Dead altcoins that were a true gem

[Immobilium]

And the cycle will repeat itself over time, maybe the altcoin that we consider a gem today 10 years later will only be obsolete technology that has been abandoned by its community members, I strongly believe that new innovations will disrupt existing technology in any industry including crypto, such incidents also give me a message not to hold altcoins for too long because tomorrow, the day after tomorrow or a month later they can be replaced with better and more interesting ones to use, because basically every innovation pursues effectiveness and efficiency in its use for market needs, if it cannot compete then it is easily abandoned.

Today's gems tomorrow could be trash, that's the risk of holding altcoins.

Markets are cyclical, they rise and fall. But during the fall, many altcoins are already dying for ever, and when the market grows, they do not recover.

[Abiky]

And the cycle will repeat itself over time, maybe the altcoin that we consider a gem today 10 years later will only be obsolete technology that has been abandoned by its community members, I strongly believe that new innovations will disrupt existing technology in any industry including crypto, such incidents also give me a message not to hold altcoins for too long because tomorrow, the day after tomorrow or a month later they can be replaced with better and more interesting ones to use, because basically every innovation pursues effectiveness and efficiency in its use for market needs, if it cannot compete then it is easily abandoned.

Today's gems tomorrow could be trash, that's the risk of holding altcoins.

Except Bitcoin. That's the only coin you can trust. It never gets "old". After all, it's the one cryptocurrency that started this craze. Altcoins are widely unproven and unstable. Thus, their future is uncertain.

Not even ETH is safe. It got compromised after the switch to PoS. The network is more centralized than ever. It's this centralization that will lead ETH and most other altcoins to failure. Just remember to diversify your investment, and there should be nothing to worry about.

[oktana]

I’ll say NXT.
NXT is a clear example of a gem that lost its sparkle. One of the first proof of stake cryptocurrencies. Was doing so well with a strong community. But regrettably the development slowed down and the project lost traction.

[Abiky]

I’ll say NXT.
NXT is a clear example of a gem that lost its sparkle. One of the first proof of stake cryptocurrencies. Was doing so well with a strong community. But regrettably the development slowed down and the project lost traction.

Ah, good-old NXT. It was one of the early PoS coins that was innovative in its time. The ability to create tokens (assets) without coding knowledge was truly unique. I had some old tokens that used to generate "dividends" just by holding them over time. While it appears the NXT project is now "dead", the team made a new coin from scratch with the same tech and design as the original project. It's called ARDOR (ARDR) and it's still being actively traded in the market. I'd say this is more like a re-branding. Same as Burst (which used to be a PoC coin that can be mined with a HDD) which now changed its name to Signum.

And let's not forget about QORA. That used to be a good coin back then. It helped make the Internet more decentralized. Similar to Zeronet but entirely based off Blockchain tech. Who knows? Maybe some developer (or group of developers) will revive these projects. One can only hope...

[CroverNo01]

I’ll say NXT.
NXT is a clear example of a gem that lost its sparkle. One of the first proof of stake cryptocurrencies. Was doing so well with a strong community. But regrettably the development slowed down and the project lost traction.

GMT was favorite altcoin, I was inspired to see my portfolio counting in good figures during the bullish pump of the altcoin, and I'm scouting for another dead altcoins that will be the next big thing in crypto. These gems are not always spotted in the market, there are so many dumping projects, it's reasonable to spot the one that have good roadmap. GMT made quite good numbers of traders rich and also ruined the portfolio. GMT was one good illustration about projects that can exceeds limits and beats all odds towards skyrocketing to the moon. Dump altcoins are the crude oil in crypto if you ask me. Take a chill pill, calmly predicts how the market operates.

[mich]

Well there is alot of alt coins we do not even talk about now but we did long time back. Some for me I remember is Peercoin, Namecoin, and Zcash.

All of them now have a low marketcap. And I do not think there is a investor that would invest his capital in any of those.

[Japinat]

Well there is alot of alt coins we do not even talk about now but we did long time back. Some for me I remember is Peercoin, Namecoin, and Zcash.

All of them now have a low marketcap. And I do not think there is a investor that would invest his capital in any of those.

And I don't think so because people had already learned the risk of investing in altcoins that had been launched a long time ago but never improved. They are not completely dead yet, but seeing their performance, I consider them dead already.

