'Nomen est omen' concept in altcoin economic theory

[alt19]

Now in altcoin 'economic theory' or, it's better to say, in 'altcoin community consciousness' (the set of shared beliefs, ideas and moral attitudes which operate as a unifying force within community)
there are two main concepts of what altcoins must have to grow in value in a long-term perspective.
Of course, everyone will agree that a responsible development team and altcoins listing on main exchanges are very important,
but if that's ok, what else?

1. 'infrastructure' theory
A good altcoin must have good infrastructure (growing around altcoin services).

2. 'innovation' theory
A good altcoin must have new innovative features and provide better maintenance (first of all,  as a payment method for goods and services)

Let's add one more theory.

3. the concept 'nomen est omen'
3.1. A good coin must have a bright name, an idea, a memorable trade history, to be a meme.
3.2. The earlier the release date, the better.

Why?

The first altcoins with bright, memorable names and/or dramatical trade history are like collectibles.
Investments in collectibles grow in value in a long-term perspective.

You can add an infrastructure, you can add innovative features - to any coin, theoretically, but you cannot change the past,
you cannot change the history that is in price logs and in a people's memory.

Thanks for reading. Have a good day everyone!

[dewdeded]

Make sense what you post, but I see nothing new. Just common sense.

[alt19]

Make sense what you post, but I see nothing new. Just common sense.

Thanks for common sense, but the idea is not common now.

[gjhiggins]

3. the concept 'nomen est omen'

These days, those who work with the concept use the labels "brand identity", "brand values" and "brand experience".

As regards “unifying force”, I can't help but conclude that the only unifying force that this community experiences collectively is gravity.

Cheers,

Graham

[alt19]

3. the concept 'nomen est omen'

These days, those who work with the concept use the labels "brand identity", "brand values" and "brand experience".

Sorry, sir, I've just returned from 3000 B.C. year.
Brands are for trademarks. I'm not sure, old coins, except Bitcoin, were registered as TM.
Maybe the better name for concept is 'memorable collectibles'.
In fact I named it 'nomen est omen' to accent the importance of age of coin, too.
Like old wine.

3. the concept 'nomen est omen'

As regards “unifying force”, I can't help but conclude that the only unifying force that this community experiences collectively is gravity.

About 'unifying force' it's just from Wikipedia definition of collective consciousness.
I will remove it if it focuses attention.
Gravity is good, in fact. It's something conservative, not 'going to the moon', like all new altcoins.

[bEGPO cNuPTA]

Good post. I don't think there is much anyone can argue against your points.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

1. 'infrastructure' theory
A good altcoin must have good infrastructure (growing around altcoin services).

2. 'innovation' theory
A good altcoin must have new innovative features and provide better maintenance (first of all,  as a payment method for goods and services)

Let's add one more theory.

3. the concept 'nomen est omen'
3.1. A good coin must have a bright name, an idea, a memorable trade history, to be a meme.
3.2. The earlier the release date, the better.

I like this thread, for I'm seriously considering entering the Alt Coin fray.

For the past week or so I've been hashing (no pun intended) an idea that embraces most of what I've quoted above, albeit a tad refined.

1. Infrastructure: A given.

2. Innovation: Sans concerns for payment of goods and services, strictly treated as commodities. What I envision would have it's own exchange, albeit the alts may also be available on others as well. Cashing out would be via Bitcoin.

3. Nomen est omen: Again, naming would be a given, of which would not be an issue with what I have envisioned. Also, earlier or a later release date is not important, sans some event everybody's speaking of.

More to come. Contact me if you're interested in getting involved.

~Bruno Kucinskas

[bEGPO cNuPTA]

1. 'infrastructure' theory
A good altcoin must have good infrastructure (growing around altcoin services).

2. 'innovation' theory
A good altcoin must have new innovative features and provide better maintenance (first of all,  as a payment method for goods and services)

Let's add one more theory.

3. the concept 'nomen est omen'
3.1. A good coin must have a bright name, an idea, a memorable trade history, to be a meme.
3.2. The earlier the release date, the better.

I like this thread, for I'm seriously considering entering the Alt Coin fray.

For the past week or so I've been hashing (no pun intended) an idea that embraces most of what I've quoted above, albeit a tad refined.

1. Infrastructure: A given.

2. Innovation: Sans concerns for payment of goods and services, strictly treated as commodities. What I envision would have it's own exchange, albeit the alts may also be available on others as well. Cashing out would be via Bitcoin.

3. Nomen est omen: Again, naming would be a given, of which would not be an issue with what I have envisioned. Also, earlier or a later release date is not important, sans some event everybody's speaking of.

More to come. Contact me if you're interested in getting involved.

~Bruno Kucinskas

Oh my. Is this the beginning of BrunoCoin?!?!

Who's going to be the lead developer? Davout?

[Phinnaeus Gage]

1. 'infrastructure' theory
A good altcoin must have good infrastructure (growing around altcoin services).

2. 'innovation' theory
A good altcoin must have new innovative features and provide better maintenance (first of all,  as a payment method for goods and services)

Let's add one more theory.

3. the concept 'nomen est omen'
3.1. A good coin must have a bright name, an idea, a memorable trade history, to be a meme.
3.2. The earlier the release date, the better.

