Should there be that many cryptocurrencies that exists?

[Emily_Davis]

As of August 2018, there are over 1600 cryptocurrencies that exist, according to Wikipedia. I know that Wikipedia isn't the most reliable of sources because anyone can edit it whenever they want, but the point is the number of cryptocurrencies being introduced. Some of the new cryptocurrencies I've heard were DeepBrainChain, ByteCoin, IOST, and Elastos. There's also a new coin called Virie, which is apparently a cryptocurrency used to crowdfund and jumpstart the Virternity Project, a project that aims to digitized our minds, economy and the society. I believe that not all new coins aim to scam people, but do we really need more cryptocurrencies? Do we need new cryptocurrencies for every project that exists? Why can't there be one or five cryptocurrencies that all projects can use?

[shield132]

As of August 2018, there are over 1600 cryptocurrencies that exist, according to Wikipedia. I know that Wikipedia isn't the most reliable of sources because anyone can edit it whenever they want, but the point is the number of cryptocurrencies being introduced. Some of the new cryptocurrencies I've heard were DeepBrainChain, ByteCoin, IOST, and Elastos. There's also a new coin called Virie, which is apparently a cryptocurrency used to crowdfund and jumpstart the Virternity Project, a project that aims to digitized our minds, economy and the society. I believe that not all new coins aim to scam people, but do we really need more cryptocurrencies? Do we need new cryptocurrencies for every project that exists? Why can't there be one or five cryptocurrencies that all projects can use?

I always say, quality over quantity and that's always better in our life but does it matters for you in crypto world? There are only some coins alive, you can't even feel if others exists and it happened to you too, you only discovered them after reading a list on wikipedia. On another hand it's normal because there is possibility that there will be better altcoin created in future, so why do we have to not let others to develop and create good things or bad ones which can't damage anyone?

[mk4]

Should there be that many cryptocurrencies that exists? Yes. I think so. Because competition matters. What I don't like is people being easily convinced to invest in certain coins/tokens just because of those dumb buzzwords like "x coin is the future of x". There should be competition. But people are taking advantage of this. Instead of making good competition, they scam ignorant people instead.

Why can't there be one or five cryptocurrencies that all projects can use?

Because not all projects are focused on being a for-transactions coin like bitcoin. Most projects are made for different purposes.

[Fieldcoin]

There are lot of coins that lack purpose and long term vision. Some ICOs may have a great business model but instead of doing a more traditional fund raising or an IPO, are opting for a token sale. In most cases, those tokens don't serve a purpose after the ICO except being used for speculation or if they do, lack the liquitidies to be used properly. This long bear trend is purging the market from a lot of these tokens.

Here's an article about 10 characteristics a utility token should have:

https://medium.com/@marc.couzic/make-utility-tokens-great-again-f236b64ee31b

[kryptqnick]

Do we need new cryptocurrencies for every project that exists? Why can't there be one or five cryptocurrencies that all projects can use?

I used to think in pretty much the same way before, but now I understand that yes, we do need many cryptocurrencies. The first reason for this is that some projects actually use cryptos for their projects anf cannot use the main coins for the same purposes. The second reasons is that even projects that need crypto only to accept it as payment are still justified in making their own tokens, because they can't trust top coins. It sound weird, I know, but look at how volatile the main coins are. They are mostly gaining their price from constant trading, while companies might prefer their own tokens with prices depending on how many exchanges of tokens for products occur.
Finally, more cryptos means less pressure on each separate blockchain, which contributes both to decentralization on the market and safe usage (no '$20 btc transactions' stuff).

[bitfocus]

Yes, we need more and more crypto, but not fraud ICOs.

[Emily_Davis]

On another hand it's normal because there is possibility that there will be better altcoin created in future, so why do we have to not let others to develop and create good things or bad ones which can't damage anyone?

But wouldn't that just confused other users if there are way too many cryptocurrencies that exist? I wonder if the other existing projects that created their own coins have succeeded? Not the scam ones, but the legit projects that created their own coins to crowdfund their projects, does it really work, and what if they have reached the target amount? What's next? What happens once the project is successful? It's just that with all the scammers around, it's sometimes hard to believe the reliability of new coins.

[Blanca_Gregory]

I have to agree with this. Not all projects would work on other existing coins such as bitcoins or ripple or other altcoins. Some needs a specific coin to run their projects, like DeepBrain I think and Virie. That said, I wonder how people would react to too many coins if and when cryptocurrencies became a worldwide digital currency. Do you think that people will be open to the idea of learning about different coins for different purposes?

[Gloverwrt]

There is so many untapped potential in cryptocurrency.
And while majority of the coins are replicas with little disruption in any field. Every now and again a developer comes along and unlocks another key quality of digital assets and the blockchain technology.

Poorly organized and irrelevant projects would most likely not survive the test of time, bearish markets and smarter investors.

[passwordnow]

You can simply look at coinmarketcap and see on how many total crypto's are there already.

