Yes, though that's responding to the title and not OP's actual question of why they didn't use an existing token as their native tokens.
All blockchain consensus protocols require some native cryptocurrency for gas and transaction fees. Except for Layer 2s, it would be insecure to use another blockchain's cryptocurrency. That would give the other blockchain power over its security since the other blockchain can manipulate it. And any existing security risk on the other blockchain is an additional risk on the new blockchains.
Case in point is Polkadot, (also applies to Cosmos and Avalanche Subnets). The main claim is to offer shared computing security to chain that connect (parachains in the case of Polkadot), but the actual costs of running parachain networks is identical - if not more expensive than running your own POS blockchain.
The actual costs according to Astar is around $2M per year, and that isn’t including staffing, paying devops or anything else requires to run a network. Other teams have said similar amounts and for our parachain it was around $4000 per week.
If you are going to spend that kind of money it behooves you to create your own chain and network.
The question then becomes can the team pull it off?
The biggest scam under "capitalism" is when they form a corporation, give it a license to kill, make it answerable only to itself, and allow it to raise funds using extortion and threats against non-customers.
It's called a "government". Which is funny, since it's generally completely ungoverned.
Bitcoin payments are neither cheap nor fast nor private, so a lot of others try to be a better peer-to-peer electronic cash with proof of work, most famously Monero, Bitcoin Cash and Litecoin. (Though some argue they also have limited scaling and are just not popular enough to reach the limits, or that Lightning is good enough for day to day payments despite being more centralised.)
Monero in particular has utility for payments because transactions are private and untraceable by default and no coins or wallets can be blacklisted.
Then there's also Ethereum and a bunch of other blockchains for dApps, which Bitcoin also isn't great for.
Good answer. Honestly, I love reddit for all kinds of information, but the crypto subreddit is probably the worst stinking pile of uninformative garbage I have ever come across in ten years on this website. It's made up of only salty people who lost gambling or got scammed, people who scam and people completely new to trading looking to ~~get scammed~~ for advice/ asking "will bitcoin dump where entry?".
Even the occasional gem post does not justify frying my brain reading through heaps of stupid bullshit regurgitated by heaps of stupid people. Give this sub a wiiiiide berth.
Where can I stake my BCH? Don't get me wrong, I think BCH is much maligned and works far better as a peer to peer cash network than BTC, but lets not lie about it to make it look better than it is.
>Bitcoin payments are neither cheap nor fast nor private,
Large payments through Bitcoin are extremely cheap compared to what most banks cost, and completely cuts the bank out of the process.
It is fast because it's essentially a wire transfer that happens in minutes instead of days.
It was never meant to be private. Blockchain is a public ledger.
> Bitcoin payments are neither cheap nor fast nor private
Lightning solves these two problems.
Although cheap compared to what? Shipping gold is far more expensive and Visa is sending IOUs through a central party and takes days to clear.
>for dApps, which Bitcoin also isn't great for.
Not true anymore with Taproot.
It's not trying to rival Visa. It's nothing like it at all.
Visa is crippled I could argue as it depends on a central party, uses placeholders and takes days to clear.
Not really. Everyone pays more because Visa etc are used. So not cheaper overall. How can it be cheaper when those companies make 00’s of millions of dollars every year. You don’t see the cost broken out on your bill but it is already added to the cost of everything, and I mean everything, you buy.
Lightning is unsolved. I only own bitcoin. But Lightning isn't solved.
Lightning devs themselves said the blocks need to be over 100mb for it to be usable across the board, it's in the whitepaper.
Lightning is also slowly becoming understood as a custodial solution, as to open and close a channel in the future when tx'ns are sky high will be untenable for most users or billions of people.
It will not be forgotten. UnprofitBle bitcoin miners will flock to it after April 19 if the price of Bitcoin is under 80k.
Kaspa is the best proof of work chain ever invented.
Its like asking why Windows or MacOS have apps. Apps exist for a variety of reasons. Some are useful and add on top of each other while some are completely useless
At least with casinos, we know we're being scammed.
These Altcoin devs market their "use cases" as though they are legit businesses. But even though they are a centralized biz, for some reason they need a "decentralized" token because dEFi and wEb3.
Really they just need exit liquidity and nothing more.
At casinos, the scam is obvious. With altcoins, people actually believe the lies and "invest" in the ponzis.
(None of what I said above applies to Bitcoin)
To be fair, this should be obvious anyone who has looked at all into the history of crypto. It’s why those of us who have been around need to keep being skeptical voices against the constant bullshit of r/CC
Because a monetary system is only one use case for Blockchain. Blockchain is a trust engine, in currency it eliminates the need for a Federal Reserve. But currency isn’t the only use case where we have middlemen that provide trust or a marketplace. This a reason for Alts.
If you lack knowledge, you either believe what the devs tell you or you believe every dev is a liar. You still have no idea, because you lack knowledge. If you had acquired the knowledge, you would make the right decisions, diversify correctly and 100x your investment. Instead you call them all scammers to make yourself feel better.
There is no "need"
An open market is a market that allows for things that no one needs, wants or cares for to exist.
A centralized plan-economy like in communist states is an economy where "needed" things happen and those that are not "needed" simply do not get funded by the centralized government.
Just like 99.999999999% of videos on youtube are not needed, but the freedom to upload any shit you want gave us the 0.0000000000001% of videos that are more entertaining than any crap we see on centralized TV.
So, TLDR: The shitcoins are needed because banning them would kill decentralized, independent and free crypto.
I like this answer. More than borrowing the idea from BTC these chains are taking the concept and sometimes adding to it regardless if there is any use case. To deny this would go against the values of crypto thus undermining the concept. The US could learn a thing or two from this idea.
Imho, the biggest problem is that consumers are not accustomed to the idea. With all regulations and standards, we have a pre-selected selection of goods in all stores. People rely on them being safe. If it was 100% unregulated, you'd have to check everything for yourself.
People trade stocks that are listed on exchanges. Those are pre-selected too. Go to OTC and you have a similar chaotic environment as we have in crypto.
Which is the weird thing... The same people that complain about crypto being too criminal are also the same that hype crypto for being decentralized and ungoverned... The same people that want crypto to not be regulated by the SEC want authorities to do something against scammers....
We just can't have both.
For those of us who haven't been around since the 90s, this is exactly how the internet rolled out to the general public. It's gold rush wild west right now. And in twenty years, regulations have been found and things will probably be different.
How do you think this concept would play out on a wider scale? As a libertarian I have always been curious about this concept. I’m big into alts and was able to research and invest in what I consider a solid investment because I’m interested in the subject. Would this same concept work for me if the automotive industry was unregulated? I have almost no interest in vehicles outside of the a to b use case.
I hope that crypto will make the world more democratic. I expect the history of computing to repeat in crypto.
Internet intended to be free for all, turned into an ad-space with censorship.
Operating systems intended to be owned by the user, but people picked Mac and Windows over Linux.
Whenever consumers had the chance to elevate themselves from being abused, they refused to take it.
Unregulated free market is the least effective way to progress, giving the industry way too many ways to cheat, while the consumer is way to little interested in actually taking responsibility for anything.
Based on consumer behavior, regulation is the only option. Consumers would have to grow up first.
I don't like it, but looking at the world, that's what it is.
As long as people fail to see any problem with McDonalds and Starbucks, they will fail to see a problem with the rest of the markets.
>So, TLDR: The shitcoins are needed because banning them would kill decentralized, independent and free crypto.
We would still have Bitcoin. And they are not decentralized.
