Yes FTM should be on the list as well.

Absolutely. Iirc, it was $0.27 qhen I said it was getting ready to run because of the progress being made. Wait until Q2 developments are released and it starts getting marketing going.....ot will jave a Matic like run but it will surpass Matic in both functionality amd price.

I'm starting to think I need to relocate to South America.

https://www.coindesk.com/podcasts/the-breakdown-with-nlw/rio-de-janeiro-is-giving-people-a-10-discount-to-pay-taxes-in-bitcoin/

Oh I don't know when you recommended it but I have about 800 state at the moment so pretty excited is moving. FTM & MATIC helping some of the other dogs in my portfolio

Had not heard of fuse or OCTO. Looking into those. Thanks for the heads up.

Overall I like this list and have positions in 95% of those listed. I took a position in XRP yesterday at roughly $.75 just to see what happens with the SEC approval. Even if the United States hamstrings them it seems like they have momentum in other countries.

I also hear a lot of chatter about HBAR, CKB, vector space AI, QNT and fetch ai.

My current pursuits have me researching/evaluating younger layer1 chains ( flux, syscoin, telos, elastos, etc. )

I would like others opinion on what makes chainlink stand out from the growing number of competitors in the data/price oracle space (other than 1st mover/adoption advantage). Maybe I'm missing it but I think BAND has more potential for growth.

Found this Reddit highlighting some of the differences. The OP likes BAND more than LINK. This article is from a year ago when LINK's mkt cap was $6Bn and BAND's was $200M. Today, Link is at about $12Bn and BAND is still at $200M. That being said, sounds like BAND has more room for growth and that both coins can coexist. I don't have a strong opinion either way and was unfamiliar with BAND before you mentioned it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/bandprotocol/comments/ks7l7u/difference_between_band_chain_link_and_why_i/

Anyone else in the spaces with naval, and the founders of Solana, Avalanche, and Near? https://twitter.com/i/spaces/1mnGedwwkbRKX

Good stuff, thanks for sharing!

Anyone who likes to invest in sh*t coins should take a look at https://www.baboonfinancial.com/. Still not listed on many exchanges but moving that way, could be a good time to get in! Directions on how to buy are on the website.

administrative errors said:

---

Rockport was fun. Very quiet. Walked around at night and burned a joint... thoroughly enjoyed it down there.

Bro Married into a Vietnamese family that are shrimpers. So friendly and so much good Damm food.

Coming home with some fat shrimp, egg rolls... so excited.

Thanks for the recommendations. I appreciate the guidance.

Gonna have to go back and visit and do some shrimping.

---

Great to hear. Yes, it's a relaxing place and kind of a gem on the coast. I very much enjoy going down there. We are trying to get down there in the next few weeks.

Coinbase pro app is down again. It is making me sign in, sending me a verification code, and then not liking it.

Do the new blockchains end up diluting the others blockchain that came before it?

Most of us look at bitcoin and see the others as affinity scams or DDOS attacks against bitcoin. (Most of me at least)

bmks270 said:

---

Do the new blockchains end up diluting the others blockchain that came before it?

---

They won't dilute Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a monetary asset and occupies a different investment realm than the application tokens.

New blockchains will dilute application tokens that are fighting for shares of the same chain-tech application economy. The tokens used in these chains aren't monetary assets. They'll only be as valuable as demand for the applications that emerge on their chains. The more new chains that arise and the more killer apps that emerge on them, the less valuable your favorite application token will be.

Think of it as analogous to a city block of arcades, each requiring a token specific to their arcade to play their games. At first there was one big arcade that had all the cool games (ie ETH). Then thousands of others opened arcades on the same block. Most of the arcades can't compete and go out of business quick. Some are even outright scams. But each new arcade with a cool, in-demand game represents dilution for the other arcades. This can/will happen into perpetuity as the arcade block grows and matures.

But eventually one realizes that people only need to hold arcade-specific tokens when they're going to the arcade (or if they like to frequent a certain arcade, maybe they keep a small stash of tokens from that arcade around the house). When people aren't at arcades, they're going to hold a monetary asset. In the arcade example, that is dollars. In the current digital application of the arcade example, that is Bitcoin. TLDR: people will generally hold their monetary wealth in Bitcoin and convert it to the application tokens on an "as needed" basis.

Somewhat on this topic, Lyn Alden recently wrote a great piece recently that differentiates what it means to invest in Bitcoin vs application tokens:

https://www.lynalden.com/proof-of-stake/

None of this is to say that there isn't a time/place for investing in application tokens. Some will certainly go up in the short term faster than Bitcoin. But if you're into prudence, buy/hold Bitcoin and let the chain-tech application economy play out. Winners are still very far from being determined. What's hot now likely will not be in 3-5 years after all the VCs and incumbents have had their say.

