The blockchain is dead. Long live the blockchain
The name HYIP, the author is wrong, dizlike, no constructive. This article is a reflection on the current situation on the cryptocurrency market. There will be no in-depth analysis of the situation and an immense philosophy of where we are going.
I feel like a member of an anonymous club. Hello, I am Ivan, I am a crypto (fool ) enthusiast. I tried in 2013, I did not try it. Repeated at the end of 2016, now, now I can not get down. This is interesting, rich in events. What kind? Everything below, as far as possible unbiasedly, but, one hundred percent, not objectively.
This is a brief overview of everything that happened during these two years 2017-2018, details of each can be studied from the proofs attached to the theses, or you can google it yourself. Like this format? Stock up on tea, there will be a lot of letters, criticism, both objective and not so.
Let's agree. All in my article IMHO. Do not agree with the opinion? Welcome to the comments - we will discuss.
So, once upon a time, a globally accepted data storage algorithm, called a blockchain, was created not so long ago. Before him there were other attempts, but today is not about that.
I don’t dare to describe what it is, everyone has already read about it a hundred times. Another thing is important: every mention of technology is tightly bound to a currency. Initially to bitcoin, later - to many of his (and not) counterparts. But ... Yes, I understand why it was necessary then, at the beginning of the technology began. So the consensus was conceived. But let me, Bitcoin itself has long ago stepped forward, retaining the vision and basic technological principles. But since then, only a few projects have tried to achieve something new. And most importantly, almost no one undertakes to separate these two concepts. Where is it from? Always everyone says, distinguish and share, but all the projects are universally attached to the fact that the blockchain must go together with some koin. Any dispute is slipping into demagogy about the unchanging connection between these concepts.
For some reason, few people remember, for example, about the project Hyperledger, which was created and maintained by large fintech companies precisely with the aim of developing a technology without a token in the structure. If we talk about some well-known market projects, then by many the least favorite Ripple is also a non-cryptocurrency registry, for which the token is a fiction. A wrapper for the people, so they have fun at the stock exchanges. All their clients use the technology of data transfer, transaction registration, but not the currency.
By the way, about customers and business. Each new technology takes root for many years, gaining supporters, developers, customers. Any traditional business reluctantly introduces advanced developments - this is a classic. In this question, of course, the blockchain is no exception. Nobody needs it where there are no / relational databases, where there are classic SWIFT and others like it, VISA, MasterCard. What is there to say, not all companies have pages on the Internet, and if they do have websites, it’s not a fact that some kind of work is done with customers and the community.
The blockchain is no exception. Appearing as an example of a commodity exchange system, over the past couple of years it has acquired many variations. But these solutions are not needed by the market. All these pretentious “YouTube on the blockchain” and others like him are just puff for the sake of a sharp wit, most of the projects disappeared after a crowdsale.
Marketing marketing, but we return to the main thesis that, first of all, it is technology, not currency. And if we are talking about technology, then the question of the rationality of implementation is important. Blockchain is not needed by everyone and not everywhere. People accept it. Sick fanaticism led to the fact that the community is uncompromisingly divided into ardent supporters and ardent opponents. This is a direct phenomenon. If you take any other technology, it calmly exists for itself, it is used by everyone who needs it, and who does not - simply recognize its right to life. And with the blockchain some unknown heresy. And just look at it as a data storage method that is relevant ... In some cases, no more.
By the way, about the crowdsale and implementation where you need it. No one will be surprised that the orgy and euphoria of 2017 ended in complete failure by the end of 2018. How did that happen? Let's take a quick look.
