I've been messing around with some tiny cap coins lately. You could call them shitcoins, but honestly all coins started as tiny caps, so maybe if you attempted to pass judgment like that, you would probably have to say that all coins started as shitcoins.
If one tried to break down what a coin is, and I do mean really break it down. Its nothing more than an attempt to create an idea of usage that will attract users, that in turn will make a big group of people converge into finding the proposition(idea) valuable.
I realize the concept is somewhat abstract, but its not really that different of how any product really works. It would be difficult to sell you a piece of technology in any way shape or form, if you had absolutely no use for it. However, If my product idea has a use case for you, then you would probably require less convincing.
In this sense the somewhat crazy speculative market of tiny caps is probably the best place to see this in action. Mainly because there is little to no funding to back any idea up. In other words, if there is any holes in the idea, any lack of foresight and the positive sentiment is gone, the tiny caps will come crashing down to nothing before it's time for dinner.
Successful ideas however, they make it through those times simply because the idea itself was for lack of a better description: "crash proof" (not in practice, but theoretically yes). Meaning that when the usual psychological profiles show up to participate of that particular community, their negative actions wont effectively change the general consensus. A good idea is still a good idea regardless of the power of a troll, you could say.
Now, up until a few days ago I would have probably left my analysis there and felt somewhat satisfied. Meaning that, I was OK with thinking that strong ideas will always prevail, but that failed to account for other elements that are not so apparent at first glance. Things like leadership and timing play probably an equal role on the success or lack there of for a new coin project.
Here's what's crazy for me to see. The inability for people to operate on their best interest when things are not going the way they expected. In other words, some investors of these tiny caps will have crazy high expectations, as if they are owed the new DASH, just because they were early adopters. This is not saying that it could not happen, that the project itself is not worth of outperforming DASH even, that's possible, but buying lotto tickets and being angry you've lost all the times you did, is just as logical.
This is of course not the case for all new projects, there are some who enjoy the benefits of a strong community and capable leadership, and funny enough some of their success is more connected to that than the unique value proposition.
Where am I going with this? I have no clue, I figured I would write some of my current thoughts on the matter, since I'm sure to change my mind in the future again and It's always good to leave some mental time machines laying around.
• Helpienaut Meeting 7/9/2018
• Unlimited content editing - New Steem Feature
• Got a facelift today. Well, kinda...
• A hard question to start off your monday
• Open Mic Week 92 - Top 5 Selection and Honorable Mentions
I realize the concept is somewhat abstract, but its not really that different of how any product really works. It would be difficult to sell you a piece of technology in any way shape or form, if you had absolutely no use for it. However, If my product idea has a use case for you, then you would probably require less convincing.
In this sense the somewhat crazy speculative market of tiny caps is probably the best place to see this in action. Mainly because there is little to no funding to back any idea up. In other words, if there is any holes in the idea, any lack of foresight and the positive sentiment is gone, the tiny caps will come crashing down to nothing before it's time for dinner.
Successful ideas however, they make it through those times simply because the idea itself was for lack of a better description: "crash proof" (not in practice, but theoretically yes). Meaning that when the usual psychological profiles show up to participate of that particular community, their negative actions wont effectively change the general consensus. A good idea is still a good idea regardless of the power of a troll, you could say.
Now, up until a few days ago I would have probably left my analysis there and felt somewhat satisfied. Meaning that, I was OK with thinking that strong ideas will always prevail, but that failed to account for other elements that are not so apparent at first glance. Things like leadership and timing play probably an equal role on the success or lack there of for a new coin project.
Here's what's crazy for me to see. The inability for people to operate on their best interest when things are not going the way they expected. In other words, some investors of these tiny caps will have crazy high expectations, as if they are owed the new DASH, just because they were early adopters. This is not saying that it could not happen, that the project itself is not worth of outperforming DASH even, that's possible, but buying lotto tickets and being angry you've lost all the times you did, is just as logical.
This is of course not the case for all new projects, there are some who enjoy the benefits of a strong community and capable leadership, and funny enough some of their success is more connected to that than the unique value proposition.
Where am I going with this? I have no clue, I figured I would write some of my current thoughts on the matter, since I'm sure to change my mind in the future again and It's always good to leave some mental time machines laying around.
Other posts by yours truly
• Helpienaut Meeting 7/9/2018
• Unlimited content editing - New Steem Feature
• Got a facelift today. Well, kinda...
• A hard question to start off your monday
• Open Mic Week 92 - Top 5 Selection and Honorable Mentions