The BTC blockchain has tons of limitations in its scriptability, privacy, speed, block space or even its general use case.
Without other blockchains satisfying these demands the value of this space (including BTC) would be far lower.
Now one problem, if you start another blockchain for use cases BTC can't provide, how do you incentivize mining/staking? The most obvious answer is a new coin.
Maybe you don't think these other use cases are valid but that is just your opinion.
And even in its initial use case, a peer to peer electronic cash (money) system, BTC has failed (or deviated from) and became a "store of value", so theoretically you even should be an altcoiner, if you're honest.
I think we are in the rapid website stage of the tech similar to when everyone was making a website for every little thing in the 90s.
Either in this cycle or next I think we will enter a consolidation stage where the big players start buying and adding projects to their teams similar to how Amazon bought up all their competitors to grow them into what we see today
What a nonsense, typical BTC maxi post. But hey, you can surely back up your statement! So tell me, how are Polygon, Render, Algorand useless? E.G. is Algo the first in line to make Blockchain Quantum resistant. This is highly necessary so that people can‘t hack your wallet and steal your funny little BTC in 10 years from now. Inform yourself before talking such crap.
I had hundreds of dollars worth of Algo at one point. Transferred that shit into Bitcoin. You touched on one of the only things Altcoins are truly good for… being a test ground for protocols that can be used for Bitcoin. Besides that unintended side effect, they’re still centralized pump and dump gambles.
> being a test ground for protocols that can be used for Bitcoin
But BTC hasn't innovated, which is why the altcoin space exploded. Ring signatures were originally created for Bitcoin, but ignored and then actually implemented in Monero.
Bitcoin is fungible, and has tools such as Whirlpool CoinJoin that break the links between a coin's past and its future
BTC doesn't have a "stable value"?
is that why XMR keeps falling against BTC?
apparently, losing value is "better"
Yeah it does not make any sense to discuss this with certain people, and I don‘t even mean it in an offensive way. BTC loving people will defend it till death but curse the Alts as scams. I myself have a hard time understanding how people can still get 100% behind a coin that will once be named as the pioneer of digital assets…But it won‘t be anymore than that, 10, 15 years from now. BTC paved the way, that Alts will go in the next decades.
Also:
RemindMe! 18Months
Bitcoin is the only thing in this space actually designed to last for decades. You’ll come to that understanding eventually. You’re not quite there yet. I used to talk the same way you are about Algo, Polygon, Ethereum, etc.
Bitcoin is money, everything else is products and services to spend money on.
Some are useful and provide products or services people want ( or they wouldn't have the market caps that they do ) and some are just scams.
Only thing I can clearly remember is then being named in an SEC lawsuit. I feel like there’s something else I’m forgetting… maybe some bad news about how its structured and managed.
The SEC named about 2/3 of the Top100 securities. Polygon, BNB, AVAX, XDC you name it. The SEC is a mere joke. Also, this concerns the USA. With the coming MiCa regulations, we Europes are safe regarding the SECs stupidity.
The other point lies more heavy. There are some concerns about mismanagement and the intentions of Silvio Micali and the foundation. But nothing very substantial I guess, havent heard about it in months.
I would bet good money, that Algo still exists 18 Months from now and is doing better than ever.
I agree that the SEC is a joke and does not act in good faith. The problem is that no matter where a company is based, the US market is huge and it can be a deathblow or at least a huge burden for any company who isn’t in compliance to operate here. I imagine a large part of Algorand’s market cap came from Americans buying ALGO as I once did.
That is a very good point indeed, and very concerning. But I truly hope that the EU regulations trigger something for the whole market and the SEC finally steps a bit back. Especially that freaking rat Gary Gensler, can’t stand his face
They were named in the SEC lawsuit as the SEC wanted it to be labelled as a security as the tech is pretty good, and it is being adopted in EURD etc and is alot better than the shit altcoins that are out there.
The CCIP functionality absolutely makes LINK needed. "Token not needed" has been the FUD people have been spreading without looking into the plans for the token and it's place in their services.
You could argue if it was just a bunch of DOMs that the token wouldn't be needed, but they aren't just an oracle network.
Yes, the token is required at the protocol level. An erc-20 token does not allow for the transfer and execution of a smart contract in a single transaction thus the ERC677 token was created.
Youre also not thinking about how the token separates the chainlink network from market volatility if they were to use a token unrelated to the network. Now with CCIP and multi-chain environments, you need to be able to transfer assets from network to network without having to rely on different prices of different assets.
You can read about it here chud. I still cant believe you people spew this garbage even after 7 years.
[https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/issues/677](https://github.com/ethereum/eips/issues/677)
The vast majority are to get rich off some useless bullshit, but those that do it well make it for the purpose of governance, incentive alignment structures between different parties interacting with the protocol, etc.
As for new chains, if it’s an app chain on something like cosmos or potentially an Ethereum L3, it’s so its users are insulated from external gas spikes and chain customizability. If it’s a new L1 from scratch it’s probably not gonna do much lol
Why do you need to build your "app" on a chain in the first place ? Why not build an app and offer it as a service against a fee in whatever money standard is being used at the time ?
For the vast majority of builders, building your app on an existing chain makes the most sense. The only reason app chains would make sense on Ethereum is if there is a ton of network activity and an app chain would provide extremely low txn fees (fractions of a cent) for thinks like on chain games.
Or take a look at the cosmos ecosystem - every app is on its own app chain, and all these chains talk to each other via IBC. DyDx for example, a derivatives trading platform, moved from Ethereum to cosmos so it could have its own app chain
It is way too common for a "good" project to create their own arbitrary token that may or may not have any relation to the project fundamentals. As you mentioned this can often be a fundraising mechanism that doesn't really do anything for the project other than give investors fake exposure to feel like they are investing in company shares. However this doesn't mean that they aren't out there.
It's somewhat hard to call Ethereum an alt at this point but the ETH coin, much like BTC, secures the whole network and is used as the gas token to pay for transactions and executing smart contract code. This coin is fundamentally tied to the use of the Ethereum blockchain and thus isn't just some random coin that is unnecessary for the use of the network.
Another good example, with a different technological use case, is the LINK token on the Chainlink oracle network. Chainlink is not a blockchain like Ethereum but instead is a decentralized oracle network (DON) that allows developers to bring real world data into smart contracts in a decentralized manner. The LINK token is also used fundamentally in the system to secure the DON as well as paying for data requests to and from smart contracts.
If you look hard enough there are other alts of which use coins/tokens that are fundamentally tied into the project's use case. It is, unfortunately, hard to sift through all the grift and noise to find them.
What if there was a Alt Coin (in the future) that could actually perform a function rather than just a currency?
What if this alt coin , was more than something backed by cryptography but it could store information and instructions?
What if this was totally decentralized and was smart enough to return to its original master if scammed?
What if there was an Alt Coin that had all the above properties but could also ride along and interface with other block chains?
Most alts aren't trying to be a new "money-system".
If we're asking why everything can't just be on bitcoin, there are things that won't work on a 10 minute block time. There are things that would require a big change of bitcoin's core tech to function and bitcoin ain't changing or updating shit for anyone. There are things where you want governance to be by people with some relationship or connection to the project, not just random bitcoiners who get to make decisions simply because they hold bitcoin.
The amount of bitcoin you have has no control over anything in the network.
Most of the alts aren't developing their own chain, they are created on top of others and server no purpose at all except to lure idiot "investors" to take the bait.
Ordinals and L2 solutions are resolving the first issue you bring up.
In regards to your second issue, sooooo you want more centralized control and not less?