First, good thoughts in the human race do not take root. In place of ingeniously simple and truly philanthropic ideas, a market has grown, full of fraudsters and regulators. The analogue of crowdfunding from the real sector made in the world of the crypt not by the Wild West, as I repent, and I called it with everyone, but as an ordinary tent. This is a nursery for primates, where some orangutans beat themselves in the chest, how cool they are, baboons are dying out as a class, and only a few develop into homocapins of blockchainus, sorry for the French. The picture in the end is such that either they want to fool you (sometimes gracefully, sometimes impudently), or in order to acquire tokens of any project, you need to go out of the way with all these KYC / AML. And for some reason, no one is embarrassed by the fact that NO ONE gives a guarantee of passing through the very KYC / AML. And then they call you footage from brokerage houses and offer their services. And all because some project without a twinge of conscience leaked the contact database. There are, of course, solutions in this industry, in the form of auditors, even on the blockchain there are projects,Civic once collected a lot of money with a unique variant of the ICO to this day, but if every project had provided similar guarantees ... No wonder AMLT projects that provide an opportunity for address auditing begin to appear , but, again, this is not common, but rare .
The formation of supply and demand led to another significant problem. Blindness of investors. X's promise above all else. At the forefront is not the value of the project, but marketing tricks, it’s not in vain that the marketer in the blockchain-startup is only 20% marketer, and 80% salesman. As mentioned above, this is “the first in its segment / competitor on the blockchain”, this is the token price growth card for a couple of years ahead, the promise of dividends from the slightest bunch of teams. Most of the funds were collected both years by investment funds and projects that promised profit. Is it bad? Not.
By working with values, in one of the first lines, commercial market players began to pay attention to it. This has become a tool for circumventing sanctions, restrictions (the anonymous side of the blockchain), as well as proof of the perfect deal (publicity of the blockchain). This, of course, decided to speculate many companies.
Is it correct? We return to the distinction between the ideal scenario and human nature.
Because of such a huge infusion of funds into the finance segment, a strong public opinion emerged, which is how it should be. That blockchain and money are inseparable concepts. About this I gave a hint at the very beginning. People, what are you? The success of the project does not depend on the pricing of the token. Profit is not the ultimate goal of a startup. There are many uses of the blockchain, where the token may not be mentioned in the structure at all. And vice versa, why sulk him everywhere to increase one's own assessment when it is unreasonable?
Let us return to this issue later, and now back to the ICO problem.
The third problem (I am not outta)? These are young IT teams. Not even in terms of the blockchain, but of the business as a whole. They did not understand (and still, judging by the concepts, they do not understand) how to organize all business processes. How much to ask for the project. Their whole world is cool code in its idea. Further marketers and advisors entered the fray. The latter, in my humble opinion, is a cryptographic rudiment. Let's be honest. What function should they perform? And performed at the start of the ICO market. They gave advice to young guys to build a business, spoke escrow, communicated with their audience and promoted the project. What has it grown into? For a percentage of the collected caps allowed to write his name on the site along with fotochku. Cool. What's next? Because of these conventions and uselessness of useful people, projects often do not have their own financiers. The collected fabulous sums were spent thoughtlessly, the efficiency of projects was minimal. And investors in this regard do not learn anything.
Essentially. How many projects work successfully to this day? Of those who collected investments last year? And in this? I agree, compared to the end of 2017, the beginning of 2018, the end of this year cannot be compared in terms of fees and the number of start-up projects, but these projects appear! Almost every single day.
We continue to bomb. Point four. Evaluation of the prospects of the project and the roadmap. The euphoria of the first projects charged all the community members. “We will make a project that will change everything!”, “This is a revolution in the world of technology!”, Well, you understand. Therefore, loud slogans and promises are in use. All white papers promise X's, full of inspiring graphics to tear everyone and everything. But in practice goes zilch. The teams scatter, their heads run away with a lot of money. Technical papers are being rewritten due to the impossibility of realizing the promise, the sites are shamelessly removed Aether , the first platform for ICO, promised so much in the first version that it is still tearing itself into rags in order to at least somehow get closer to the first edition of WhitePaper. And that, the whole story remembers the DAO and the problems of every second ICO of these two years.
Of course, technologies evolve, evolve. Variants are swept away, die out, ideas grow into something new. The author of a recent article correctly wrote that another comes to the place of one. But people are holding on to mistakes, ready to lay their heads! All these blockchain evangelists, crypto enthusiasts. Who are you? Heirs of the new faith? What a massive insanity ?! Technology is technology, nothing more. The romance of complete decentralization and anonymity is dead.
