Two-Faced Market Dissonance

These growing pains can manifest in many ways, such as in costly protocol upgrades for increased scalability and the like, but in this post I want to highlight one of the more nuanced but essential aches: the mentality of trading markets that do not intersect with the practical value of a given coin. This misalignment is not inherently bad. In fact, it should be expected and considered when gauging the future direction of crypto.

At this point in time, and possibly for more time to come, how we assign value to these coins involves a process that does not always take into consideration a given coin's identity and function. For example, stocks can be said to indicate a strong correlation between the performance of a given company and that company's stock value. If a public company performs good, bad, or aims to restructure or diversify its investments and ventures, etc., then it should be generally reflected in its stock value. A company's stock should reflect that company's identity and function, in other words.

Opposingly, the trading market for cryptocurrencies determines a given coin's value as it relates to the ebbs and flows of the trading market, with less emphasis and dependence on that coin's current and projected utility outside of trading. Like I said, this is not an inherently bad thing. If this relative misalignment indicates anything, it shows the youth of crypto application and the barrier to entry and understanding the "speciation" of coins. In the trading market, each coin takes on a new persona: sometimes a distortion of its application, and at other times something completely different.

What matters is that there ARE markets for crypto, for not only should the coins we use evolve and grow but should also evolve and grow new markets potentially unforseen. As long as we are thriving and jiving, everything else is relative.