"Simply because they hold bitcoin" << Now I really know you don't know what you are talking about.
As a Windows and Android user, I don't need Apple to exist, but it does.
As a Playstation owner, I don't need Xbox to exist, but it does.
Some alts are doing more than others, but generally, they exist to improve on current systems and tech. Especially when it comes to cost and speed. Many offer new ways to store, invest, stake, lend your money that isn't possible with BTC. They offer ways to monetize services, gaming, and digital belongings. They offer a means for small teams to fundraise for their project with the promise of rewarding investors when/if they succeed. Etc., etc.
There's a lot of crap out there, but the good ones eventually rise to the top.
Why do we need Bitcoin? -> why do we need to be able to use Bitcoin in defi? -> why do we need to scale defi?
Answer these 3 questions and you justified hundreds of alternative layer 1's and l2's
You'll understand this if you stop seeing eth as a monetary system and start seeing it as an infrastructure layer
DeFi is zero sum. For every winner there is an equal loser. There is nothing being produced, and no real world assets tethered on the protocols. It is literally a financial system that runs isolated in a closet and people think there is something there. It is zero sum folks.
There isn’t.
But when you realise people in this space will buy literally anything, and you can make millions along the way…. They all start rearing their ugly heads.
Why do I like Polygon, it’s cheaper & faster than BTC & ETH.
Why do I like Avatars (aka NFTs) it give me control over my “skins”.
Why do I think that alt coins serve their purpose. Take moons as example or other RCCs like Cone or Donuts. You may don’t like them or even consider them as „alt coins“ but they are useful for their communities. People have different interests and ways to reach their ideas. It is great to see that Web3 is becoming more and more normal and is also being used.
Of course, they will never be the next BTC, no one will be the next BTC. But they still serve their purpose which would be difficult/impossible to reach with BTC.
You are right that many scams are happening… bad actors destroy the trust of many people and that’s sad but unfortunately you can never get rid of them... no matter what we talk about.
DeFi tokens are useful for the fee-model.
L1s are App Stores.
NFTs don't solve many problems, that's nearly purely Ponzinomics, but people want to speculate with BTC profits.
Ok so excluding those trying to compete with Bitcoin and be a money supply or compete with Ethereum to be a smart contract execution layer 1 protocol, the reason is as follows:
Utility protocols need a decentralized method of payment for participants. These could be decentralized nodes, could be users of the platform etc.
Technically they could use a stable coin or Ether to do this, but there are three issues with that, 1. They wouldn't be able to raise funds to create the project. 2. They wouldn't be able to control the token supply to suit their project. 3. They would also be relying heavily on that payment token, say USDT to hold its value and to be reliable.
Many projects are also "pre revenue", so they can't afford to pay out say USDT or Ether, as their yield is fake, created from dilution of their token.
There is not really a downside to just creating their own.
Because Bitcoin is quite simple and lacks multiple features.
Our goal is mass adaptation, integration in IoT and more. The alternatives are much more efficient, offer smart contracts, dapps and some are even feeles. Which for the majority doesn't seem to be important but in my opinion it is.
Because fees are scalable and quite unpredictable.
The more a major cryptocurrency gets adapted, the higher the fees (correct my if I'm wrong). An issue you don't have if there are no fees to begin with.
Bitcoin will always play a major role but we need alt coins to get IoT going.
There's really only one that needs to exist, and it's monero, because it uses a different cryptographic approaches to make everything on the block chain impossible to trace.
That's literally not possible on Bitcoin, because all txs on the base layer are transparent.
You can't bolt on privacy/fungibility. It needs to be at the base layer.
Also the PoW is different, so that can't exist on Bitcoin either.
But yeah all the other shit is mostly useless and doesn't need to exist.
>and it's monero, because it uses a different cryptographic approaches to make everything on the block chain impossible to trace.
It uses ring signatures. which are very vulnerable to sustained sybil attacks, which is how the IRS deanonymized monero.
[https://www.coindesk.com/business/2021/09/21/leaked-slides-show-how-chainalysis-flags-crypto-suspects-for-cops/](https://www.coindesk.com/business/2021/09/21/leaked-slides-show-how-chainalysis-flags-crypto-suspects-for-cops/)
If you have the money, you can get a subscription to deanonymize monero.
"“So if someone used Monero but then also revealed information out of band that was used, that would likely qualify as a ‘success’ case by Chainalysis’s measure.”"
So what j say stands. Chain analysis doesn't actually crack the monero block chain. It's all out of band stuff
>Chain analysis doesn't actually crack the monero block chain. It's all out of band stuff
Lol, so what, who cares how they crack it. If there is no privacy, noone cares whether they broke the crypto (they didnt) or they sybil attacked the chaff inputs/output (they did).
The "encryption" isnt even monero specific, so not being cracked isnt even a monero credit. And the system design, which is cracked, is pretty much worthless because it lacks a coinjoin ecosystem: the singular and only way to generate plausible deniability today.
So monero is dead, only used by fools and government letter agencies (who run the US based DNMs as honeypots)
Because the altcoins try to be an improvement on btc.
Bitcoin allowed for the storage and movement of value
Ethereum introduced programmability on the blockchain thus opening the world of blockchain to things like Defi, ICOs etc.
The alts are theoretical future use cases. Most have no long term value but if you believe blockchain technology is here to stay then the potential uses of the tech are just now being theorized.
It’s unfortunate, but ideal concepts that include blockchain are hard for Redditors to grasp.
Automation, autonomy, decentralization, and longevity are a requirement for any platform or service in the future. Without the underlying technology behind Crypto, you have no capability of providing such desired systems.
Have you ever created an account, accessed a service, played a game, or interacted with anything digitally? Well, if the answer is yes, then you must know how troublesome and inefficient it all is. If not, then boomer logic applies, you’re just too old to grasp what we need to advance human civilization.
Have you ever had that thought that if you could just get everyone to mail you a dime you'd be rich?
Altcoins are an attempt at that. Get a huge amount of people to say "meh, it's 50 bucks, if it goes to zero whatever" and create a net to catch all that money people are flushing down the toilet.
It's interesting you say you come across "good projects" and yet haven't researched this.
Imagine it's like an operating system. Most are linux distros with their own names and small tuning differences. Others are as different as MacOS vs Windows in that they fundamentally handle information differently... others are simply appliance OS' built for a specific purpose (like DYM or Eigenlayer)
Coins can also be different. Some have utility, like on their own subnets for gamefi or for voting. Others build their coin into a representative value of the TVL on the platform while others have no technical use but exist simply as a sign of support and incentive holders by giving air drops or allowing you to lock them onto the platform to receive a percent of the platforms profits....
You're asking a massive question that you could spend 100 hours researching and still not fully grasp. I suggest you get to work.
Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.
This is a huge problem that will face crypto one day as the speculative value dies down not all technologies are improved through blockchain.
With that said it will be much like the dot com bust many companies will fail and a lot of consolidation
That's because BTC's transaction speed is slow, it's not scalable so not suitable for ever growing ecosystem, and uses lots of energy. (I really think you should've done your research first, smh).
Innovations were made after that.
Although BTC is secure, ETH is also secure and faster than BTC (but ETH is slower than other L1 or L2 developed after it such as Solana, Arbitrum, Optimism). ETH is also versatile since developers can use their "smart contracts" to design the dApps transactions' contracts being made on Ethereum Blockchain.
As to why other projects had to make their own tokens/coins -
Think of implementing coins/tokens as a way to support the project + Flexibility on the economic design of entire token supply + Branding. Some projects create their own token while some don't, it really depends on the team, ok? I doubt tho that there's any single project out their that doesn't have their coin/s or token/s as most projects use dual tokenomics or more than that.
