The god-eat-dog capitalists are at it again!
This time it's Brad Garlinghouse.
90% wasn't enough?
We've all heard this one.
Most venture capitalists have experience with 90% of startups dying.
It's natural that they would project that experience onto the blockchain.
Unit-Bias
Right out of the gate these numbers undermine themselves.
Really? 90% exactly? 99% exactly?
Why not 87%? Why not 98.6%?
The answer is obvious:
Because these numbers were just pulled out of thin air
with very little backing them up.
2:00
Anytime there's a new market there's a lot of people that run into that market and try to show that they can solve a problem; they can deliver a customer need. I have said publicly before that I think 99% of all crypto probably goes to zero.
What is this metric based on?
Well, there are just too many of them.
Oh wow, duh!
How insightful.
Everyone with this mindset spews this concept because the idea of thousands of cryptos just doesn't really make sense to them going forward. The thing I find so interesting about this is that the current state of affairs also doesn't make sense to them, so they have to do mental gymnastics around the current reality because it is incontestable.
Nobody rejects the reality that there are in fact 3000 cryptos being traded on a daily basis. Therefore these legacy capitalists must accept the current reality and work their way backwards.
I'm willing to bet all these people would have told you that Litecoin was going to die when the only two cryptos were Bitcoin and Litecoin. I certainly would have... and I did when I first made my Coinbase account and Litecoin was being sold for $5 a coin or less.
It's just a copy of Bitcoin?
LOL that's going to fail.
Wow... $5... what a rip-off.
---@edicted 2016
I have since learned my lesson
Linked to the idea that (blockchain == DOT_COM)
stinc-has-already-gone-bankrupt-by-dot-com-standards
ridiculous-dot-com-bubble-comparison
cryptocurrency-bubble-vs-dot-com (first post ever)
I'm actually kind of proud of myself that my first post ever on the Steem blockchain was about how crypto is incomparable to dot-com.
The absolutely biggest reason that dot-com and DLT can not be compared is the open-source aspect. Being open source shifts the space from one of competition and efficiency to one based around cooperation and community. Crypto can't compete with itself because there is no such thing as intellectual property and it exists in a limitless digital space.
| Application | Decentralization | Inflation | Speed | Community |
|---|
These are the attributes I use to rank crypto.
Venture capitalists are much more likely to focus on the application aspect of cryptocurrency; The whole "they-can-deliver-a-customer-need" aspect. However, we've already seen that application is not required for blockchains to be successful.
Projects like Dogecoin prove this.
Community is the only thing that matters.
These networks only need two nodes (two people) to remain valid.
Imagine a venture capitalist looking at 1000 different book clubs saying that 90% of them are going to die.
You'd laugh in their face.
Communities don't die like that.
Just like book clubs do not have overhead costs to operate, neither do blockchains. To make the claim that blockchains will die even when there are people out there willing to work for free or even pay money to keep them running is just silly. The cost to maintain these networks is dirt cheap, especially when they aren't popular.
Application.
So what is the true application of projects like Dogecoin that have no application? Simply being a separate currency with a unique distribution is enough.
We are already well past the point of no return regarding this argument. The same rhetoric keeps getting spouted... yet we are already 10 months into a solid Bitcoin bull run. Where is the apocalypse? Why haven't thousands of projects died yet? If this truly was anything like other tech bubbles, we would have seen it already.
I find it comical that so many still cling to this ideology that only applies to the old legacy economy, regardless of how many times they are proved wrong. It reminds me of how many times Bitcoin has been declared dead by well respected media organizations. 377 times and counting.
The irony of this statement coming from Ripple cannot be overstated.
What does XRP have to offer when it comes to permissionless open censorship resistant networks? Literally nothing. It's not open source. It's not decentralized. It's not crypto. It just looks like crypto to the uninformed; essentially it is a good template for fiat to copy and hype up with propaganda.
When asked about the volatility of Ripple Brad Garlinghouse parrots some nonsense about how XRP is actually less volatile than the SWIFT network due to the time it takes to make a transaction. Talk about solving a problem that no one has, this logic also fails to consider that fiat currency is essential in order to make the statement true.
Conclusion
Exponential growth doesn't make sense to the human brain. It is something that only occurs in nature if the resources exist to physically support it. Even then that growth comes to an abrupt halt when those resources run out.
Crypto exists in the digital space, and therefore has no limit to how high it can ascend. Just like the technology before it, blockchain tech will continue to propel itself into the future exponentially, baffling all that witness the takeover.
The number of these networks isn't going to decrease. The exponential growth will continue at least as long as mainstream adoption has not been achieved. Even then I'm not so sure. There is no limit on community or tokenization of assets. The more people reject the reality of this new open source economy, the more gains can be made by those that understand it.