When the dust settles, you'll be holding a valuable monetary asset that can easily convert into the token that gives you access to the TBD most desired chain-tech applications.

bmks270 said:

---

Do the new blockchains end up diluting the others blockchain that came before it?

---

I'm opposite admin errors on this, but IMO in general no. I think there is a possibility to not just cut the same pie different ways but also increase the size of the pie. Different chains make different trade offs, and have different functionality. Think of oil vs gold.

I think the answer to this question is entirely based on the utility as well as the pros and cons of said Blockchain.

If two blockchains provide essentially the same utility then the next question would likely fall to scaling/throughput, centralization versus decentralization, network effect, partner adoption etc.

Rough Correlation might be something like multiple cloud service providers (Microsoft, Google, Amazon etc.) they offer similar tools for similar purposes with slight benefit/drawbacks depending on perspective. Microsoft has advantage of windows desktops & ms office. Amazon has first mover /network effect, maybe assume Google has lowest fees etc.
they all compete and coexist and a micro economy develops to assist in migrating to and from these environments etc. (a la cross chain bridging)

Is anyone else having difficulty with the Yoroi extension for Chrome? It's not fully loading for me

$FUSE running

Anyone put any money into Offshift (xft)? It's up roughly 1500% since Christmas Day. This coin has $1000 potential. It's at $25 right now with around a 4.5 million supply and a $100 million market cap. It's essentially the defi version of monero and is the only one like it on the market with a solid dev team.

There is pretty much nothing to stop it from going higher, especially now that the volume is also increasing.

I think this is a great response.

I'd also make another general comparison to just brands in general. Whether it's beer or soda or clothing or phones other options could take market share from another. Not all coins are on n direct competition and just like in the real world there may be a million off brand alibaba competitors but that doesn't mean it's causing serious harm to any existing product or brand. When some random person spins up a Shopify account selling rebranded jeans from China Levi's isn't really worried. When Coca Cola enters the energy drink market or alcohol market players there take notice and may have concerns. Karbach was nobody until they were somebody and anheiser-Busch bought them.

In a sense it's not that different than traditional market verticals. The barrier to entry may be low but that doesn't mean shibadildocoin is really going to matter to anybody else in a meaningful way.

Agree with those correlations.

Similar to the mobile phone provider example: different countries have different t offerings.
IE, USA has VZW=eth, T-Mobile =solana, AT&T =Avax, and other countries have different providers ( cardano & stellar)

Stan Crowch said:

---

Good list so far. Would add NEAR, FUSE and OCT.

---

Stanley,

How'd you come to hear about FUSE & OCT?

Deluxe said:

---

bmks270 said:

---

Do the new blockchains end up diluting the others blockchain that came before it?

---

They won't dilute Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a monetary asset and occupies a different investment realm than the application tokens.

New blockchains will dilute application tokens that are fighting for shares of the same chain-tech application economy. The tokens used in these chains aren't monetary assets. They'll only be as valuable as demand for the applications that emerge on their chains. The more new chains that arise and the more killer apps that emerge on them, the less valuable your favorite application token will be.

Think of it as analogous to a city block of arcades, each requiring a token specific to their arcade to play their games. At first there was one big arcade that had all the cool games (ie ETH). Then thousands of others opened arcades on the same block. Most of the arcades can't compete and go out of business quick. Some are even outright scams. But each new arcade with a cool, in-demand game represents dilution for the other arcades. This can/will happen into perpetuity as the arcade block grows and matures.

But eventually one realizes that people only need to hold arcade-specific tokens when they're going to the arcade (or if they like to frequent a certain arcade, maybe they keep a small stash of tokens from that arcade around the house). When people aren't at arcades, they're going to hold a monetary asset. In the arcade example, that is dollars. In the current digital application of the arcade example, that is Bitcoin. TLDR: people will generally hold their monetary wealth in Bitcoin and convert it to the application tokens on an "as needed" basis.

Somewhat on this topic, Lyn Alden recently wrote a great piece recently that differentiates what it means to invest in Bitcoin vs application tokens:

https://www.lynalden.com/proof-of-stake/

None of this is to say that there isn't a time/place for investing in application tokens. Some will certainly go up in the short term faster than Bitcoin. But if you're into prudence, buy/hold Bitcoin and let the chain-tech application economy play out. Winners are still very far from being determined. What's hot now likely will not be in 3-5 years after all the VCs and incumbents have had their say.