Many projects like meme coins and NFTs have gained so much hype in the past years but have been abandoned already. Many people invested in these projects and suffered losses as they no longer recover. This is a sad thing that may happen in those projects that have no solid purpose for creation. Unlike Bitcoin and ETH.

[Webetcoins]

The ability to call something a gem, when it's already down to zero, is basically crypto worlds way of realizing they are not actually good at figuring things out. I know that this isn't going to be a lonesome thing, plenty of coins were up at some point and down now, but we are just not looking at this at the right perspective.

I just never really took interest in things that were this risky, so I do not have that much trouble thankfully but too many people have this kind of issues and I hope that they end up with a lot better results with time. I can see that some people are remembering the "good old days" when they were doing better, but in reality it was just a temporary situation from the start and some of us knew it.

[Bushdark]

I’ll say NXT.
NXT is a clear example of a gem that lost its sparkle. One of the first proof of stake cryptocurrencies. Was doing so well with a strong community. But regrettably the development slowed down and the project lost traction.

GMT was favorite altcoin, I was inspired to see my portfolio counting in good figures during the bullish pump of the altcoin, and I'm scouting for another dead altcoins that will be the next big thing in crypto. These gems are not always spotted in the market, there are so many dumping projects, it's reasonable to spot the one that have good roadmap. GMT made quite good numbers of traders rich and also ruined the portfolio. GMT was one good illustration about projects that can exceeds limits and beats all odds towards skyrocketing to the moon. Dump altcoins are the crude oil in crypto if you ask me. Take a chill pill, calmly predicts how the market operates.

I don't see any dead coin as a gem because it does not worth it to be called a gem when so many investors must have lost their hard earned money. Most of this devs would launch a crypto project and create marketing deals with different websites so plenty investors would put their money in the project, holding it with the plan of the price appreciated in the future. Suddenly they would rug pull the project  and the community would be left with nothing. Sometimes it could even stay in the market for more than a year with heavy marketing to increase the popularity of the project before rug pulling and leaving investors in huge regret.

[d5000]

I’ll say NXT.

NXT indeed was innovative when it started, the PoS algorithm was different from Peercoin's and the first with several characteristics of "modern" PoS, like a pre-selection of stakers and a rollback limit. They had a lot of very interesting project ideas, including smart contracts, but most of them weren't implemented. It was actually Burst who activated the NXT smart contract system, developed by CIYAM.

Ardor (the NXT successor) is still alive, has an interesting "child chain" mechanism, and does relatively well for such an old altcoin (at least it is trading above its 2018/19 lows), but the team made some gross mistakes imo like choosing a closed source license, and the promised "pruning" mechanism which would have provided an unique scaling mechanism still seems not to be activated on mainnet 7 years after launch (it seems still testnet-only and the source code hasn't been revealed for the testnet versions). Development is active though, recently a new version was published.

[milewilda]

I’ll say NXT.
NXT is a clear example of a gem that lost its sparkle. One of the first proof of stake cryptocurrencies. Was doing so well with a strong community. But regrettably the development slowed down and the project lost traction.

GMT was favorite altcoin, I was inspired to see my portfolio counting in good figures during the bullish pump of the altcoin, and I'm scouting for another dead altcoins that will be the next big thing in crypto. These gems are not always spotted in the market, there are so many dumping projects, it's reasonable to spot the one that have good roadmap. GMT made quite good numbers of traders rich and also ruined the portfolio. GMT was one good illustration about projects that can exceeds limits and beats all odds towards skyrocketing to the moon. Dump altcoins are the crude oil in crypto if you ask me. Take a chill pill, calmly predicts how the market operates.

I don't see any dead coin as a gem because it does not worth it to be called a gem when so many investors must have lost their hard earned money. Most of this devs would launch a crypto project and create marketing deals with different websites so plenty investors would put their money in the project, holding it with the plan of the price appreciated in the future. Suddenly they would rug pull the project  and the community would be left with nothing. Sometimes it could even stay in the market for more than a year with heavy marketing to increase the popularity of the project before rug pulling and leaving investors in huge regret.