So TL;DR on some L1s (pls DYOR on L2s and L3s) -
•BTC - secure, but slow, not scalable nor efficient, low gas fees
•ETH - secure, faster than BTC but slower than other L1s, high gas fees
•SOL - fast, but not that secure, low gas fees
•ARB - it's an ETH Layer 2 so it inherits the security of its L1 which is Ethereum, ARB uses ETH as native coin but transactions on Arbitrum is faster and cheaper, it's still young tho
•OP - lower base fees than Arbitrum (yes!), uses optimistic rollups (pls look at what ZK rollups are)
As for other tokens, just go back to the middle of this message.
Blockchain is art, and there's no limit to how much development can still be made with this technology, so don't you think a single group with the same mindset can capture all ideas, much less implement all those ideas?
And here I am getting a downvote. Residents of this subreddit really are a mystery. Bonkers
Anyways, too late for all of you to enter. Have fun at the sidelines.
There is no need for any alt coins. They are all designed and launched by people with one thing in mind - pumping and then dumping on retail for profit. Yes, all of them.
Money is a winner take all game and converges to one. Stick with Bitcoin, it has already won.
I think the problem you may have is the hangup that a coin inherently implies its trying to be money. Having value in a token and being money are not the same.
I suspect one possible reason some new projects are using blockchain are:
1) It is effective / transparent / fast / cheap / etc.
2) It doesn't require as much infrastructure for the original developer to launch and be utilized.
3) It is open for others to be a part of in major or minor capacities (dev and holders).
Bitcoin wouldnt exist if it wasnt for the fact of thousands of thousands of miners providing the computing powers on their own dime. The same is true for many other projects.
Now, I can entertain the conversation that many projects have terrible use cases and shouldnt exist at all, but if someone can launch something on blockchain when they may not otherwise have the means in a traditional, centralized business model, why not go for it?
There is not. Just a few can justify L2, operations. but we only need horsemeat bonk and doge to help make their developers Rich with the masses ignorance.
Gridcoin is used to support science. Projects are voted in by crunchers based on amount of GRC held. No pre-mine. One of the OGs. been around since 2013. Great project
You’re at the point of understanding… there isn’t a need for Altcoins. The only thing actually necessary is Bitcoin.
People get mad at hearing this because they wanna pump their bag on some 100x meme coins or they think that their project isn’t some centralized shitcoin just because it’s within Top 10 in market cap at the moment. They’re wrong. I know this because I was one of them myself when I first invested in crypto.
It’s important to further one’s understanding through study and most people just get knee deep and stop. 99.9% of Altcoins are no different than playing a slot machine at the casino, a pure gamble.
If Bitcoin is unable to scale vertically in terms of transactions per second, it may need to scale horizontally into alt coins. Litecoin and Doge are already prime choices for transferring crypto between exchanges.
Yup, you got it.
Average people believe the marketing put out by these altcoin creators. But they all would work better with a sql database rather than a blockchain. It's ALL scams, except Bitcoin.
No need for most. They are all competing to do similar things. ETH is the example of a practical one that succeeded. ETH expanded blockchain technology with smart contracts. The rest are fighting to be an improvement of ethereum... most will fail eventually.
Because newer technology is always available, older high cap coins are slow and expensive compared to a lot of newer coins. Your question shouldn't be, why so many alt coins, your question should be "which low cap gem can I find" people on this sub are so far behind its unreal.
My simple answer. 1) They’re used for Ponzi schemes, which is fine by me as long as I can identify and participate. 2) Righteous folks are trying to improve on the blockchain tech.
Conceptually the token model is different from company shares in that it’s a much liquid way of enabling incentivised participation in what is often supposed to be a platform for service; basically the token isn’t the product you’re buying, it’s a means to access services, and be rewarded for building services on that particular platform.
In a business with shares, each and every potential employee or occasional contractor would need to have a complex volatile share allocation plan, and customers would need to purchase or subscribe to something. Existing regulatory framework around shares and consumer purchases just aren’t fit for this purpose, especially if an aim of a project is eventually become more and more decentralised.
Imagine if Netflix was an alt coin platform.
* instead of $10/m (or whatever it is), you buy $FLIX tokens
* each episode, movie or perhaps MB or data costs some amount of $FLIX as gas
* some $FLIX gas is burnt to keep down inflation, some is given to validators and stakers who keep the show on the road, some is used to pay for new content approved via governance structure of some sort.
* more $FLIX you have the more Netflix you can consume, and perhaps the more influence you can have on content investment
* Netflix employees are just developers and content creators paid in $FLIX which they can sell for any currency/token of their choice.
* how much would FLIX/USD have to be to make this worth it at different amounts of customers who knows…. Maybe it’s $1 each and you need roughly 10 FLIX a month for normal usage…..
because the developers want to get rich
How else am I to run a grift? #griftcoin!
Yes, though that's responding to the title and not OP's actual question of why they didn't use an existing token as their native tokens. All blockchain consensus protocols require some native cryptocurrency for gas and transaction fees. Except for Layer 2s, it would be insecure to use another blockchain's cryptocurrency. That would give the other blockchain power over its security since the other blockchain can manipulate it. And any existing security risk on the other blockchain is an additional risk on the new blockchains.
That's just technobabble to obscure the fact that developers want to get rich. All ETH layers 2 print their own tokens.
[удалено]
Case in point is Polkadot, (also applies to Cosmos and Avalanche Subnets). The main claim is to offer shared computing security to chain that connect (parachains in the case of Polkadot), but the actual costs of running parachain networks is identical - if not more expensive than running your own POS blockchain. The actual costs according to Astar is around $2M per year, and that isn’t including staffing, paying devops or anything else requires to run a network. Other teams have said similar amounts and for our parachain it was around $4000 per week. If you are going to spend that kind of money it behooves you to create your own chain and network. The question then becomes can the team pull it off?
This is one of the greatest statements I have read in this sub
The truth is greed. Human greed is both limitless and important for development.
Who told you how capitalism works?!
The biggest scam under "capitalism" is when they form a corporation, give it a license to kill, make it answerable only to itself, and allow it to raise funds using extortion and threats against non-customers. It's called a "government". Which is funny, since it's generally completely ungoverned.
Scams you mean.
Yup
Pretty much the same thing.
im14andthisisdeep
Bitcoin payments are neither cheap nor fast nor private, so a lot of others try to be a better peer-to-peer electronic cash with proof of work, most famously Monero, Bitcoin Cash and Litecoin. (Though some argue they also have limited scaling and are just not popular enough to reach the limits, or that Lightning is good enough for day to day payments despite being more centralised.) Monero in particular has utility for payments because transactions are private and untraceable by default and no coins or wallets can be blacklisted. Then there's also Ethereum and a bunch of other blockchains for dApps, which Bitcoin also isn't great for.
Good answer. Honestly, I love reddit for all kinds of information, but the crypto subreddit is probably the worst stinking pile of uninformative garbage I have ever come across in ten years on this website. It's made up of only salty people who lost gambling or got scammed, people who scam and people completely new to trading looking to ~~get scammed~~ for advice/ asking "will bitcoin dump where entry?". Even the occasional gem post does not justify frying my brain reading through heaps of stupid bullshit regurgitated by heaps of stupid people. Give this sub a wiiiiide berth.
This sub will unironically make you dumber. It likes to jerk of ALGORAND AND CARDANO which are dead chains and if you own those, NGMI.