She remained in your fantasies and in the fantasies of the latest crypto-anarchists, who are by nature an endangered species. History does not like revolution, and man is inherently a latent creature. The justified fear of a cardinal change of rules hinders the introduction of technology, it can be seen everywhere. The last ones that meet all official criteria of cryptocurrency are similar to rudiments, which regulators still strive to remove, destroy.
The classic "but": Bitcoin - Dad, he will exist, this is not going anywhere.
And you know, this is such a pain that is on the verge of an itch, like a mosquito bite. In fact, it is unpleasant, but you still pay attention and scratch. Hundreds of projects raise the money God knows what and how, and the hamster people bring in all their money and loans.
Therefore, platforms for creating tokens became a trend - a lightweight tool for generating candy wrappers for all comers.
The leader here is definitely one - the ether. What about other projects in this area? They are somewhere worse, somewhere better, somewhere radically different. But the most important thing is that they exist! Do you know how many projects go on them? Units!
Here are the statistics for these two years from one of the trackers:
Yes, Tron, Ontology, EOS are new projects, start-ups did not have time to go to them. Plus, importantly, the data is not representative due to the lack of correlation with other trackers.
But what does the proposed information tell us? People either copy other people's smart contracts on the air, or copy someone else's blockchains from the github. Quality is killed by banal laziness. Many people often do not even check what they downloaded and how it will function.
The dominance of one platform, not the most convenient, led to the fact that the market is not able to cause a stir new startups, because they are not visible! Tritely not visible in the total mass of slag, even technologically or functionally it is something interesting.
The community remembers the projects on the Ether that were first and large. Wings , Bangorpreviously mentioned Civic. You can still remember from the heels of projects. What about other platforms? On Nem: PundiX , COMSA and maybe another one or two. On Neo THEKEY and everything, perhaps. On Stellar: Mobius and now it is actively seen in the chat of the new HelpCoin project .
Significant can only be called a fork Bitshares in the face of Steem and Golos . And those problems are above the roof. But they gave the opportunity to talk and receive remuneration for everyone without restrictions or requirements. And this, again, is not ICO, but precisely that fork of technology.
Can you recall any recent ICO projects that really cost something?
This whole picture led to the natural death of ICO as a phenomenon, but even today more than a hundred projects of varying degrees of quality are in the queue for adding to the trackers.
The next evolutionary step after ICO is called STO . But this only suggests that the regulator is holding even tighter by the thighs of the developers.
There are two extremes of the same coin. Either you are in the mass of different shitcoin, or you are looking for large investors for yourself to STO. I am sorry for the developers who need to exist in this market today. Guys, you are great, if you don’t give up projects and lead them no matter what. Survive useful and brought to release.
As a sweet, if you suddenly think about creating your ICO, then watch the video at the beginningwhen it will be available again (I do not know why the author closed it), where a specialist will call you the real financial costs of promoting the project in order to get a plus after the crowdsale. This will either discourage all desire, or make you think about how you want to create a project - under the control of all possible organs, or just like any other fintech project - calmly, on your knees, in the garage, with friends. Create a story.
All, if not felt, noticed a new crypto depression. This year alone, Bitcoin was buried (we are talking about statements in a little bit of large media) 90 times .
This trend spawned a psychological bubble many years ago that the price of cryptocurrency is the price of technology. If bitcoin crashed - blockchain scam. If bitcoin took off - blockchain is useful. Very contrived trend. Explain to me, fool, what is the reason?
Despite the funeral of every second major project, people still do. Do not leave started. And what do they care about the price of a token on the stock exchange? In fact, none. For example, Constellation , they lost in price more than 90%, but nonetheless calmly released a testnet for themselves, talking about their technology. Or RSKthat implements smart contracts on bitcoin. They did not have a crowd, but they continue to work. In general, I think it is important to have such “independent” projects that are created for the sake of technology, so that there is development where there is complete stagnation (and it is impossible to name the current market otherwise).