We can make out direct saying that its really that these gems will be considered into the projects on which it is really just that still trying out to launch but to those which had already been that leave out by the community then it will really be that understandable that you will be having that least consideration on making out some investment. Actually it is really just that depending on you because there are really that projects that other people do really love or want to have investment into those projects that had been almost dead or having that less demand with the community. These things arent that a gem but there are instances or ways on which there are times or moments that you will be able to see that those projects revival whether its being rebranded or being that changed developer on which it did make some again some spark out when it comes into this situation. So it will really be that depending on you whether you would really be making up reconsiderations on making up some investment into it. So it will really be that situational because each one of us will really be having their decisions or choices when speaking about investment.

[Abiky]

Well there is alot of alt coins we do not even talk about now but we did long time back. Some for me I remember is Peercoin, Namecoin, and Zcash.

All of them now have a low marketcap. And I do not think there is a investor that would invest his capital in any of those.

Namecoin was considered a gem back in the early days. It brought a decentralized domain name system with it, with the hopes of making the Internet great again. Namecoin was also the very first altcoin to come into existence. While it was the pioneer of decentralized domain names, other projects took its place on the market. I'm talking about ENS, Unstoppable Domains, and the likes. They might've copied Namecoin's model, but that didn't stop them from becoming successful. These projects had an effective marketing strategy. I guess that's why many old coins fail. At least, the code is open for anyone to modify or redistribute.

What's stopping an old coin from getting resurrected in the future? If NMC or even SPR come back to life, it's likely they'll change their brand to attract investors (otherwise known as a re-branding). I'd stick with BTC and a few modern altcoins just to be safe.

[d5000]

What's stopping an old coin from getting resurrected in the future?

I think there are differences between different coins. Many old coins are typical "degenerators", i.e. they continuously lose value against the USD.

Peercoin, in contrast, after its bubble in 2013/14, transformed into a low cap oscillator, with a relatively stable USD price since 2020 and even a slightly bullish evolution, albeit not as much as Bitcoin:



The same can be said about Namecoin: it never went below 35-40 cents, and sometimes spikes up to 1$ or more.



In both cases one can see that if you just catch the knife in a crypto winter at their minimum price level it is highly likely that they'll eventually go up.

Both are also decentralized coins, so they aren't affected by securities laws in most places. In Europe for example you can list them at a CEX exchange without having to provide a whitepaper (premined coins have to provide one).

As a conclusion, these coins could become eventually interesting for some investors, as long as their development doesn't get stalled.

[Reatim]

All of them now have a low marketcap. And I do not think there is a investor that would invest his capital in any of those.

yes it is cheap but it’s cheap for a reason and not just because its potential is untapped yet this is what should many beginners learn when we say to buy cheap we do not mean just buy any project that is cheap

of course you have to assess the quality still and still make sure that you even if it’s only for small amount of money is that your money will still be worth it

[Dunamisx]

If we should look more closely towards the way of how the market is from time to time, we are going to find out that some cryptocurrencies don't easily survived any dip which makes the investors on such coins leave the project and invest on another one, because they sense a drop down from the performance of the coin, we have a number of coins which were hyped before they later turned to abandoned projects.

[7juju]

When any altcoin is dumped heavily it will not rise again, so even if the ideas of this altcoin are revolutionary, it will not come back again to gain momentum. It can be forked and pumped, but it will be a pump/dump coin, so unless there is a real change in its code, do not expect it to have long-term value.

Only if there is a push from all, and I mean all sides, big and small, influencers, KOLers, funds from the big guys, then - maybe - the coin can rise from the dead, sorta.
But it's 1% from 99% of the ones that are not lit again after such an event..

Let the dead rest in peace lol. If the ideas behind those projects were still viable, those projects wouldn't have died. Even if it's resurrected again, people won't trust them any more, because what killed them before has the potential of killing them again. We shouldn't encourage people to even invest in such projects again. Imagine the kind of loss they might have caused their loyal communities. People who believed in them. Anything that makes anyone resurrect those projects again, it will surely raise suspicions. It's really senseless to relaunch such projects. They are all in the past.

[Abiky]

I think there are differences between different coins. Many old coins are typical "degenerators", i.e. they continuously lose value against the USD.

Peercoin, in contrast, after its bubble in 2013/14, transformed into a low cap oscillator, with a relatively stable USD price since 2020 and even a slightly bullish evolution, albeit not as much as Bitcoin:

...

The same can be said about Namecoin: it never went below 35-40 cents, and sometimes spikes up to 1$ or more.

...