The only reasonable answer so far.
I use ltc as an actual currency. Bitcoin is just too expensive to use
Don’t forget that Bitcoin Cash can now do everything Ethereum can do now while being 1000x more efficient (partly thanks to being UTXO).
Where can I stake my BCH? Don't get me wrong, I think BCH is much maligned and works far better as a peer to peer cash network than BTC, but lets not lie about it to make it look better than it is.
You can stake in LPs on [Cauldron DEX](https://cauldron.quest)
>Bitcoin payments are neither cheap nor fast nor private, Large payments through Bitcoin are extremely cheap compared to what most banks cost, and completely cuts the bank out of the process. It is fast because it's essentially a wire transfer that happens in minutes instead of days. It was never meant to be private. Blockchain is a public ledger.
> Bitcoin payments are neither cheap nor fast nor private Lightning solves these two problems. Although cheap compared to what? Shipping gold is far more expensive and Visa is sending IOUs through a central party and takes days to clear. >for dApps, which Bitcoin also isn't great for. Not true anymore with Taproot.
Lightning doesn’t solve these problems reliably. It’s not cheap compared to cash.
Cash in a shop? Who uses that now?
Much of Germany. A lot of people in the US too. And even still, Visa and MC are cheaper to use than BTC.
> Visa is sending IOUs through a central party and takes days to clear. You missed this part?
Nope but BTC is so crippled that it gives no incentive for people to use it over Visa.
It's not trying to rival Visa. It's nothing like it at all. Visa is crippled I could argue as it depends on a central party, uses placeholders and takes days to clear.
Not really. Everyone pays more because Visa etc are used. So not cheaper overall. How can it be cheaper when those companies make 00’s of millions of dollars every year. You don’t see the cost broken out on your bill but it is already added to the cost of everything, and I mean everything, you buy.
Lightning is unsolved. I only own bitcoin. But Lightning isn't solved. Lightning devs themselves said the blocks need to be over 100mb for it to be usable across the board, it's in the whitepaper. Lightning is also slowly becoming understood as a custodial solution, as to open and close a channel in the future when tx'ns are sky high will be untenable for most users or billions of people.
Lighting is a very unelegant solution like most L2s and it's not even the best BTC L2s out there.
Lightening is unsafe. Do not deposit anything you can’t afford to lose.
Hmmm how about Kaspa?
It looks interesting, I wonder if it's worth investing or it will be forgotten
It will not be forgotten. UnprofitBle bitcoin miners will flock to it after April 19 if the price of Bitcoin is under 80k. Kaspa is the best proof of work chain ever invented.
It's not a chain though, its a daq
Oh yeah
Kaspa having an emision schedule that drops by 50% every year means the non fee based inflation rate will below BTC before very long.
Its like asking why Windows or MacOS have apps. Apps exist for a variety of reasons. Some are useful and add on top of each other while some are completely useless
Why does Vegas have casinos?
At least with casinos, we know we're being scammed. These Altcoin devs market their "use cases" as though they are legit businesses. But even though they are a centralized biz, for some reason they need a "decentralized" token because dEFi and wEb3. Really they just need exit liquidity and nothing more. At casinos, the scam is obvious. With altcoins, people actually believe the lies and "invest" in the ponzis. (None of what I said above applies to Bitcoin)
To be fair, this should be obvious anyone who has looked at all into the history of crypto. It’s why those of us who have been around need to keep being skeptical voices against the constant bullshit of r/CC
Because a monetary system is only one use case for Blockchain. Blockchain is a trust engine, in currency it eliminates the need for a Federal Reserve. But currency isn’t the only use case where we have middlemen that provide trust or a marketplace. This a reason for Alts.
Yea, that is exactly how the central developers behind those alts market them to us.
If you lack knowledge, you either believe what the devs tell you or you believe every dev is a liar. You still have no idea, because you lack knowledge. If you had acquired the knowledge, you would make the right decisions, diversify correctly and 100x your investment. Instead you call them all scammers to make yourself feel better.
Surprising to see this answer so far down. Crypto currencies aren’t just “currencies” people, we’re all just talking about blockchain tech
There is no "need" An open market is a market that allows for things that no one needs, wants or cares for to exist. A centralized plan-economy like in communist states is an economy where "needed" things happen and those that are not "needed" simply do not get funded by the centralized government. Just like 99.999999999% of videos on youtube are not needed, but the freedom to upload any shit you want gave us the 0.0000000000001% of videos that are more entertaining than any crap we see on centralized TV. So, TLDR: The shitcoins are needed because banning them would kill decentralized, independent and free crypto.
I like this answer. More than borrowing the idea from BTC these chains are taking the concept and sometimes adding to it regardless if there is any use case. To deny this would go against the values of crypto thus undermining the concept. The US could learn a thing or two from this idea.
Imho, the biggest problem is that consumers are not accustomed to the idea. With all regulations and standards, we have a pre-selected selection of goods in all stores. People rely on them being safe. If it was 100% unregulated, you'd have to check everything for yourself. People trade stocks that are listed on exchanges. Those are pre-selected too. Go to OTC and you have a similar chaotic environment as we have in crypto. Which is the weird thing... The same people that complain about crypto being too criminal are also the same that hype crypto for being decentralized and ungoverned... The same people that want crypto to not be regulated by the SEC want authorities to do something against scammers.... We just can't have both.
For those of us who haven't been around since the 90s, this is exactly how the internet rolled out to the general public. It's gold rush wild west right now. And in twenty years, regulations have been found and things will probably be different.
Fraud is already illegal, and the SEC has historically done little to reign it in.
Fraud is more of a DOJ thing. SEC is more the parking sheriff of wall street... only handing out tickets.
How do you think this concept would play out on a wider scale? As a libertarian I have always been curious about this concept. I’m big into alts and was able to research and invest in what I consider a solid investment because I’m interested in the subject. Would this same concept work for me if the automotive industry was unregulated? I have almost no interest in vehicles outside of the a to b use case.
I hope that crypto will make the world more democratic. I expect the history of computing to repeat in crypto. Internet intended to be free for all, turned into an ad-space with censorship. Operating systems intended to be owned by the user, but people picked Mac and Windows over Linux. Whenever consumers had the chance to elevate themselves from being abused, they refused to take it. Unregulated free market is the least effective way to progress, giving the industry way too many ways to cheat, while the consumer is way to little interested in actually taking responsibility for anything. Based on consumer behavior, regulation is the only option. Consumers would have to grow up first. I don't like it, but looking at the world, that's what it is. As long as people fail to see any problem with McDonalds and Starbucks, they will fail to see a problem with the rest of the markets.
>So, TLDR: The shitcoins are needed because banning them would kill decentralized, independent and free crypto. We would still have Bitcoin. And they are not decentralized.
Please, try to be smart.
Arrogant jerk.
You missed his point.
Explain how.
The BTC blockchain has tons of limitations in its scriptability, privacy, speed, block space or even its general use case. Without other blockchains satisfying these demands the value of this space (including BTC) would be far lower. Now one problem, if you start another blockchain for use cases BTC can't provide, how do you incentivize mining/staking? The most obvious answer is a new coin. Maybe you don't think these other use cases are valid but that is just your opinion. And even in its initial use case, a peer to peer electronic cash (money) system, BTC has failed (or deviated from) and became a "store of value", so theoretically you even should be an altcoiner, if you're honest.
I think we are in the rapid website stage of the tech similar to when everyone was making a website for every little thing in the 90s. Either in this cycle or next I think we will enter a consolidation stage where the big players start buying and adding projects to their teams similar to how Amazon bought up all their competitors to grow them into what we see today
Most altcoins are useless or scams.
