I buy and sell on fundamentals, RSI, and a bunch of other factors. I’ve been looking this coin and others up for some time now. Have a bg in tech so understanding the tech and use case I can do. Here’s the question I hear most frequently.
What makes people believe that a group (non-nation state) think that they can “print” money with no framework to back it? Let me explain. It’s open source so any group can take the time invested by current developers and leverage it to their advantage since all of the R&D has been done. Now they can “print” their coin as well through s fork. Nothing is proprietary, almost, so what other than services will drive this model. What I’m saying here is Microsoft, Oracle, Apple, Google, are what they are due to some form of proprietary technology. What is there proprietary with Cardano or any other coin for that matter? Why not patent Oroborus? Seems to be the most valuable piece…
Where is scarcity if any can mint the same coin by using the freely available software?
If services and development is based on IOHK/Emurgo, what happens when IOHK/Emurgo leaves or the funding/contract ends?
How is it that the coins seek to be decentralized when the coins themselves rely on regulation at a centralized level? For example if the governments regulated BTC and made it illegal, then what? The vide is there but real world adoption does not happen. Retailers would not be able to accept so its an underground thing like bit torrent to a degree.
any group can take the time invested by current developers and leverage it to their advantage since all of the R&D has been done. Now they can “print” their coin as well through s fork.
People have been forking Bitcoin since the beginning, but Bitcoin still has the highest market cap by far.
The value comes from the community (developers building on it and people using it). Anyone could fork Cardano, but what reason would we have to drop Cardano and use the fork instead?
They would have to have better developers and deliver a better product and try to convince everyone to migrate over. That energy would be better spent just improving Cardano.
The only way someone could benefit from forking it would be to do a premine, and then they’d have a hard time getting people to trust them even if they did have a better product.
If services and development is based on IOHK/Emurgo, what happens when IOHK/Emurgo leaves or the funding/contract ends?
I don’t think IOHK would abandon Cardano without completing it. They got paid a lot of ADA to develop it, which they haven’t sold yet, so it wouldn’t make sense for them to not do what they can to deliver the product and ensure the value. Not to mention the amount of work they’ve already put in would be wasted if they didn’t finish it. Cardano seems to be a passion project for Charles so I couldn’t see him giving up on it.
if the governments regulated BTC and made it illegal
Most governments don’t seem interested in making cryptocurrency illegal, I think they would have done that already if they wanted to. Maybe they understand how ineffective a ban would be and they realise they’re better off encouraging development in their country instead. Consider IOHK moving to Wyoming now because they’re making the laws more crypto-friendly.
You have a very good point. Which is why this market is very risky. You will find people here offering you ideas and counter-ideas, but IMO at the end of the day both sides are valid. The big ideas and theories are great, but what’s the action to take?
So buy some crypto if your risk tolerance allows it and preferably hedge against it. With proper risk management, I don’t see as much point in “understanding” or “predicting” the fundamentals that much. Up or down, make money both ways. You will hardly find anyone with such mentality here.
None of your arguments satisfy the position. Market dominance or cap is irrelevant. It reduces the value intrinsically if someone had the ability to improve off of your work. Ford, GM are no longer the top auto manufacturers and would have seen a faster decline if their trade secrets were out in the open. Agree?
I think it’s a different situation for manufacturers of physical products than it is for open source software.
If you had access to trade secrets and could produce a similar product you could take some market share by getting new people to buy your product.
If you forked Cardano you’d need to convince existing developers and users to stop using Cardano and come use the fork instead. I just think it would be more difficult to do that.
It’s no different. Microsoft does not disclose their source code. Google does not disclose their search algorithm. Red Hat is essentially a service provider with some proprietary code. Mozilla is supported by Google and if not for an enterprise would be out of business. The US has made the case to China that conducting business in a country should not include disclosing proprietary technology.
People are motivated by rewards. If a company stepped in, provided pay, a great retirement plan, benefits, RSU, commissions, and a similar vision, where do you think developers would go? People have mortgages, kids to feed, bills to pay, things they would like to buy, traveling they would like to do. Some people (developers) would take this “security” in place of start up excitement. I see it all the time. This instance is no different. That’s reality.
Cardanoas an open source project provides a framework for independent devopers and entrepreneurs to create Daps and products people would find useful. These people would prefer not to work for Microsoft or perhaps their project is not big enough for Microsoft to bother with.
Money. If an Enterprise holds Ada they make money from inflation, can charge fees, develop products, patent specific parts if their code not covered by the MIT patent, provide services, insure their chain, and a whole host of other capital producing incentives.
An established company is responsible to their shareholders. They have accountability. They also are under regulatory scrutiny. The sector provides a new income stream of huge proportions.