One of the most popular topics in cryptocurrency was energy-intensive mining. As a solution, a process on hard drives and other media was proposed. There are practically no projects left in this area: Burst somehow breathes, but the Storj is hardly a full-fledged project, since today it is already a token on Ether, and not an independent ecosystem. There is Chia, I propose to draw attention to it to everyone interested - the BitTirrenta developer is working on the project. Well, this is open source, sin not to share.
In general, let's share projects that are of practical benefit to society. They are, but find the whole task. And since you have read to this point, it means that you also have something to say. I will wait in the comments.
Now I want to talk a little about the media. The coolest thing that could be - killed by huge infusions of money. For the publication of an article about the project, the news portals want so much that one wonders if you know prices from the classical sector.
A simple example: an article in CoinTelegraph can be placed for $ 2900. Relevant audience (based on public information from the telegram channel) is 7500 people (with almost 8.000.000 claimed by contractors). But the paid placement of an article on the portal of the tier 1 business sector, Forbes, will cost through the counterparty approximately $ 5,200, with a declared audience of more than 112,150,000 people.
And now, attention, the question is: is it worth it to look at the crypto media in general if they demand such fabulous sums for many times less exhaust than comparable news portals from business and fintech environments?
Instead of answering, I suggest you read the article , where even if in a rude manner, but quite intelligibly, the interviewer and his interlocutor spoke about this.
Blockchain is more alive than dead. But that sickly atmosphere that has covered him with a growth is a problem. I hope that the new year will bring people the awareness that they need to pursue not candy wrappers and profits from them, but to a really useful application of technology in those areas where it is necessary.
In the article, I lowered a lot, did not raise questions of forks, technological alternatives (as the phrase “Bitcoin 2.0”, “Blockchain 3.0” beloved by marketers), the question of mining in general and much more. If it turns out to be interesting, I will sort it out separately, beyond the framework of the totals.
Once you have read my lack, I want to thank you for your patience, thank you so much.
Happy New Year! I wish to the moon and all that he brings with him good.
I feel like a member of an anonymous club. Hello, I am Ivan, I am a crypto (
This is a brief overview of everything that happened during these two years 2017-2018, details of each can be studied from the proofs attached to the theses, or you can google it yourself. Like this format? Stock up on tea, there will be a lot of letters, criticism, both objective and not so.
In the beginning was the word, and the word is - blockchain
Let's agree. All in my article IMHO. Do not agree with the opinion? Welcome to the comments - we will discuss.
So, once upon a time, a globally accepted data storage algorithm, called a blockchain, was created not so long ago. Before him there were other attempts, but today is not about that.
I don’t dare to describe what it is, everyone has already read about it a hundred times. Another thing is important: every mention of technology is tightly bound to a currency. Initially to bitcoin, later - to many of his (and not) counterparts. But ... Yes, I understand why it was necessary then, at the beginning of the technology began. So the consensus was conceived. But let me, Bitcoin itself has long ago stepped forward, retaining the vision and basic technological principles. But since then, only a few projects have tried to achieve something new. And most importantly, almost no one undertakes to separate these two concepts. Where is it from? Always everyone says, distinguish and share, but all the projects are universally attached to the fact that the blockchain must go together with some koin. Any dispute is slipping into demagogy about the unchanging connection between these concepts.
For some reason, few people remember, for example, about the project Hyperledger, which was created and maintained by large fintech companies precisely with the aim of developing a technology without a token in the structure. If we talk about some well-known market projects, then by many the least favorite Ripple is also a non-cryptocurrency registry, for which the token is a fiction. A wrapper for the people, so they have fun at the stock exchanges. All their clients use the technology of data transfer, transaction registration, but not the currency.
Business solution
By the way, about customers and business. Each new technology takes root for many years, gaining supporters, developers, customers. Any traditional business reluctantly introduces advanced developments - this is a classic. In this question, of course, the blockchain is no exception. Nobody needs it where there are no / relational databases, where there are classic SWIFT and others like it, VISA, MasterCard. What is there to say, not all companies have pages on the Internet, and if they do have websites, it’s not a fact that some kind of work is done with customers and the community.