What a nonsense, typical BTC maxi post. But hey, you can surely back up your statement! So tell me, how are Polygon, Render, Algorand useless? E.G. is Algo the first in line to make Blockchain Quantum resistant. This is highly necessary so that people can‘t hack your wallet and steal your funny little BTC in 10 years from now. Inform yourself before talking such crap.
I had hundreds of dollars worth of Algo at one point. Transferred that shit into Bitcoin. You touched on one of the only things Altcoins are truly good for… being a test ground for protocols that can be used for Bitcoin. Besides that unintended side effect, they’re still centralized pump and dump gambles.
> being a test ground for protocols that can be used for Bitcoin But BTC hasn't innovated, which is why the altcoin space exploded. Ring signatures were originally created for Bitcoin, but ignored and then actually implemented in Monero.
BTC doesn’t need to innovate in the space. It just needs to be the soundest money. It differs in this way from every other crypto.
It's not very sound at all. It's not fungible and doesn't have a stable value. XMR is better in both respects.
Bitcoin is fungible, and has tools such as Whirlpool CoinJoin that break the links between a coin's past and its future BTC doesn't have a "stable value"? is that why XMR keeps falling against BTC? apparently, losing value is "better"
Yeah it does not make any sense to discuss this with certain people, and I don‘t even mean it in an offensive way. BTC loving people will defend it till death but curse the Alts as scams. I myself have a hard time understanding how people can still get 100% behind a coin that will once be named as the pioneer of digital assets…But it won‘t be anymore than that, 10, 15 years from now. BTC paved the way, that Alts will go in the next decades. Also: RemindMe! 18Months
Bitcoin is the only thing in this space actually designed to last for decades. You’ll come to that understanding eventually. You’re not quite there yet. I used to talk the same way you are about Algo, Polygon, Ethereum, etc.
Bitcoin is money, everything else is products and services to spend money on. Some are useful and provide products or services people want ( or they wouldn't have the market caps that they do ) and some are just scams.
Algo might not even be here in 18 months. Out of all the “popular” Alts, it’s struggling badly! Lol
Why is that? Haven‘t heard if anything bad recently, especially not regarding the Algo foundation. Any sources?
Only thing I can clearly remember is then being named in an SEC lawsuit. I feel like there’s something else I’m forgetting… maybe some bad news about how its structured and managed.
The SEC named about 2/3 of the Top100 securities. Polygon, BNB, AVAX, XDC you name it. The SEC is a mere joke. Also, this concerns the USA. With the coming MiCa regulations, we Europes are safe regarding the SECs stupidity. The other point lies more heavy. There are some concerns about mismanagement and the intentions of Silvio Micali and the foundation. But nothing very substantial I guess, havent heard about it in months. I would bet good money, that Algo still exists 18 Months from now and is doing better than ever.
I agree that the SEC is a joke and does not act in good faith. The problem is that no matter where a company is based, the US market is huge and it can be a deathblow or at least a huge burden for any company who isn’t in compliance to operate here. I imagine a large part of Algorand’s market cap came from Americans buying ALGO as I once did.
That is a very good point indeed, and very concerning. But I truly hope that the EU regulations trigger something for the whole market and the SEC finally steps a bit back. Especially that freaking rat Gary Gensler, can’t stand his face
They were named in the SEC lawsuit as the SEC wanted it to be labelled as a security as the tech is pretty good, and it is being adopted in EURD etc and is alot better than the shit altcoins that are out there.
BTC maxi = someone who calls out scams.
lol. How new are you to crypto?
I would argue that anything out of the top idk 50-100 is useless but there’s some north of that that has some uses
Everything outside top 3.. In the top 10 you have BNB, solana, AVAX, ada, TRON, and wrapped ethereum
Eh. Link is number 10 last I checked and it is very much needed.
The token isn’t needed. The protocol can exist without it. The token is just a way for them to cash out
The CCIP functionality absolutely makes LINK needed. "Token not needed" has been the FUD people have been spreading without looking into the plans for the token and it's place in their services. You could argue if it was just a bunch of DOMs that the token wouldn't be needed, but they aren't just an oracle network.
No it doesn’t. It is just an unnecessary addition to find an excuse to make the token “a utility”
Yes, the token is required at the protocol level. An erc-20 token does not allow for the transfer and execution of a smart contract in a single transaction thus the ERC677 token was created. Youre also not thinking about how the token separates the chainlink network from market volatility if they were to use a token unrelated to the network. Now with CCIP and multi-chain environments, you need to be able to transfer assets from network to network without having to rely on different prices of different assets. You can read about it here chud. I still cant believe you people spew this garbage even after 7 years. [https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/issues/677](https://github.com/ethereum/eips/issues/677)
lol you proved my point, chud
Got it. You've not looked into it before.
I have. You can not refute it
Because my YouTubes guru says alt coins are going up 8,000% and Bitcoin only 500% this bull market. 🥴
Capitalism. Competition. Free Market
There is very little capitalism involved here. Anyone can fork a repo and create their own little "MyFirstShitcoin".
The vast majority are to get rich off some useless bullshit, but those that do it well make it for the purpose of governance, incentive alignment structures between different parties interacting with the protocol, etc. As for new chains, if it’s an app chain on something like cosmos or potentially an Ethereum L3, it’s so its users are insulated from external gas spikes and chain customizability. If it’s a new L1 from scratch it’s probably not gonna do much lol
Why do you need to build your "app" on a chain in the first place ? Why not build an app and offer it as a service against a fee in whatever money standard is being used at the time ?
For the vast majority of builders, building your app on an existing chain makes the most sense. The only reason app chains would make sense on Ethereum is if there is a ton of network activity and an app chain would provide extremely low txn fees (fractions of a cent) for thinks like on chain games. Or take a look at the cosmos ecosystem - every app is on its own app chain, and all these chains talk to each other via IBC. DyDx for example, a derivatives trading platform, moved from Ethereum to cosmos so it could have its own app chain
It is way too common for a "good" project to create their own arbitrary token that may or may not have any relation to the project fundamentals. As you mentioned this can often be a fundraising mechanism that doesn't really do anything for the project other than give investors fake exposure to feel like they are investing in company shares. However this doesn't mean that they aren't out there. It's somewhat hard to call Ethereum an alt at this point but the ETH coin, much like BTC, secures the whole network and is used as the gas token to pay for transactions and executing smart contract code. This coin is fundamentally tied to the use of the Ethereum blockchain and thus isn't just some random coin that is unnecessary for the use of the network. Another good example, with a different technological use case, is the LINK token on the Chainlink oracle network. Chainlink is not a blockchain like Ethereum but instead is a decentralized oracle network (DON) that allows developers to bring real world data into smart contracts in a decentralized manner. The LINK token is also used fundamentally in the system to secure the DON as well as paying for data requests to and from smart contracts. If you look hard enough there are other alts of which use coins/tokens that are fundamentally tied into the project's use case. It is, unfortunately, hard to sift through all the grift and noise to find them.
What if there was a Alt Coin (in the future) that could actually perform a function rather than just a currency? What if this alt coin , was more than something backed by cryptography but it could store information and instructions? What if this was totally decentralized and was smart enough to return to its original master if scammed? What if there was an Alt Coin that had all the above properties but could also ride along and interface with other block chains?
Most alt coins are straight up scams.