I like this thread, for I'm seriously considering entering the Alt Coin fray.

For the past week or so I've been hashing (no pun intended) an idea that embraces most of what I've quoted above, albeit a tad refined.

1. Infrastructure: A given.

2. Innovation: Sans concerns for payment of goods and services, strictly treated as commodities. What I envision would have it's own exchange, albeit the alts may also be available on others as well. Cashing out would be via Bitcoin.

3. Nomen est omen: Again, naming would be a given, of which would not be an issue with what I have envisioned. Also, earlier or a later release date is not important, sans some event everybody's speaking of.

More to come. Contact me if you're interested in getting involved.

~Bruno Kucinskas

Oh my. Is this the beginning of BrunoCoin?!?!

Who's going to be the lead developer? Davout?

No BrunoCoin or DankCoin, etc. But, notables, of sorts, are put of the concept, none of which are cryptcoiners (assumed).

[gjhiggins]

Brands are for trademarks.

You are apparently experiencing some lingering anachronism arising from your time trip. A contemporary description is available from wikipedia:

Brand is the “name, term, design, symbol, or any other feature that identifies one seller's product distinct from those of other sellers.”

The broadening of scope has been accompanied by the development of more sophisticated and effective techniques. The current global retail market for air fresheners has been so expertly cultivated that it is now over $8 billion a year and considered to be one of the strongest growth areas. It's an outstanding example of social anxiety marketing at its most polished and successful.

Cheers,

Graham

[El Dude]

The only Altcoin that has everything you mentioned is Litecoin.

[nutildah]

I agree that the name plays an important role, though its hard to disentangle its significance from the other successful factors of the coin.

One coin whose idea I like but has a bad name is Myriad. It used to be Myriadcoin, which was worse, but Myriad just isn't fun to say.

On the other hand, I'm surprised MurrayCoin hasn't shot through the roof by now.

[alt19]

Brands are for trademarks.

You are apparently experiencing some lingering anachronism arising from your time trip. A contemporary description is available from wikipedia:
Brand is the “name, term, design, symbol, or any other feature that identifies one seller's product distinct from those of other sellers.”

I'm not sure altcoin is a seller's product at all. Currency is not a seller's product though it's traded.
Besides, brands are usually for companies, for products made by a company.
Maybe you mean 'brand' in a broad sense as 'a particular kind or type of something'.

The only Altcoin that has everything you mentioned is Litecoin.

Litecoin is good, but I've posted 3 theories, not 3 features.

[alt19]

For example,
1st theory Infrastructure - Bitcoin, Litecoin
2nd theory Innovation - Dark, Cinni, Veri...
3rd theory 'Nomen est omen' or memorable collectibles - BottleCaps, Moon, BBQ, Lucky...

[alt19]

Interesting thing, now there is an evidence that price behaviour of coins with a good theme (the 3rd theory) is not worse than for 'innovative' coins and even better sometimes, a lot better.
ALT_INNOVATIVE Market index (the components of the index are coins with innovative features) is 6.07 today, and ALT_COLLECTIBLES Index (memorable coins of pretty small capitalization but with bright names and dramatic trade history) is 23.76.
These market indices are all in BTC with a base value of 25 at the beginning.

more about altcoin market indices:  
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=516466.0

[gustav]

'innovation theory' is what most around here have wrong.
True innovation only happens once a decade. 99% of things titled 'inovation' in alts are just new experiments (which fail normally). If a coin is very innovative you got a good chance to be stuck with a broken coin/clusterfuck later on.  

It's already an accomplishement to get a plain copy/paste coin to keep running for months, maybe years so 99% of these alts are vapourware from the get go. Being super-innovative just brings in more risks and further shortens the life-expectancy of a coin.

[alt19]

'innovation theory' is what most around here have wrong.
True innovation only happens once a decade. 99% of things titled 'inovation' in alts are just new experiments (which fail normally). If a coin is very innovative you got a good chance to be stuck with a broken coin/clusterfuck later on.  

Thank you for your opinion. I agree with it, just as if it were my own thoughts.
But many people still believe in crypto 'innovations' and don't trust anything else.

[KlondikeBear]

I'm in your school of altcoin economic thought. 

'Nomen est omen' concept is really great. Many people simply don't realize this idea yet.

So-called 'dead' coins being listed on Cryptsy, bright names, that people remember, are NOT like penny-stocks of stock market.
They can be easily REVIVED, get a dev team, community, infrastructure - and they have significant price growth potential.

But people who just have read or heard some basic investment recommendations for traditional market ('don't buy cheap stocks')
and watched a droll movie with Leo DiCaprio, prefer to buy coins even with strange/horrible names just because of their large market cap
currently or small innovations, not necessary for building altcoin infrastructure.

'We are clever investors', they think. 'We never will buy something like penny stocks, even if it has a great name. We buy innovations only, the wolf will never eat us...'

[dewdeded]

So-called 'dead' coins being listed on Cryptsy, bright names, that people remember, are NOT like penny-stocks of stock market.
They can be easily REVIVED, get a dev team, community, infrastructure - and they have significant price growth potential.

Are you serious?

[KlondikeBear]

Why not?
As I know that is one of the main reasons Cryptsy doesn't delist these coins.
And we have at least one example already.