Innovation doesn't always equate to success.
I've heard the misconception on this forum that for a coin to succeed it needs to be innovative.
I don't believe that is a 100% truth. I've said it many times before that FORD was innovative with the invention of the automobile but Toyota, Honda, kia and every other automobile maker was not really innovative (IMO) as they basically copied the invention.
I already went over your examples here.
Now had those auto dealers invent (or innovate) the concept of an airplane. That is something worth noting and is innovative.
You are not easy to impress.. no wonder you're calling everything a "gimmick" and "bells and whistles". Again, these companies have innovated in the past and continue to focus on doing so. I find this point is pretty weak.
Let's squash this misconception that INNOVATION is required in order to be successful.
I don't think anyone believes it is a requirement, however you can't deny that it helps in regards to market sentiment. Litecoin just looks like another clone coin when you focus on what makes it different from Bitcoin. Having added and new innovative features will help attract new users that may not have participated otherwise. Although you and the Litecoin community doesn't like bells and whistles, there is a large amount of people that do. Otherwise there wouldn't be a market for luxury vehicles, planes, mansions, etcera.
Sometimes luck plays a factor in being successful as well as other variables and dynamics.
This is one of the only things Litecoin has going for it was being at the right place at the right time. However, will that stand the test of time.. especially if Litecoin doesn't innovate to compete with their competitors? If a new crypto is coming out that was fairly released, had the same money supply and algorithm, same everything as Litecoin... yet, it had many innovative features that some (or ideally most) people would want to use. Will Litecoin be able to compete against this in the long run if they are allergic to change?
Just because a particular crypto coin doesn't have the "whistles" and "bells" you think it should does not mean the coin you are critiquing will not be successful.
Again.. bells and whistles are not a neccessity, but they are a luxury. Who wouldn't want a luxury vehicle compared to an economy vehicle if you can buy them at the same price? This is part of the reason why buy support for Litecoin is drying up. I have recently seen it blamed on ASIC miners dumping coins, but that is simply market sentiment at play. If they were confident in the long term success of Litecoin, they would keep the mined coins in Litecoin and not dump them instantly.
I would venture to say that if the underlying functionality and security of a crypto coin are sound then the free-market will choose whether it is "successful" enough for them to pour money into it.
Newer cryptos will be proven functionable and secure over time, as they survive attack free and more eyes look over the codebase. When they are first released obviously it is more risky to invest in them, but the saying goes... no risk no reward. The most successful ALT in recent history is Nxt and only about 70 people were willing to take the risk, yet they have seen a big reward. You know why? Because Nxt was innovative.
Looks like most of the crap coins around here although they may have lots of "features" have not experienced success in terms of acceptance by many.
Most coins are crap, but there are some diamonds in the rough. If you do your research on each coin it is fairly easy to tell where the duds are and what coins actually have a chance of succeeding. Those that don't do their homework or sign on for pump and dumps deserve whatever may happen. There is a big difference in between gimmick innovation (changing a few parameters/the algo... aka. Litecoin) and actual innovation. Being able to tell the difference is important.
I will even use myself as an example. My physical coins are a copy (in essence) of Mike Caldwell's physical bitcoins that he started in 2011. Yes I made them to support both Litecoin and Bitcoin and have my own design but I did not need to be really innovative (have whistles and bells) in order to be successful. Much of it had to do with (IMO) timing as well as marketing and some luck.
Personally I believe the coins I have sold have been a success as there have been many around the world who buy them and continue to do so. They are not coerced nor forced to. But willingly do so.
I'm not surprised. I will try to be as honest as possible on this point.
I will not deny you have done well for yourself and your coin business. You have good designs, quality, and your coins are popular. In my opinion the old way of making physical crypto currencies will be phased out soon for more innovative approaches, and you might find yourself out of business in a couple years if you don't adapt. Litecoin is in the same boat, and that is how I am tying this into the topic. What I mean by that is the old model of physical cryptos have been proven insecure due to the solvent attack. Even worse, your competition is innovating awesome new ways to store coins offline including hardware wallets, smart cards, and NFC wallets with physically unclonable function capabilities. There are numerous projects making all three of those. At some point I think the novelty factor will wear off due to the security issues, and people will prefer higher technological options that are more secure.
I look at your success in the coin business the same way I look at Litecoin's success in the cryptocoin economy, a short term success if you guys do not adapt and innovate.
There you have it. Innovation can lead to success but it doesn't guarantee you success.
Yes, you are right here. It doesn't guarantee success because your a crypto currency needs to still be launched fairly, be proven secure, have actual innovations instead of gimmick innovations, or fill a niche. Innovation doesn't guarantee success, but if you nail the other important pieces along with having actual innovations, there is no reason why your coin shouldn't be wildly successful. The "niche" that Litecoin provides (
quicker block time, more money supply, Scrypt algorithm) can be done on coins that actually innovate and have more features. So again, what would you choose if you could buy them at the same price... a luxury car or an economy car? This is why I expect other coins to catch up to Litecoin in the long run as the network effect slowly wears off.