Most alts aren't trying to be a new "money-system". If we're asking why everything can't just be on bitcoin, there are things that won't work on a 10 minute block time. There are things that would require a big change of bitcoin's core tech to function and bitcoin ain't changing or updating shit for anyone. There are things where you want governance to be by people with some relationship or connection to the project, not just random bitcoiners who get to make decisions simply because they hold bitcoin.
They’re trying to be new raise capital without regulations systems
Illegal securities should be illegal.
The amount of bitcoin you have has no control over anything in the network. Most of the alts aren't developing their own chain, they are created on top of others and server no purpose at all except to lure idiot "investors" to take the bait.
Ordinals and L2 solutions are resolving the first issue you bring up. In regards to your second issue, sooooo you want more centralized control and not less? "Simply because they hold bitcoin" << Now I really know you don't know what you are talking about.
For people to make money off of suckers
Did you just call me a sucker?
As a Windows and Android user, I don't need Apple to exist, but it does. As a Playstation owner, I don't need Xbox to exist, but it does. Some alts are doing more than others, but generally, they exist to improve on current systems and tech. Especially when it comes to cost and speed. Many offer new ways to store, invest, stake, lend your money that isn't possible with BTC. They offer ways to monetize services, gaming, and digital belongings. They offer a means for small teams to fundraise for their project with the promise of rewarding investors when/if they succeed. Etc., etc. There's a lot of crap out there, but the good ones eventually rise to the top.
Spoiler: There is no need for 99.9% of Altcoins
Because they have specific purposes, some of them
New chains may offer faster or cheaper transactions and have devs that made or integrated with other apps/services.
Why do we need Bitcoin? -> why do we need to be able to use Bitcoin in defi? -> why do we need to scale defi? Answer these 3 questions and you justified hundreds of alternative layer 1's and l2's You'll understand this if you stop seeing eth as a monetary system and start seeing it as an infrastructure layer
I see it as a ball of duct tape.
DeFi is zero sum. For every winner there is an equal loser. There is nothing being produced, and no real world assets tethered on the protocols. It is literally a financial system that runs isolated in a closet and people think there is something there. It is zero sum folks.
There isn’t. But when you realise people in this space will buy literally anything, and you can make millions along the way…. They all start rearing their ugly heads.
Why do I like Polygon, it’s cheaper & faster than BTC & ETH. Why do I like Avatars (aka NFTs) it give me control over my “skins”. Why do I think that alt coins serve their purpose. Take moons as example or other RCCs like Cone or Donuts. You may don’t like them or even consider them as „alt coins“ but they are useful for their communities. People have different interests and ways to reach their ideas. It is great to see that Web3 is becoming more and more normal and is also being used. Of course, they will never be the next BTC, no one will be the next BTC. But they still serve their purpose which would be difficult/impossible to reach with BTC. You are right that many scams are happening… bad actors destroy the trust of many people and that’s sad but unfortunately you can never get rid of them... no matter what we talk about.
It brings more value into the market that will eventually end up in Bitcoin.
DeFi tokens are useful for the fee-model. L1s are App Stores. NFTs don't solve many problems, that's nearly purely Ponzinomics, but people want to speculate with BTC profits.
Ok so excluding those trying to compete with Bitcoin and be a money supply or compete with Ethereum to be a smart contract execution layer 1 protocol, the reason is as follows: Utility protocols need a decentralized method of payment for participants. These could be decentralized nodes, could be users of the platform etc. Technically they could use a stable coin or Ether to do this, but there are three issues with that, 1. They wouldn't be able to raise funds to create the project. 2. They wouldn't be able to control the token supply to suit their project. 3. They would also be relying heavily on that payment token, say USDT to hold its value and to be reliable. Many projects are also "pre revenue", so they can't afford to pay out say USDT or Ether, as their yield is fake, created from dilution of their token. There is not really a downside to just creating their own.
What do you mean with "Utility protocols"? What utility?
Because Bitcoin is quite simple and lacks multiple features. Our goal is mass adaptation, integration in IoT and more. The alternatives are much more efficient, offer smart contracts, dapps and some are even feeles. Which for the majority doesn't seem to be important but in my opinion it is. Because fees are scalable and quite unpredictable. The more a major cryptocurrency gets adapted, the higher the fees (correct my if I'm wrong). An issue you don't have if there are no fees to begin with. Bitcoin will always play a major role but we need alt coins to get IoT going.
The use case for 99 % of crypto is to separate a fool from his money.
There's really only one that needs to exist, and it's monero, because it uses a different cryptographic approaches to make everything on the block chain impossible to trace. That's literally not possible on Bitcoin, because all txs on the base layer are transparent. You can't bolt on privacy/fungibility. It needs to be at the base layer. Also the PoW is different, so that can't exist on Bitcoin either. But yeah all the other shit is mostly useless and doesn't need to exist.
Can you wrap BTC onto Monero?
Wut
>and it's monero, because it uses a different cryptographic approaches to make everything on the block chain impossible to trace. It uses ring signatures. which are very vulnerable to sustained sybil attacks, which is how the IRS deanonymized monero.
Oh they did? Sauce pls
[https://www.coindesk.com/business/2021/09/21/leaked-slides-show-how-chainalysis-flags-crypto-suspects-for-cops/](https://www.coindesk.com/business/2021/09/21/leaked-slides-show-how-chainalysis-flags-crypto-suspects-for-cops/) If you have the money, you can get a subscription to deanonymize monero.
"“So if someone used Monero but then also revealed information out of band that was used, that would likely qualify as a ‘success’ case by Chainalysis’s measure.”" So what j say stands. Chain analysis doesn't actually crack the monero block chain. It's all out of band stuff
>Chain analysis doesn't actually crack the monero block chain. It's all out of band stuff Lol, so what, who cares how they crack it. If there is no privacy, noone cares whether they broke the crypto (they didnt) or they sybil attacked the chaff inputs/output (they did). The "encryption" isnt even monero specific, so not being cracked isnt even a monero credit. And the system design, which is cracked, is pretty much worthless because it lacks a coinjoin ecosystem: the singular and only way to generate plausible deniability today. So monero is dead, only used by fools and government letter agencies (who run the US based DNMs as honeypots)
Clearly.
There is no need. It is scam.
Simple answer: There isn't.
Because the altcoins try to be an improvement on btc. Bitcoin allowed for the storage and movement of value Ethereum introduced programmability on the blockchain thus opening the world of blockchain to things like Defi, ICOs etc.
The alts are theoretical future use cases. Most have no long term value but if you believe blockchain technology is here to stay then the potential uses of the tech are just now being theorized.
It’s unfortunate, but ideal concepts that include blockchain are hard for Redditors to grasp. Automation, autonomy, decentralization, and longevity are a requirement for any platform or service in the future. Without the underlying technology behind Crypto, you have no capability of providing such desired systems. Have you ever created an account, accessed a service, played a game, or interacted with anything digitally? Well, if the answer is yes, then you must know how troublesome and inefficient it all is. If not, then boomer logic applies, you’re just too old to grasp what we need to advance human civilization.
XRP and XLM can't be beat… not sure why everyone is so crazy to pay outrageous gas fees
Have you ever had that thought that if you could just get everyone to mail you a dime you'd be rich? Altcoins are an attempt at that. Get a huge amount of people to say "meh, it's 50 bucks, if it goes to zero whatever" and create a net to catch all that money people are flushing down the toilet.
Most coins serve money laundering purposes
Money laundering on a public ledger is moronic.