In both cases one can see that if you just catch the knife in a crypto winter at their minimum price level it is highly likely that they'll eventually go up.

Both are also decentralized coins, so they aren't affected by securities laws in most places. In Europe for example you can list them at a CEX exchange without having to provide a whitepaper (premined coins have to provide one).

As a conclusion, these coins could become eventually interesting for some investors, as long as their development doesn't get stalled.

Yes. That's very unfortunate. Most of the old coins lose value over time. Some of them even go to $0. I'd prefer an old coin that's still trading on the market (even if it lost considerable value in USD) than a "dead" one (zero liquidity, zero trading volume, and no market price). Both Peercoin and Namecoin are among my favorite old coins that were considered "gems" in the early days.

I wonder if PPC finally solved the "Nothing at Stake" problem? Traditional PoS cryptocurrencies have this vulnerability built-in, making it easy for stakers to "game the system". Ethereum's Vitalik Buterin developed his own version of PoS which penalizes such behavior, but at the cost of reduced decentralization. At least, Peercoin is still alive. Being a hybrid PoW + PoS allows it to remain as decentralized as possible.

If I'm not mistaken, NXT was the first coin to have PoS as its sole consensus mechanism (non-hybrid). It rebranded itself as ARDOR, but popularity is low compared to other coins. I'm now playing (experimenting) with an old coin called Magi (XMG) (or Coin Magi). It has a equitable approach to PoW mining where small miners are compensated for their work. The lower the network hashrate, the bigger the block reward will be. This penalizes big miners, effectively making the network more decentralized. Best of all, XMG is a hybrid coin so you can stake whenever you want.

[d5000]

I wonder if PPC finally solved the "Nothing at Stake" problem?

The essence of the Nothing at stake problem - the problem that you can, in theory, fake parts of a chain without stake - wasn't solved to my knowledge, by neither PPC nor Ethereum. Ethereum relies a lot on the "weak subjectivity" paradigm, i.e. that there are "trusted" nodes to connect to when you sync the first time.

Peercoin has some of these mechanisms too, and penalizes some cases of "multi chain staking" but it's still a more classic PoS algorithm, to my knowledge it doesn't use the "Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance" (PBFT) paradigm in the way Ethereum does. However, Peercoin has a particularity: due to its reward which depends on the number of staked coins, there is no incentive (or at least, only a very small one) to stake on multiple forks. Thus at least it "solves" a part of the problem this way.

I'm now playing (experimenting) with an old coin called Magi (XMG) (or Coin Magi). It has a equitable approach to PoW mining where small miners are compensated for their work. The lower the network hashrate, the bigger the block reward will be.

I suspect these incentives do not work as intended. While it prevents the coin from being mined by big farms, it also could make it it easy to attack it via 51% -- if it was pure PoW. So the PoS hybrid system is perhaps a necessary part of this concept. But even then, I'm not really convinced ... it looks like a lottery for me to catch a moment with low hashrate to mine yourself. And as mining is almost not relevant to prevent attacks in this concept, in theory you could also use other kinds of lottery ... Would have to look into it more deeply. Do you know if XMG was premined?

[doubletheprof]

Some might say Kaspa, but honestly, without any copium, I think Kaspas time is yet to come...

[Abiky]

I suspect these incentives do not work as intended. While it prevents the coin from being mined by big farms, it also could make it it easy to attack it via 51% -- if it was pure PoW. So the PoS hybrid system is perhaps a necessary part of this concept. But even then, I'm not really convinced ... it looks like a lottery for me to catch a moment with low hashrate to mine yourself. And as mining is almost not relevant to prevent attacks in this concept, in theory you could also use other kinds of lottery ... Would have to look into it more deeply. Do you know if XMG was premined?

Good point. Incentivizing small miners could open the possibility of a 51% attack. That's why XMG was developed as a hybrid PoW + PoS coin from the get-go. I think it's the fairest cryptocurrency ever created. IDENA also seeks to end "mining plutocracy".

About the XMG premine, all I could find was a message from a prominent XMG community member claiming it had a "fair launch". You can read all about it here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=735170.3920

I'd ask the original developer "joelao95" about this. But he hasn't been active for quite a long time, so there's a slim chance we'll be able to clear any doubts about the pre-mine. AFAIK, the community took over the project a few years ago. Hopefully, XMG gets listed on a prominent exchange again to "keep the ball rolling".