Forbes' ‘Good for Nothing' Blockchains

[Tipstar]

I agree to all of it. All the reasons given are valid and everyone should consider it before investing on any of them. Almost all of them are dying projects.
I'm a bit defensive about Litecoin, it might be my bias but I believe Litecoin would still be popular at least a decade more. It has a good accumulation from whale.
Monero too is still quite popular in dark web but is dying due to heavy restrictions. I've recently been suggesting people Ripple, Cardano, EOS and Steller are dead. Same is for Algorand and Tezos. I got a little bit excited and at times held ICP and Kaspa but a few months and I realized, they are not developing forward. Other coins too are useless.

[Belarge]

You’d think that Forbes would do more research and hire writers that aren’t biased and do not run off with just one specific idea to twist an entire project. A lot of their reasoning aren’t objective and seems to be hugely subjective.

They need to do better as their name has already owned credibility and for them to be making pieces like this will not help them. This is why I avoid any article released by Forbes recommending something especially if it’s related to crypto.

Forbes have their own reasons to ruined the images of crypto projects because they've thoroughly spoiled the basic essential information and portray, on the other hand, are they really doing this for engagement or for heavy flow of traffic? Crypto is another dimension to earn stable income and we should always brings our best ideas to explore for our own good. Forbes is reliable but certainly not on all trends because they're just like other bodies when it comes to generating legit information to the society.

[tsaroz]

Crypto market has been on an ever increasing trend just because of speculation of it. But the value of money is limited. Even if we are generating more coins, they need to be bought using fiat currency and there are so much fiat people are ready to invest in crypto. The market valuation of crypto is already large and with son many new entrant, there are limited money that's coming in as new investment and a lot of it jumping around looking for trend. The market won't be able to rise equally for all coins.
In that situation, these are the large cap coins that would fall first.

[electronicash]

You’d think that Forbes would do more research and hire writers that aren’t biased and do not run off with just one specific idea to twist an entire project. A lot of their reasoning aren’t objective and seems to be hugely subjective.

They need to do better as their name has already owned credibility and for them to be making pieces like this will not help them. This is why I avoid any article released by Forbes recommending something especially if it’s related to crypto.

Forbes have their own reasons to ruined the images of crypto projects because they've thoroughly spoiled the basic essential information and portray, on the other hand, are they really doing this for engagement or for heavy flow of traffic? Crypto is another dimension to earn stable income and we should always brings our best ideas to explore for our own good. Forbes is reliable but certainly not on all trends because they're just like other bodies when it comes to generating legit information to the society.

there are so many good-for-nothing blockchain they could list but the ones that i expected to be on the list weren't on their list. whether they spread fud for these projects or not, the memecoins and others that were more considered shitcoins by the altcoins community aren't on the list. with this, i don't think they are generating legit info, the comments they provided on the left made them misinformed.

it would have been clearer to see which teams paid forbes to list these if they had a list of recommended blockchains.

[Emperor of Man]

Kind of surprised to see cardano, algorand and fantom here. 

Also even if forbes articles are not high quality, I think this kind of stuff reaching many ears causes FUD for these projects and I prefer to stay away, even if I consider them good tech.

[terrific]

What's wrong with Monero?
Our most liked privacy coin has been a "good for nothing" blockchain for Forbes? The author should research more before including that.
But maybe he's pissed off with the government tracking down exchanges where it is listed asking them to delist XMR.

[Hispo]

The fact they dared to include Monero as a "Good for Nothing" coin or project tell a lot about the lack of knowledge or bias of the author of this list.
Monero does exactly what it was designed to do, to be a cheap, fast and private Proof of Work Coin which puts privacy as a priority for their holders and users. It is something many other Proof of Work coins have failed to do in the past. Obly because of that detail we should not take this list seriously in any way, shape or form.
Also, they are belittle coins which share characteristics with Bitcoin but are fastest and cheaper to move around, specially when the Mempool of Bitcoin is congested with much garbage. The only thing which could do this list to feel more non-sensical would be if the author included Bitcoin as well. 

I am starting to believe these kind of articles are nothing but subtle ways for people not to get interested in Monero, as a form to attack liquidity of that specific project. It has already been banned from my Binance, next step would be to scare people off investing on it.

[FinneysTrueVision]

You could pick any amount of altcoins at random and most of them would probably be almost completely useless. It wouldn’t be surprising if they came up with this list by throwing darts at a board and wrote something basic that vaguely makes sense, without bothering to do much research.

Out of all the coins mentioned XRP is probably the most overhyped and overrated. I don’t know how it’s still in the top 10 in market cap when it barely has any organic support. Most of their paid shills have disappeared. I’m not aware of a single person who uses it, holds it, or is even interested in it and I don’t see anywhere that it is accepted as payment.

Is it even a blockchain if it’s just a centralized database?

[Canva2020]

There are several steps related to crypto in blockchain, you might be wondering what are those things in crypto market, here it will be explained, currently in crypto market many blockchains lead you, you can get a lot of profit if you enter blockchain and explore other currencies. if you want to find tokens in the current market, you have to visit the market, many have evolved into blockchains,

[Sophokles]

I saw the list few days ago and I actually agree with most of them. But i think this research was done few months ago as some of the project like ICP and AR are working with unique narratives that already helped them to pump upward. Kaspa, ADA, BSV, XLM there are actually zombie chain but XRP developed their own technology that can be used to build payment network. This is quit bullish for XRP and their community. I agree with the author about most of the project but not about all of them.

[Mate2237]

 According to some readers and commentors of Forbes articles in the blog sites that most of his information are not correct and misleading. Even at that most of those coins really bad while some of them are manageable. But Monero is not a bad project or coin to invest. I have checked the whitepaper and other articles concerning Monero project and it is better than most of those tokens that have nothing to offer in the cryptocurrency market. Even this is to tarnish Monero, those who understand cryptocurrency and how it works will not give up in it.

And probably it the new comers that will be deceived and not well established members of cryptocurrency.

[redsun114]

i don't know what they mean by posting things like this, but i don't really agree with what they say. because from the list they included, some of the chains they included have pretty good use cases with good development so far. i even saw that the statement they made was just an opinion, without any concrete evidence to support it. so i think that we don't need to take what they say too seriously, because we know that forbes is a government-controlled media, so their articles might be biased.

Well, it maybe to seek attention again. We know sites like this, they are always like that or want that and it doesn't matter if they are out of the limelight already or are still popular. Like you, I won't also agree on what they say for the most cryptos in the list because they are old and great. Up until now those cryptos are still kicking.

It's only great that they clear it out that it was only just their opinion because if not, I'm sure people will take them seriously. I checked if they are truly a government-owned or based organization but I only found out that one of their team was once a government official. Guess that is another reason and they try to discredit cryptos again.