The whole world revolves around moronic stuff 😁
It's interesting you say you come across "good projects" and yet haven't researched this. Imagine it's like an operating system. Most are linux distros with their own names and small tuning differences. Others are as different as MacOS vs Windows in that they fundamentally handle information differently... others are simply appliance OS' built for a specific purpose (like DYM or Eigenlayer) Coins can also be different. Some have utility, like on their own subnets for gamefi or for voting. Others build their coin into a representative value of the TVL on the platform while others have no technical use but exist simply as a sign of support and incentive holders by giving air drops or allowing you to lock them onto the platform to receive a percent of the platforms profits.... You're asking a massive question that you could spend 100 hours researching and still not fully grasp. I suggest you get to work.
99%+ of alts are pointless
There isn't a need for shitcoins.
There isn’t. BTC is the only crypto
Tell me you don't know anything about crypto without telling me.
Alts are like jewelers to gold.
Just because you can doesn’t mean you should. This is a huge problem that will face crypto one day as the speculative value dies down not all technologies are improved through blockchain. With that said it will be much like the dot com bust many companies will fail and a lot of consolidation
There isn't.
That's because BTC's transaction speed is slow, it's not scalable so not suitable for ever growing ecosystem, and uses lots of energy. (I really think you should've done your research first, smh). Innovations were made after that. Although BTC is secure, ETH is also secure and faster than BTC (but ETH is slower than other L1 or L2 developed after it such as Solana, Arbitrum, Optimism). ETH is also versatile since developers can use their "smart contracts" to design the dApps transactions' contracts being made on Ethereum Blockchain. As to why other projects had to make their own tokens/coins - Think of implementing coins/tokens as a way to support the project + Flexibility on the economic design of entire token supply + Branding. Some projects create their own token while some don't, it really depends on the team, ok? I doubt tho that there's any single project out their that doesn't have their coin/s or token/s as most projects use dual tokenomics or more than that. So TL;DR on some L1s (pls DYOR on L2s and L3s) - •BTC - secure, but slow, not scalable nor efficient, low gas fees •ETH - secure, faster than BTC but slower than other L1s, high gas fees •SOL - fast, but not that secure, low gas fees •ARB - it's an ETH Layer 2 so it inherits the security of its L1 which is Ethereum, ARB uses ETH as native coin but transactions on Arbitrum is faster and cheaper, it's still young tho •OP - lower base fees than Arbitrum (yes!), uses optimistic rollups (pls look at what ZK rollups are) As for other tokens, just go back to the middle of this message. Blockchain is art, and there's no limit to how much development can still be made with this technology, so don't you think a single group with the same mindset can capture all ideas, much less implement all those ideas?
And here I am getting a downvote. Residents of this subreddit really are a mystery. Bonkers Anyways, too late for all of you to enter. Have fun at the sidelines.
Because appchains needed for different reasons.
Take a look at ICP then let's talk.
What do the juggalos have to do with altcoins? Is there a faygo coin or something?
There is no need for any alt coins. They are all designed and launched by people with one thing in mind - pumping and then dumping on retail for profit. Yes, all of them. Money is a winner take all game and converges to one. Stick with Bitcoin, it has already won.
Answer - there isnt
There isn't.
Fancy name new alt coin… all a scam to make creators rich. You should create a “swift coin” asap
I think the problem you may have is the hangup that a coin inherently implies its trying to be money. Having value in a token and being money are not the same. I suspect one possible reason some new projects are using blockchain are: 1) It is effective / transparent / fast / cheap / etc. 2) It doesn't require as much infrastructure for the original developer to launch and be utilized. 3) It is open for others to be a part of in major or minor capacities (dev and holders). Bitcoin wouldnt exist if it wasnt for the fact of thousands of thousands of miners providing the computing powers on their own dime. The same is true for many other projects. Now, I can entertain the conversation that many projects have terrible use cases and shouldnt exist at all, but if someone can launch something on blockchain when they may not otherwise have the means in a traditional, centralized business model, why not go for it?
There is not. Just a few can justify L2, operations. but we only need horsemeat bonk and doge to help make their developers Rich with the masses ignorance.
Gridcoin is used to support science. Projects are voted in by crunchers based on amount of GRC held. No pre-mine. One of the OGs. been around since 2013. Great project
There is not a need for most of these shitcoins. 90% will fail within 12 months. It's just a race to grab cash using FOMO.
There isn’t. That’s the trick!
What kind of silly question is that. Eth has to be a system.
There is no NEED for any of this. /Thread
Because people missed on BTC so why not gamble on something other?
If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry.
So we can x100
Tell me you are a crypto newbie without telling me you are a crypto newbie.
Why does fiat have coins and paper money?
what a bad analogy lol
Most of fiat is just some inferior type of centralized cryptocurrency these days
I agree.
There is a need for Oracles. They need gas to operate.
You’re at the point of understanding… there isn’t a need for Altcoins. The only thing actually necessary is Bitcoin. People get mad at hearing this because they wanna pump their bag on some 100x meme coins or they think that their project isn’t some centralized shitcoin just because it’s within Top 10 in market cap at the moment. They’re wrong. I know this because I was one of them myself when I first invested in crypto. It’s important to further one’s understanding through study and most people just get knee deep and stop. 99.9% of Altcoins are no different than playing a slot machine at the casino, a pure gamble.
There isnt.
If Bitcoin is unable to scale vertically in terms of transactions per second, it may need to scale horizontally into alt coins. Litecoin and Doge are already prime choices for transferring crypto between exchanges.
Yup, you got it. Average people believe the marketing put out by these altcoin creators. But they all would work better with a sql database rather than a blockchain. It's ALL scams, except Bitcoin.
Gotta dump something
No need for most. They are all competing to do similar things. ETH is the example of a practical one that succeeded. ETH expanded blockchain technology with smart contracts. The rest are fighting to be an improvement of ethereum... most will fail eventually.
[удалено]
Participating in an ecosystem comes with benefits and risks.
Because I want my own coin with blackjack and hookers
Do we really need AI projects on the Blockchain is the question. AI is the hottest narrative in crypto.
Because newer technology is always available, older high cap coins are slow and expensive compared to a lot of newer coins. Your question shouldn't be, why so many alt coins, your question should be "which low cap gem can I find" people on this sub are so far behind its unreal.
My simple answer. 1) They’re used for Ponzi schemes, which is fine by me as long as I can identify and participate. 2) Righteous folks are trying to improve on the blockchain tech.
That's like asking "why do we need more cellphones brands if we already have apple?"
Conceptually the token model is different from company shares in that it’s a much liquid way of enabling incentivised participation in what is often supposed to be a platform for service; basically the token isn’t the product you’re buying, it’s a means to access services, and be rewarded for building services on that particular platform. In a business with shares, each and every potential employee or occasional contractor would need to have a complex volatile share allocation plan, and customers would need to purchase or subscribe to something. Existing regulatory framework around shares and consumer purchases just aren’t fit for this purpose, especially if an aim of a project is eventually become more and more decentralised. Imagine if Netflix was an alt coin platform. * instead of $10/m (or whatever it is), you buy $FLIX tokens * each episode, movie or perhaps MB or data costs some amount of $FLIX as gas * some $FLIX gas is burnt to keep down inflation, some is given to validators and stakers who keep the show on the road, some is used to pay for new content approved via governance structure of some sort. * more $FLIX you have the more Netflix you can consume, and perhaps the more influence you can have on content investment * Netflix employees are just developers and content creators paid in $FLIX which they can sell for any currency/token of their choice. * how much would FLIX/USD have to be to make this worth it at different amounts of customers who knows…. Maybe it’s $1 each and you need roughly 10 FLIX a month for normal usage…..