The blockchain is no exception. Appearing as an example of a commodity exchange system, over the past couple of years it has acquired many variations. But these solutions are not needed by the market. All these pretentious “YouTube on the blockchain” and others like him are just puff for the sake of a sharp wit, most of the projects disappeared after a crowdsale.
Marketing marketing, but we return to the main thesis that, first of all, it is technology, not currency. And if we are talking about technology, then the question of the rationality of implementation is important. Blockchain is not needed by everyone and not everywhere. People accept it. Sick fanaticism led to the fact that the community is uncompromisingly divided into ardent supporters and ardent opponents. This is a direct phenomenon. If you take any other technology, it calmly exists for itself, it is used by everyone who needs it, and who does not - simply recognize its right to life. And with the blockchain some unknown heresy. And just look at it as a data storage method that is relevant ... In some cases, no more.
ICO Market
By the way, about the crowdsale and implementation where you need it. No one will be surprised that the orgy and euphoria of 2017 ended in complete failure by the end of 2018. How did that happen? Let's take a quick look.
First, good thoughts in the human race do not take root. In place of ingeniously simple and truly philanthropic ideas, a market has grown, full of fraudsters and regulators. The analogue of crowdfunding from the real sector made in the world of the crypt not by the Wild West, as I repent, and I called it with everyone, but as an ordinary tent. This is a nursery for primates, where some orangutans beat themselves in the chest, how cool they are, baboons are dying out as a class, and only a few develop into homocapins of blockchainus, sorry for the French. The picture in the end is such that either they want to fool you (sometimes gracefully, sometimes impudently), or in order to acquire tokens of any project, you need to go out of the way with all these KYC / AML. And for some reason, no one is embarrassed by the fact that NO ONE gives a guarantee of passing through the very KYC / AML. And then they call you footage from brokerage houses and offer their services. And all because some project without a twinge of conscience leaked the contact database. There are, of course, solutions in this industry, in the form of auditors, even on the blockchain there are projects,Civic once collected a lot of money with a unique variant of the ICO to this day, but if every project had provided similar guarantees ... No wonder AMLT projects that provide an opportunity for address auditing begin to appear , but, again, this is not common, but rare .
The formation of supply and demand led to another significant problem. Blindness of investors. X's promise above all else. At the forefront is not the value of the project, but marketing tricks, it’s not in vain that the marketer in the blockchain-startup is only 20% marketer, and 80% salesman. As mentioned above, this is “the first in its segment / competitor on the blockchain”, this is the token price growth card for a couple of years ahead, the promise of dividends from the slightest bunch of teams. Most of the funds were collected both years by investment funds and projects that promised profit. Is it bad? Not.
By working with values, in one of the first lines, commercial market players began to pay attention to it. This has become a tool for circumventing sanctions, restrictions (the anonymous side of the blockchain), as well as proof of the perfect deal (publicity of the blockchain). This, of course, decided to speculate many companies.
Is it correct? We return to the distinction between the ideal scenario and human nature.
Because of such a huge infusion of funds into the finance segment, a strong public opinion emerged, which is how it should be. That blockchain and money are inseparable concepts. About this I gave a hint at the very beginning. People, what are you? The success of the project does not depend on the pricing of the token. Profit is not the ultimate goal of a startup. There are many uses of the blockchain, where the token may not be mentioned in the structure at all. And vice versa, why sulk him everywhere to increase one's own assessment when it is unreasonable?
Let us return to this issue later, and now back to the ICO problem.
The third problem (I am not outta)? These are young IT teams. Not even in terms of the blockchain, but of the business as a whole. They did not understand (and still, judging by the concepts, they do not understand) how to organize all business processes. How much to ask for the project. Their whole world is cool code in its idea. Further marketers and advisors entered the fray. The latter, in my humble opinion, is a cryptographic rudiment. Let's be honest. What function should they perform? And performed at the start of the ICO market. They gave advice to young guys to build a business, spoke escrow, communicated with their audience and promoted the project. What has it grown into? For a percentage of the collected caps allowed to write his name on the site along with fotochku. Cool. What's next? Because of these conventions and uselessness of useful people, projects often do not have their own financiers. The collected fabulous sums were spent thoughtlessly, the efficiency of projects was minimal. And investors in this regard do not learn anything.