When the dust settles, you'll be holding a valuable monetary asset that can easily convert into the token that gives you access to the TBD most desired chain-tech applications.

---

I think in the long term future, once the proof of stake chains shake out the pretenders and consolidate some, the chains that will be around for the long haul will likely move to a hybrid PoW / dPoS system.
There are a few blockchains in existence currently with low adoption that are attempting to prove the concept. I think once they get further along with this endeavor the big names will adopt if the benefit is evident.

ThreatLevel: Midnight said:

---

Deluxe said:

---

bmks270 said:

---

Do the new blockchains end up diluting the others blockchain that came before it?

---

They won't dilute Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a monetary asset and occupies a different investment realm than the application tokens.

New blockchains will dilute application tokens that are fighting for shares of the same chain-tech application economy. The tokens used in these chains aren't monetary assets. They'll only be as valuable as demand for the applications that emerge on their chains. The more new chains that arise and the more killer apps that emerge on them, the less valuable your favorite application token will be.

Think of it as analogous to a city block of arcades, each requiring a token specific to their arcade to play their games. At first there was one big arcade that had all the cool games (ie ETH). Then thousands of others opened arcades on the same block. Most of the arcades can't compete and go out of business quick. Some are even outright scams. But each new arcade with a cool, in-demand game represents dilution for the other arcades. This can/will happen into perpetuity as the arcade block grows and matures.

But eventually one realizes that people only need to hold arcade-specific tokens when they're going to the arcade (or if they like to frequent a certain arcade, maybe they keep a small stash of tokens from that arcade around the house). When people aren't at arcades, they're going to hold a monetary asset. In the arcade example, that is dollars. In the current digital application of the arcade example, that is Bitcoin. TLDR: people will generally hold their monetary wealth in Bitcoin and convert it to the application tokens on an "as needed" basis.

Somewhat on this topic, Lyn Alden recently wrote a great piece recently that differentiates what it means to invest in Bitcoin vs application tokens:

https://www.lynalden.com/proof-of-stake/

None of this is to say that there isn't a time/place for investing in application tokens. Some will certainly go up in the short term faster than Bitcoin. But if you're into prudence, buy/hold Bitcoin and let the chain-tech application economy play out. Winners are still very far from being determined. What's hot now likely will not be in 3-5 years after all the VCs and incumbents have had their say.

When the dust settles, you'll be holding a valuable monetary asset that can easily convert into the token that gives you access to the TBD most desired chain-tech applications.

---

I think in the long term future, once the proof of stake chains shake out the pretenders and consolidate some, the chains that will be around for the long haul will likely move to a hybrid PoW / dPoS system.
There are a few blockchains in existence currently with low adoption that are attempting to prove the concept. I think once they get further along with this endeavor the big names will adopt if the benefit is evident.

---

Why do you think the hybrid approach will win out, and not pure PoS?

It's the hedge bet, not enough info on PoS, nor PoW so a hybridization is gonna win because.

PoW is the way, specifically bitcoin's PoW. If that's the case, no PoW blockchain will survive, and very few blockchains will serve a purpose outside of separating you from your economic energy in the form of bitcoin.

Intel just announced they're creating low-energy ASICS, nipping ANOTHER ESG narrative at the bud. Congress is having a full on ESG meeting with Cornell schmucks who are going to get absolutely ****canned with their destroyed narratives, fraudulent equations, and dismissed with great satisfaction to the annals of history of the dumb and dying portions of our "truth-telling" entities.

Oh vey.

This whole middle of the bell curve onboarding season is really really dragging me down. I liked it when I was the dumbest person in bitcoin.



Okay. What does a hybrid pos/PoW blockchain provide that is useful and isn't marketing?


My animosity isn't directed at you midnight, just the strain of thought. You're a good guy. I'm frustrated at the masses building false narratives in hopes they'll catch "the next bitcoin" like it'll exist. Just drags the whole timeline to adoption down. Xoxo.

ThreatLevel: Midnight said:

---

I think in the long term future, once the proof of stake chains shake out the pretenders and consolidate some, the chains that will be around for the long haul will likely move to a hybrid PoW / dPoS system.
There are a few blockchains in existence currently with low adoption that are attempting to prove the concept. I think once they get further along with this endeavor the big names will adopt if the benefit is evident.

---

Sorry to be repetitive but it kinda depends on if you're talking about Bitcoin or application chains/tokens.

