@HopeHK ok how long do you think it will take for the current generation of cryptos to fade out and be replaced? I would argue that Bitcoin has such a strong “brand” that it will be like AOL and have many iterations before finally decaying into non-use
Looks like will start to see second-generation cryptos (like chainblx) pretty soon. But as you said, Bitcoin has such a strong brand that it will linger around for a long time. A semi-educated guess would be a year or so before 2.0 cryptos really take over for 1.0 cryptos
what will ‘second-generation’ crypto currencies do that Bitcoin doesn’t??
Be backed by real assets, which will foster stability and crediblity
Solve the issue of scalability, decentralization, transaction speed… we need all three!
Increased security for the user.
This is just a starter… there are many many little flaws that will have to be overcome in order to achieve wider adoption
YES!! for me it’s security. As it stands, it’s about as safe as filling your mattress with cash. There are so many ways to blow it and have your money stolen or just outright lose it. I don’t know how they can overcome this though, and maintain the things that are great about digital
This is an old argument. You can’t have all three of those things, at least not yet.
You didn’t read the thread. We are saying that this generation of cryptocurrencies CAN’T do all three and THAT’s why we a new generation of cryptocurrencies will replace the ones we have now which are basically prototypes.
Unless you change the laws of physics the trilemma of Decentralization, Scalability, and Security cannot be resolved. You will always have to choose a sweet spot of balance between the three depending on what your goals are. This is just the way it is.
Here’s a great article by an economist explaining the shortfall of cryptos that are not asset-backed. Some great points:
“The investment case for (non-asset backed) cryptocurrencies is weak. Unlike stocks and bonds, currencies generate no cash flows such as interest payments or dividends that can explain their prices. National currencies derive their prices from the underlying economic activity of the countries that issue them. Cryptocurrency prices, on the other hand, are generally not based on economic fundamentals. To date, their prices have depended more on speculation about their eventual adoption and use.”
I haven’t heard it put this way before, but that’s a great way to say it. Any ‘real’ value is that chance that wide adoption will occur and cryptos will be useful as a currency. This puts the energy-consumption as stored value theory to rest.
This is a good way to counter volatility. A predetermined issuance rate, combined with the fact that the coin is backed by real assets, should really level things out in comparison to the coins that are out there now. This is the first step toward adoption as a useful currency for sure. Nobody wants to take $100 out of an ATM and have it be worth $95 by lunch time!
it does look like a better solution than halving rewards, which is going to throw a lot of Bitcoin miners under a bus
I really like this solution. It stabilizes the price but does not alter the miners’ rewards
I wonder if this is possible because the chainblx crypto is asset-backed. I’m no economics expert, but the existence of hard assets behind the currency seems to solve a lot of problems like inflation within the ecosystem, and it eliminates things that make current cryptos so difficult to use.
yep that’s exactly it. If the currency is asset-backed (as ChainBLX is going to do), it allows for the agility that will be needed for wider adoption.
I think most investors in cryptocurrencies are betting that there will be a breakthrough in wide adoption. But this just can’t happen with the way first generation cryptocurrencies are designed
It will be interesting to see the features of this platform once it rolls out. I will be following it closely.
My guess is both. It will have longevity but at a very low price. BTC will level out on brand name alone at about $1000.
I think the answer to the question is no. First-generation cryptos CAN survive on the simple fact that people believe in them. But the CAN’T survive based on their intrinsic design.