Essentially. How many projects work successfully to this day? Of those who collected investments last year? And in this? I agree, compared to the end of 2017, the beginning of 2018, the end of this year cannot be compared in terms of fees and the number of start-up projects, but these projects appear! Almost every single day.
We continue to bomb. Point four. Evaluation of the prospects of the project and the roadmap. The euphoria of the first projects charged all the community members. “We will make a project that will change everything!”, “This is a revolution in the world of technology!”, Well, you understand. Therefore, loud slogans and promises are in use. All white papers promise X's, full of inspiring graphics to tear everyone and everything. But in practice goes zilch. The teams scatter, their heads run away with a lot of money. Technical papers are being rewritten due to the impossibility of realizing the promise, the sites are shamelessly removed Aether , the first platform for ICO, promised so much in the first version that it is still tearing itself into rags in order to at least somehow get closer to the first edition of WhitePaper. And that, the whole story remembers the DAO and the problems of every second ICO of these two years.
Of course, technologies evolve, evolve. Variants are swept away, die out, ideas grow into something new. The author of a recent article correctly wrote that another comes to the place of one. But people are holding on to mistakes, ready to lay their heads! All these blockchain evangelists, crypto enthusiasts. Who are you? Heirs of the new faith? What a massive insanity ?! Technology is technology, nothing more. The romance of complete decentralization and anonymity is dead.
She remained in your fantasies and in the fantasies of the latest crypto-anarchists, who are by nature an endangered species. History does not like revolution, and man is inherently a latent creature. The justified fear of a cardinal change of rules hinders the introduction of technology, it can be seen everywhere. The last ones that meet all official criteria of cryptocurrency are similar to rudiments, which regulators still strive to remove, destroy.
The classic "but": Bitcoin - Dad, he will exist, this is not going anywhere.
ICO - the pain of society
And you know, this is such a pain that is on the verge of an itch, like a mosquito bite. In fact, it is unpleasant, but you still pay attention and scratch. Hundreds of projects raise the money God knows what and how, and the hamster people bring in all their money and loans.
Therefore, platforms for creating tokens became a trend - a lightweight tool for generating candy wrappers for all comers.
The leader here is definitely one - the ether. What about other projects in this area? They are somewhere worse, somewhere better, somewhere radically different. But the most important thing is that they exist! Do you know how many projects go on them? Units!
Here are the statistics for these two years from one of the trackers:
- Projects on air: 2785
- Projects on the classics : 8
- Projects on Ontology : 0
- Waves : 118
- Nem : 17
- Stellar : 28
- Bitshares : 5
- Neo : 18
- Cardano : 1
- Tron : 0
- EOS : 11
- On own blockchain: 324
Yes, Tron, Ontology, EOS are new projects, start-ups did not have time to go to them. Plus, importantly, the data is not representative due to the lack of correlation with other trackers.
But what does the proposed information tell us? People either copy other people's smart contracts on the air, or copy someone else's blockchains from the github. Quality is killed by banal laziness. Many people often do not even check what they downloaded and how it will function.
The dominance of one platform, not the most convenient, led to the fact that the market is not able to cause a stir new startups, because they are not visible! Tritely not visible in the total mass of slag, even technologically or functionally it is something interesting.
The community remembers the projects on the Ether that were first and large. Wings , Bangorpreviously mentioned Civic. You can still remember from the heels of projects. What about other platforms? On Nem: PundiX , COMSA and maybe another one or two. On Neo THEKEY and everything, perhaps. On Stellar: Mobius and now it is actively seen in the chat of the new HelpCoin project .
