument just to make the topic a mess.

I really think you should say what you want about this topic and what you want to prove.
If you start with questions and then come back showing that you already know the answer but at the same time you contradict people telling the same thing I just think you should stop.

[trako]

let's leave all the ecnic details to one side. take it in a simple way. if you are developing a new product or project you have to be different. you have to bring an innovation to the existing system. this is important. If you do not produce something different or offer an attractive offer, nobody will choose you.
If you want to win you have to be different.

[jseverson]

In the simplest sense, some projects simply have a higher demand-to-supply ratio than the others.

Comparing car brands is useless in this case because their manufacturers generally set the prices based on fair market prices with little regard of supply and demand for the actual model. They simply adjust their supply accordingly with the current demand. Prices of Civics won't rise just because dealerships always run out -- Honda simply just makes more.

Cryptocurrency prices, on the other hand, are set by supply and demand, not by their founders. Supply won't adjust to the number of the people who want to buy, so interested parties enter a de facto bidding war, driving prices up. That means the project's value does not have any real correlation with what it does or aims to do -- that hinges entirely on its popularity with buyers.

[BrewMaster]

BCG has 21 billion supply
BCD has 210 billion supply
For sure I can compare their market cap as the price of the latter is expected to be 1/10 of the first to have the same market cap.
Supply number is irrelevant information taken alone, even more than market cap.

you misunderstood my reply. i did NOT say you should use supply on its own. i am just pointing out that using market cap is wrong because manipulating supply is easy and when you do, the market cap is also manipulated.

{snipped}
I did not understand why I can not compare two companies on this criterion?
This is just the right criterion for comparison. What is the problem?

you keep repeating the word "company" in your comments but these are NOT companies and that is why you should not use the characteristic of a company (market cap) for altcoins.

these are altcoins. and for an altcoin it is easy to create it and its supply. it is as easy as clicking a button to copy a whole project and start your own with a different name but everything else the same.
a company can NOT summon shares out of the CEO's ass. but an altcoin can pull billions of supply out of the developer's ass. and that increases the market cap of that altcoin by that much.

and in case you forgot: market cap = supply * price

[Cynooza]

I think it's all about marketing. Most people don't base their decicions on pure utility of one or another coin, but rather they evaluate the way this coin is presented. That subjectivity creates the difference in popularity and capitalization.

[BartS]

For example:
1) Metaverse ETP vs ICON/Tron/Cardano. Recently no one had a main network, but capitalization differed significantly.
2) Verge vs Zen/Zclassic
3) Iota vs Byteball
4) Factom vs Tierion
5) Sia vs Storj
6) Waves/Stratis vs ICON/Tron/Cardano.
And many others...
Why do you think that the competitive market doesn't equalize the prices of the same projects. In the real world, I will not find anywhere that Audi A6 and BMW 5 differ in price by 5 times.

There are many reasons but one of the main reasons simply has to do for how a project has been in the market, many coins are copies of bitcoin, why those coins do not have an higher price, or why bitcoin price is not lower, and this is simple, bitcoin is original so despite the copies offering the same technology they are never going to compare with the original and this is why no coin has surpassed bitcoin in the market cap or the popularity among cryptocurrency users.

[aso118]

For example:
1) Metaverse ETP vs ICON/Tron/Cardano. Recently no one had a main network, but capitalization differed significantly.
2) Verge vs Zen/Zclassic
3) Iota vs Byteball
4) Factom vs Tierion
5) Sia vs Storj
6) Waves/Stratis vs ICON/Tron/Cardano.
And many others...
Why do you think that the competitive market doesn't equalize the prices of the same projects. In the real world, I will not find anywhere that Audi A6 and BMW 5 differ in price by 5 times.

The problem is that it is very difficult to compare cryptocurrencies and call them similar. They could be based on the same theme, but be miles apart in terms of stage of development or pedigree of promoters.
To quote your example, not every car maker can have a car which is priced similar to an Audi A6.

[blockman]

Buddy you are hero member and write such nonsense. Besides the etherium, no one has a full-fledged work product, everyone has only desire and technology.

Buddy. You are asking for others opinion and then you'll tell it that it's nonsense, how come that you know the answer and you are asking it?

In a normal economic world, technology does not cost anything until it is applied somewhere. Look at the example of Tesla, other companies that develop electric cars are far from capitalizing Tesla.

You can't compare crypto's to such companies like Tesla.

All crypto companies grow only through marketing and that's it. All other reasons is rave.

What crypto company? crypto's aren't company. Bitcoin wasn't even marketed before it enters to the mainstream.

[fillippone]

That’s mainly because you are using a bad metric to compare projects.
Market capitalisation is a very bad indicator for cryptos.

Let’s say I want to finance a project: I want to become rich.
I launch an ICO: token is Filipponecoin.
I make a deal, I pay 10BTC to have my coin listed on a few exchanges.
I launch 100 billions of coins.
I sell 1 Filipponecoin to myself for 1 dollar on an exchange.
BAM!
Market capitalisation of Filipponecoin is 100 billions dollar. I Have spent 10 BTC and 1 dollar.
First crypto formarket capitalisation.
Is Filipponecoin more attractive for you because of this? Obviously not.
So that’s why it is useless to compare coins using market capitalisation.

My two cents,
F1

When we talk about companies with a daily volume of $ 500, then probably you will be right. But in our case, the company has too much daily volume to call this metric a non-working

Even if your comment si weird, to say the least, as we are speaking about coins, not companies, I could say that I could trade this only coins a billion of time daily, because I paid the exchange to do so, my coin wuould then have 1 billion of daily trade big for nothing!