Ripple is #2 because speculators think bank partnerships are going to take them to the moon. Maybe it will, but when it comes to actually using something for payments and services, people will see that a decentralized platform that doesn’t have the ability to censor you, confiscate your funds, etc, is preferable.
And yet the RSI for all crypto is down. You haven’t pointed to one data point, not even adoption rates. I’ll point to data that shows bank adoption, in our current centralized form, far outpaces crypto’s not only in general but in totality. More people are opening new accounts in the US alone than all of crypto since inception. Fact.
Btw - this is a single years worth of accounts. So how about your facts now? All I see is wishful thinking.
Crypto’s time is far away. Far away. Notwithstanding someone or some group comes up with a serious solution that can spur adoption. That means something other than all current points brought up to argue in favor of crypto and developed code as of today.
Okay, here’s a data point, those numbers aren’t slowing down. Once that bubble pops people will realise that maybe centralised currency isn’t such a great idea. Here’s an article and the data showing that Venezuela was able to figure that out, I’m sure everyone else eventually will too.
Some corporate proprietary version of Cardano isn’t going to be a threat to the permissionless, decentralised original.
Seriously, the debt clock as a data point. Uh no. Nice try. The US has almost always been in debt. Please point to an actual data point used in a verified, double blind, if possible, study which shows a strong relationship, if not correlation of debt to crypto adoption.
With regard to Venezuela, there is no comparison whatsoever. The level of corruption, low GDP, sanctions, underdeveloped socialist economy does nothing to support your argument. This instance only reinforces the basis that socialism is a bad economic model which does not incentivize the greater population and is ripe for corruption to occur resulting in a failed state. This is not a valid data point. Nothing, absolutely nothing, in this reference suggests that there is a correlation between hyperinflation and adoption in a normal state. Most if not all persons who converted moved into crypto to escape having funds devalued only to have them devalued in some instances at a faster rate.
Go look at the stats for wallets out if that region then look at the usage stats then come back and report. You’ll find that usage is low, very low. People that have funds in crypto do not transact as often as you’d like to believe and acceptance in retail is low and not even in the high single percents. Seriously that’s the best you can point to? Youre pointing to a near failed nation state that failed issuing their own crypto? Here’s something for you. Guess which currency is the preferred currency to transact in at your failed nation state? That’s right it’s USD. And guess what? It has the highest amount of credibility and is most desired. In fact, more people are buying dollars than they are crypto. Go figure. What else would you like to point out?
Corporate decentralized or government backed not a threat…anyone who thinks there is no threat has blinders in and is in denial. There is a threat anywhere anytime. That is the nature of competition. I bet GM thought that when the Japanese entered the car market. I bet Microsoft thought that about Apple and vice versa. I bet Ballmer was thinking that about Google. You’re suspect for even mentioning such a thing.
Cardano May have an awesome team but as good as they are with their craft, I believe even they would say that under the right conditions, it would be possible for someone to fork and build something better. Hell, Charles even said "Google is a multi-national company. It is one of the largest, most powerful engineering companies in the world. They have some phenomenal scientists working at Google, from world-famous cryptographers to infosec people … If Google is going to do a cryptocurrency, Google does not need to partner with me, and they don’t need to partner with Bitcoin, Ethereum, or anything else. They are just going to go ahead and do their own thing. That said, Google is a good patron of open-source technology, and many of their employees do invest their weekends and at least one day a week on contributing to some open-source project. And Google does a very large internal cryptocurrency and blockchain mailing list.“. Imagine Google using the open source code and going their own route.
Come to think about it…didn’t Google do this before? Google Chrome
Please tell me there is more to this. I wouldn’t trade one Ada based on the data you’ve provided. Fact.
It can’t keep that up forever, it’s going to collapse under the weight of all that debt sooner or later.
I don’t have a “verified, double blind study” on the correlation between debt and crypto adoption. I don’t think crypto’s been around long enough for that. Wait until we start having some real problems from hyperinflation, and money that isn’t controlled by a central entity is going start looking pretty good.
On that note, do you have a “verified, double blind study” that shows forking an open source project and making your own copy is any threat to the original?
I see Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin SV, Bitcoin Gold, etc, have all tried that and Bitcoin appears to still be dominating.
Making Cardano proprietary goes against the spirit of the project and cryptocurrency in general. The point is to deliver an open, permissionless platform, not a closed proprietary one.
If I’m wrong then what are you doing here? Why not sit back and wait for Google or Microsoft to fork Cardano, if it would be so easy for them to do that and so successful so as to be a threat, and then invest in that?
Seems easier than coming to an open source project and asking them to start patenting stuff.