I'm going to assume you're talking about application chains/tokens because Bitcoin is and always will be PoW.

With the application chains/tokens, I tend to agree with capital markets that they'll gravitate toward PoS. Efficiency (ie ability to process tons of transactions for tons of applications with low/negligible fees) will be a very important attribute of the winners of the application chain/token market and PoS is the easiest path to achieve that.

Bitcoin requires PoW for security and decentralization. Application chains that use PoS will gravitate toward a more centralized model to compete with the Bitcoin layer 2/3s. And that's fine. The only thing that truly needs to be decentralized is Bitcoin's base layer. Lyn Alden does a great job of explaining this in the article I linked above.

You are correct. I wasn't even including Bitcoin in the discussion as that is an entirely different animal.

I was considering ETH, SOL, AVAX, ALGO, FTM, ETC. That are already largely PoS with a few exceptions that are in the process of moving this way. But just as PoW has it's "drawbacks" in comparison to PoS, PoS has it's own drawbacks compared to PoW (namely the gradual and consistent move towards centralization). I put the word drawbacks in quotes as this is more of a perception variable when discussing the comparison of the two.

Anyhow, If you look at something like Syscoin or Decred for example, they are attempting to merge the best components of each method without bringing over all of the downside where possible. It's far from perfect at the moment but I could see a few chains making some progress individually and then another chain coming along and taking everything they've learned to produce an actual implementation or evolution of such.

ThreatLevel: Midnight said:

---

You are correct. I wasn't even including Bitcoin in the discussion as that is an entirely different animal.

I was considering ETH, SOL, AVAX, ALGO, FTM, ETC. That are already largely PoS with a few exceptions that are in the process of moving this way. But just as PoW has it's "drawbacks" in comparison to PoS, PoS has it's own drawbacks compared to PoW (namely the gradual and consistent move towards centralization). I put the word drawbacks in quotes as this is more of a perception variable when discussing the comparison of the two.

Anyhow, If you look at something like Syscoin or Decred for example, they are attempting to merge the best components of each method without bringing over all of the downside where possible. It's far from perfect at the moment but I could see a few chains making some progress individually and then another chain coming along and taking everything they've learned to produce an actual implementation or evolution of such.

---

I see what you're saying. I guess in the bigger picture, I don't really think it matters much what validation mechanism the native token of any given application chain uses. The applications themselves will ultimately drive the value of the chain. The tokens are just a conversion mechanism to use the applications.

Like if you wanna play Cruisin USA (the application) at Dave and Busters (the chain), you'll need D&B coins (the tokens) to do so. But D&B coins don't need to function as money in any sort of grander context. The main utility of the D&B coins is 1) to make sure people can access them quickly/easily and 2) that they function efficiently with the games. The concept of decentralization doesn't matter much in that context. Conversely, in most ways, the more centralized the better.

Application chains are more like businesses than monetary systems. Having a centralized management team that can quickly fix issues as they arise, even if it means disrupting the token validation protocol, is more of a strength than a weakness as I see it. So I don't necessarily see the need to chase a blended PoW/PoS concept. If I was running an application chain, I'd lean all in on the most efficient/centralized system possible (which is almost certainly PoS).

IMO that is the best business approach. It comes with the downside that the tokens themselves are ultimately more of conversion tool than a monetary unit, but that's ok. Application tokens shouldn't be thought of as monetary assets anyway. They might make good short/medium term investments as demand for their native chain applications increases, but I don't see the tokens themselves as driving any of the value.

Deluxe said:

---

ThreatLevel: Midnight said:

---

You are correct. I wasn't even including Bitcoin in the discussion as that is an entirely different animal.

I was considering ETH, SOL, AVAX, ALGO, FTM, ETC. That are already largely PoS with a few exceptions that are in the process of moving this way. But just as PoW has it's "drawbacks" in comparison to PoS, PoS has it's own drawbacks compared to PoW (namely the gradual and consistent move towards centralization). I put the word drawbacks in quotes as this is more of a perception variable when discussing the comparison of the two.

Anyhow, If you look at something like Syscoin or Decred for example, they are attempting to merge the best components of each method without bringing over all of the downside where possible. It's far from perfect at the moment but I could see a few chains making some progress individually and then another chain coming along and taking everything they've learned to produce an actual implementation or evolution of such.

---

I see what you're saying. I guess in the bigger picture, I don't really think it matters much what validation mechanism the native token of any given application chain uses. The applications themselves will ultimately drive the value of the chain. The tokens are just a conversion mechanism to use the applications.