Significant can only be called a fork Bitshares in the face of Steem and Golos . And those problems are above the roof. But they gave the opportunity to talk and receive remuneration for everyone without restrictions or requirements. And this, again, is not ICO, but precisely that fork of technology.
Can you recall any recent ICO projects that really cost something?
This whole picture led to the natural death of ICO as a phenomenon, but even today more than a hundred projects of varying degrees of quality are in the queue for adding to the trackers.
The next evolutionary step after ICO is called STO . But this only suggests that the regulator is holding even tighter by the thighs of the developers.
There are two extremes of the same coin. Either you are in the mass of different shitcoin, or you are looking for large investors for yourself to STO. I am sorry for the developers who need to exist in this market today. Guys, you are great, if you don’t give up projects and lead them no matter what. Survive useful and brought to release.
As a sweet, if you suddenly think about creating your ICO, then watch the video at the beginningwhen it will be available again (I do not know why the author closed it), where a specialist will call you the real financial costs of promoting the project in order to get a plus after the crowdsale. This will either discourage all desire, or make you think about how you want to create a project - under the control of all possible organs, or just like any other fintech project - calmly, on your knees, in the garage, with friends. Create a story.
Faith, hope, crypt
All, if not felt, noticed a new crypto depression. This year alone, Bitcoin was buried (we are talking about statements in a little bit of large media) 90 times .
This trend spawned a psychological bubble many years ago that the price of cryptocurrency is the price of technology. If bitcoin crashed - blockchain scam. If bitcoin took off - blockchain is useful. Very contrived trend. Explain to me, fool, what is the reason?
Despite the funeral of every second major project, people still do. Do not leave started. And what do they care about the price of a token on the stock exchange? In fact, none. For example, Constellation , they lost in price more than 90%, but nonetheless calmly released a testnet for themselves, talking about their technology. Or RSKthat implements smart contracts on bitcoin. They did not have a crowd, but they continue to work. In general, I think it is important to have such “independent” projects that are created for the sake of technology, so that there is development where there is complete stagnation (and it is impossible to name the current market otherwise).
One of the most popular topics in cryptocurrency was energy-intensive mining. As a solution, a process on hard drives and other media was proposed. There are practically no projects left in this area: Burst somehow breathes, but the Storj is hardly a full-fledged project, since today it is already a token on Ether, and not an independent ecosystem. There is Chia, I propose to draw attention to it to everyone interested - the BitTirrenta developer is working on the project. Well, this is open source, sin not to share.
In general, let's share projects that are of practical benefit to society. They are, but find the whole task. And since you have read to this point, it means that you also have something to say. I will wait in the comments.
Disappointment of the year
Now I want to talk a little about the media. The coolest thing that could be - killed by huge infusions of money. For the publication of an article about the project, the news portals want so much that one wonders if you know prices from the classical sector.
A simple example: an article in CoinTelegraph can be placed for $ 2900. Relevant audience (based on public information from the telegram channel) is 7500 people (with almost 8.000.000 claimed by contractors). But the paid placement of an article on the portal of the tier 1 business sector, Forbes, will cost through the counterparty approximately $ 5,200, with a declared audience of more than 112,150,000 people.
And now, attention, the question is: is it worth it to look at the crypto media in general if they demand such fabulous sums for many times less exhaust than comparable news portals from business and fintech environments?
Instead of answering, I suggest you read the article , where even if in a rude manner, but quite intelligibly, the interviewer and his interlocutor spoke about this.
Instead of totals
Blockchain is more alive than dead. But that sickly atmosphere that has covered him with a growth is a problem. I hope that the new year will bring people the awareness that they need to pursue not candy wrappers and profits from them, but to a really useful application of technology in those areas where it is necessary.
In the article, I lowered a lot, did not raise questions of forks, technological alternatives (as the phrase “Bitcoin 2.0”, “Blockchain 3.0” beloved by marketers), the question of mining in general and much more. If it turns out to be interesting, I will sort it out separately, beyond the framework of the totals.
Once you have read my lack, I want to thank you for your patience, thank you so much.
Happy New Year! I wish to the moon and all that he brings with him good.