Altcoins Talks - Cryptocurrency Forum
Cryptocurrency Ecosystem => DeFi tokens => Topic started by: AlphaBeta on January 23, 2025, 05:46:51 PM
-
Considering how much talk we get about how there's a need for the ability to manage assets across multiple blockchain networks, and how this can be very expensive and confusing if users like me want to do it.
One would think that solutions like SKY with its Sky Link feature that enhances assets management would be getting lots of exposure, especially because the platform has been here for a while, although under a different name.
Some people on BTT have mentioned that it might be because this rebrand is still very new and it takes some time before people get used to it, and I wanted to know if people here also think that's the issue.
-
base on some interviews i watched about tokens or projects that went up, its because there huge institutions rising on it like Solana and Eth. without them no matter how good the token use cse is, its still going to end up below those tokens they backed with.
few others was that, they just got lucky some people are trying to aheed of the hype. they may still drop out the rank as hype dies.
-
The rebranding will definitely be a reason for that, but it might also be that they haven't proven themselves to be worthy of the attention. If anything now, they should be getting more recognition especially with their token's listing on Bit get and Kucoin. The token has quite a bit of utility but the project's recognition can't just be brought through a token alone, they also need to make the said utility worth utilizing...if you catch my drift. Either way, the project is out there now. Whether it gets recognition will be left to how it improves their user's trading experience.
-
One would think that solutions like SKY with its Sky Link feature that enhances assets management would be getting lots of exposure, especially because the platform has been here for a while, although under a different name.
A good product also needs good marketing, to be honest. Do they spend a lot of money on influencers, ads, banners on explorers, and so on? I have a few projects on my list that I believe to have some value for the market, but they have no capital to market themselves hence why they failed to get significant liquidity on any exchange. Some of them died last year, and then some random projects pop out using the same idea but managed to gain traction because they spend money on marketing.
-
Utility is dead!
Look at what coins now are doing, it's all hype, fomo, vaporware, and nothing else!
All the utility is about creating meme and swapping meme coins, they've realized that actual utility is way to hard to obtain and even major coins fail at this!
So no, advertising 1 billion people might use it will work only if people are gullible enough to believe it, but in the current state of the ecosystem, there is no future for actual utility.
-
Utility is dead!
Look at what coins now are doing, it's all hype, fomo, vaporware, and nothing else!
All the utility is about creating meme and swapping meme coins, they've realized that actual utility is way to hard to obtain and even major coins fail at this!
So no, advertising 1 billion people might use it will work only if people are gullible enough to believe it, but in the current state of the ecosystem, there is no future for actual utility.
dark bro, very dark.
-
Re: Is Utility alone enough to give a project exposure?
I've always saying in the past that UTILITY is one of the big factors on the success of the project. Well, I guess that isn't the case anymore based on what's happening right now with the market.
As the above post said, right now, it's the hype that matters and a project that has no hype at all has a lower chance of becoming a successful one. That's also the reason why there are projects that are riding the hype right now. Just look at those "AI coins". They aren't considered "AI coins" at first, but because there's a hype around it, many rode it and some became successful. Same with meme coins where it's all meme coins, meme coins, and more meme coins. :-X :-X :-X
Utility doesn't matter that much anymore. Community and hype is.
-
For me, utility is very important but surely not the only thing that can make a platform successful and we have seen this in the past and even today- just providing good reasons why a platform must gain some traction is never enough and we should understand that there is really no guarantee whatsoever in the cryptocurrency market. You can provide the best and yet the market is not recognizing what you can be bringing. And that is why many platforms have to advertise, build the trust of the market by building their own community of users and supporters and them collaborate and be endorsed by other related platforms and even personalities. And of course, there can be more, you need some luck in this getting to be crowded market so you will stand out among the rest.
-
Some people on BTT have mentioned that it might be because this rebrand is still very new and it takes some time before people get used to it, and I wanted to know if people here also think that's the issue.
yes utility is important and essential to a project but without the backing of a community it would not almost be appreciated this is why we see many projects that are good on paper but does not get a lot of appreciation from the community maybe the utility is not the most unique most effective and efficient one or maybe there just is not enough promotion of the project
at the end of the day there should still be enough noise around the project to be considered it successful
-
~
dark bro, very dark.
Dark, uncomfortable, scary, and depressing, but unfortunately still the reality.
Apart from one small cluster that becomes silent in the noise of pump and dumper schemes, there is almost nothing left out of the original ideas.
Also just because I say it so bluntly doesn'tt mean I like it or I have a solution to counter it, I accept while keeping my right to see the ecosystem for what it actually is.
-
base on some interviews i watched about tokens or projects that went up, its because there huge institutions rising on it like Solana and Eth. without them no matter how good the token use cse is, its still going to end up below those tokens they backed with.
few others was that, they just got lucky some people are trying to aheed of the hype. they may still drop out the rank as hype dies.
That's a good point I liked it +1, most of the coins we don't invest are not from Sol and ETH thought but they are from other chains, the ones mostly exists on SOl are meme coins and people are still into them but they can't overtake Sol and the ones on ETH chain can overtake ETH by price but not marketcap.
So to be more precise, we can say marketcap wise a token can't overtake the native token of the chain it is built on.
Overall, we usecase is important for the exposure of a project but still many get exposure even with no usecase but long term existence need usecase.
-
That's a good point I liked it +1, most of the coins we don't invest are not from Sol and ETH thought but they are from other chains, the ones mostly exists on SOl are meme coins and people are still into them but they can't overtake Sol and the ones on ETH chain can overtake ETH by price but not marketcap.
a marketcap is calculated by the current price and total coins circulating a lot of the native coins have very limited amount of coins in circulation making them deflationary it’s also helpful that the native coins are what needed for fees even with other memecoins making them always valuable
Overall, we usecase is important for the exposure of a project but still many get exposure even with no usecase but long term existence need usecase.
very well said use case is what determines longevity and sustainability but does not exactly guarantee hype and popularity
-
a marketcap is calculated by the current price and total coins circulating a lot of the native coins have very limited amount of coins in circulation making them deflationary it’s also helpful that the native coins are what needed for fees even with other memecoins making them always valuable
You are right, this is how the tokenomics of a platform should be when there is no or lesser supply and burning at the same time, The deflationary nature of the token made it's price to boost up even if BTC has no burning mechanism the lost BTC are also considered burn because they can't be recovered and will not be included in the circulation, so they are burnt.
very well said use case is what determines longevity and sustainability but does not exactly guarantee hype and popularity
I can't agree more as hype and popularity comes with the trend of narrative in the market, as now the trend is of AI therefore metaverse and gaming projects will not pump that hard.
-
a lot of the native coins have very limited amount of coins in circulation making them deflationary it’s also helpful that the native coins are what needed for fees even with other memecoins making them always valuable
I don't think deflationary is the right term for that. Based on what I understand, deflationary implies the total supply will continuously decrease, which is not the case for Bitcoin even though some coins are lost due to various reasons. Wouldn't use that term be a bit misleading? Speaking of marketcap, last time I checked there was a new metric called diluted marketcap which shows the total marketcap based on total supply instead of circulating supply. Not sure how useful that is considering people buy things based on hype nowadays.
-
~
-
If I'm not mistaken, utility is often the biggest thing like in the 2017 to 2019ish 'crypto era'. Close to that is the coin/token supply that will be circulated in the market. After the rise of the meme tokens launched on Ethereum, BSC, Solana, and other networks, not a lot cared about real utility anymore. It seems the game now is how quickly you move your money from one project to another.