Like if you wanna play Cruisin USA (the application) at Dave and Busters (the chain), you'll need D&B coins (the tokens) to do so. But D&B coins don't need to function as money in any sort of grander context. The main utility of the D&B coins is 1) to make sure people can access them quickly/easily and 2) that they function efficiently with the games. The concept of decentralization doesn't matter much in that context. Conversely, in most ways, the more centralized the better.

Application chains are more like businesses than monetary systems. Having a centralized management team that can quickly fix issues as they arise, even if it means disrupting the token validation protocol, is more of a strength than a weakness as I see it. So I don't necessarily see the need to chase a blended PoW/PoS concept. If I was running an application chain, I'd lean all in on the most efficient/centralized system possible (which is almost certainly PoS).

IMO that is the best business approach. It comes with the downside that the tokens themselves are ultimately more of conversion tool than a monetary unit, but that's ok. Application tokens shouldn't be thought of as monetary assets anyway. They might make good short/medium term investments as demand for their native chain applications increases, but I don't see the tokens themselves as driving any of the value.

---

So do you not think the top altcoins (ETH, SOL, DOT, etc) are good long-term investments?

This is a "rationality" of the crowd/masses type question.

Also, livestream of mining and esg in congress for those that are interested in hearing congresswoman Rodgers brag about her states' low energy rates...

first they laugh then they fight, then they beg?

At current mining levels;

The amount of all gold mined in the entire history of humanity, up to today will double in under 60 years.

For silver, only 10 years.

For #Bitcoin the amount mined as of today, will never, ever, all the way into the future of humanity, be doubled. pic.twitter.com/ZPzWCuUk9k

— FractalEncrypt ∞/21M (@FractalEncrypt) January 20, 2022

Edit: add to discussion.

ExtremeRush said:

---

So do you not think the top altcoins (ETH, SOL, DOT, etc) are good long-term investments?

---

The way I see the space playing out long term, no. They might be fine in the short/medium term because new money will continue to enter the space though.

I see a push toward efficiency, ease of access, flexibility, etc in the application chain space. Proof of stake will be the clear winner. With that inevitably comes centralization. Again, that's good in some ways, but there's an elephant in the room.

That super cool defi app on your application chain? When the decentralized aspect disappears, it essentially becomes a fintech app. Your new competition is now JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, and the rest of the incumbents. All of which are subject to strict financial regulation.

Those hot new decentralized gaming products on your application chain? When they run on centralized chains, they're now on the turf of Microsoft/Activision.

And that's the way it should be.

The idea that everything needs to be decentralized is a misunderstanding at best and a scam at worst. So long as we live in territorial nation states, businesses/applications/etc have to be subject to competition and abide by laws. There's an idealism in the elimination of the nation state at the core of "crypto" that I sympathize with, but it's not practical and it's not the way the space is going to play out anytime in the next 50 years.

So if you want to be a centralized chain "business", you're going to have to compete against the big boys and comply with the regulators. Tokenization isn't synonymous with decentralization and it doesn't mean you get to play ball in a special carved out area with no incumbent competition and no rules.

Another way to think about it is to imagine the current world as being tokenized. And take the most successful company in the world right now... arguably Amazon. Say Amazon decided to put their business on a chain and you needed $AMZN token to buy from them. What would that mean?

Well first off, why would they even do that? All the token does is add an unnecessary step between their customers and their products. If I want to buy products off Amazon in that world, I have to take the extra step of exchanging my dollars for $AMZN before I can shop. Amazon would be much better off just accepting dollars.

But say they did it anyway. How much would an $AMZN be worth? Clearly there would be demand for it. There would probably be more demand for an $AMZN than another other token. But what would the supply be? Could the supply change based on central management discretion? What would be $AMZN's monetary trade-offs? The goal of $AMZN would almost certainly be to get it to customers as easily/cheaply as possible and to interface as efficiently as possible with the Amazon chain.

Would Amazon's balance sheet continue to hold $AMZN (sucking up supply) or just convert it back to dollars upon sale? Would people think they need to buy/hold $AMZN? Or would they just hold dollars (base currency) overall and convert to $AMZN in the simple event that they need to buy something off Amazon? Would Amazon be exempt from laws because they are tokenized or would they still be subject to the same laws as they are today?

I guess I'd encourage everyone interested in the application chain space to focus more on the apps themselves, evaluate their merit and project forward their use cases as businesses that have to compete against the big boys and be subject themselves to nation-state laws. It's possible there could be some winning apps that evolve on existing application chains and that's a good thing.

But in the long run, the tokens themselves are just temporary access vehicles to those applications.