I think this isn't the first time of hearing that type of project aiming to digitize economy and society but digitizing the minds of the people? that crazy.

We don't really need more of those crypto's that's just add confusion to the people on what to hold.

[Dukjila]

As of August 2018, there are over 1600 cryptocurrencies that exist, according to Wikipedia. I know that Wikipedia isn't the most reliable of sources because anyone can edit it whenever they want, but the point is the number of cryptocurrencies being introduced. Some of the new cryptocurrencies I've heard were DeepBrainChain, ByteCoin, IOST, and Elastos. There's also a new coin called Virie, which is apparently a cryptocurrency used to crowdfund and jumpstart the Virternity Project, a project that aims to digitized our minds, economy and the society. I believe that not all new coins aim to scam people, but do we really need more cryptocurrencies? Do we need new cryptocurrencies for every project that exists? Why can't there be one or five cryptocurrencies that all projects can use?

This is a natural cryptocurrency selection!

[crairezx20]

According to Coinmarketcap we have 2085 cryptocurrencies so it means Wikipedia only knows few 1600 coins over 2085 coins. However, every month there are new project releases so more cryptos will come.

but do we really need more cryptocurrencies?

Honestly, for me, we don't need more cryptos but they are mostly using it for trading purposes.

Do we need new cryptocurrencies for every project that exists?

Well, sometimes there are some coins have unique features that the other doesn't have

Why can't there be one or five cryptocurrencies that all projects can use?

Well, it depends on us if we use only one or five cryptos but since there are many competitors and each of them has their own unique features that the other doesn't have they are still trying to keep making a new project just to fulfill investors needs and to replace bitcoin.

[ranman09]

It has its pros and cons.

The positive side is that for a trader the more the coin there is the better chances of winning. Especially on those startup coins. They can give lots of room for profits.

The negative side is that most of the coins are just there for us to speculate. Over time, It overpopulates the market with coins that don't have value.

[figmentofmyass]

As of August 2018, there are over 1600 cryptocurrencies that exist, according to Wikipedia. I know that Wikipedia isn't the most reliable of sources because anyone can edit it whenever they want, but the point is the number of cryptocurrencies being introduced.

last time i checked, there were over 2000 listed on coinmarketcap. people just won't stop cranking them out.

I believe that not all new coins aim to scam people, but do we really need more cryptocurrencies? Do we need new cryptocurrencies for every project that exists? Why can't there be one or five cryptocurrencies that all projects can use?

because there's nothing to stop anyone from creating new cryptocurrencies---except lack of demand.

if someone wants to fork a coin or spin up an ICO token to raise some funds, they should be able to. we wouldn't want it any other way. it shouldn't be up to me or you to decide how many altcoins should exist. it should be up to the market!

[mensahkkofie]

There are more coins than the number given above. I believe in quality more than quantity but I think as more projects keeps emerging, there would be more coins to compete with the already existing ones including bitcoin The huge number of cryptocurrencies is cool, I believe in healthy competition among the coins when it comes to the world of crypto.

[ambisyon]

I think there are more than 1600 cryptocurrencies that evolved in the crypto market. Moreover, new ICO's are coming probably because there is a great opportunity in cryptocurrency market and there are more investors that are investing in cryptocurrencies since they were able to make promising profits.

[khaled0111]

You can simply look at coinmarketcap and see on how many total crypto's are there already.

I think this isn't the first time of hearing that type of project aiming to digitize economy and society but digitizing the minds of the people? that crazy.

We don't really need more of those crypto's that's just add confusion to the people on what to hold.

There are more cryptocurrencies than you can find on coinmarketcap.
Coinmarketcap only lists cryptos that are tradable and have value.
Any one can create a coin (that doesn't mean it has value).

[Indrawan77]

No we don't need too many crypto, we already got more than enough crypto, unfortunately people keep on creating a new one hoping that the coin can make them rich, and it makes the investors confused, actually some of the new coin got a good potential but because of too many coins that appear, it makes the investors missed to see its real potential

[ralle14]

But wouldn't that just confused other users if there are way too many cryptocurrencies that exist?

If those other users are well informed about cryptocurrencies they shouldn't be confused which one is which unless someone tries to deceive you like what roger ver's site does.

Not the scam ones, but the legit projects that created their own coins to crowdfund their projects, does it really work, and what if they have reached the target amount? What's next? What happens once the project is successful? It's just that with all the scammers around, it's sometimes hard to believe the reliability of new coins.

After that they have to do what is mentioned on their roadmap. One of the many problems that you'll notice is most coins tend to lose value because of Bitcoin price movement which stops others from supporting a certain coin even if it's legit.

[bloodyvio]

because each altcoin has a different purpose and use case
and each altcoin has advantages that bitcoin does not have like ethereum which has a smart contract, litecoin fork from bitcoin that is able to process transactions more quickly
so i think we need altcoin
but many of the other altcoins are useless and worthless