Do you prefer cryptocurrencies with anonymous founders, foundations or big name?

[vit05]

Bitcoin was founded by a developer who used a nickname and until today no one knows who he is. Nobody knows if he is alive, dead and his opinion on the current stage of the project. But most of today's leading developers are well known.

Some other projects like Monero were also created by anonymous people. Although much of the current devs are public figures.

Other projects like Ethereum, EOS and Litecoin have well-known leaders. Who have created and continue to lead the projects. Everything they say reflects on these projects, for good, or for bad.

Some new projects are betting on foundations that are responsible for guiding the project in the long run. Cardano and Stellar are some of them. They have foundations that work exclusively in the development of the project. Eventually, these foundations can go way to a new type of governance using the protocol itself.

Decred, for example, tries to create a new way of governance using the protocol since its foundation.

But my question is more about the weight of having a founder who is a public person. Charlie Lee, for example, everything he does reflects a lot on Litecoin. Do you find this positive in the long run?

[1714532164]

1714532164

[masterkiller]

Anonymous or a famous person basically does not guarantee results, but for now it would be better if I saw a well-known developer because investors would be more confident in investing their capital, but that does not guarantee the success of an ICO or guarantee profits in investing, only just to be able to prevent scam projects