Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiger
These are my worthless opinions to be taken with a grain of salt, as I am no expert
overall one of the biggest issues with cryptocurrencies is the name. overall it shouldn't really be treated like a currency. There are a select few transactions where it will be better, like Dino said, transferring internationally will be easier. The Swift system for business is expensive and slow, hence where Ripple is trying to work on. Bitcoin I really see is a proof of concept. The system works. It will work for a long while, but whether it lasts is another thing. Is it an Apple/Microsoft or is it a Netscape/AOL. In my opinion, and it will be long ways out still but I would wager it is more on the Netscape spectrum, but it is not like Bitcoin can adapt to prolong longevity either. Already options like Etherium, Cardano, solana, Matic, Dot, etc. can offer more. But are they really solving a problem that exists or are they just trying to find a problem to solve? but these systems do need large computing power, so having random people set up computing for these chains and then paying them in tokens for access to that computing is simple and seems to work. It is basically like getting paid in shares, and eventually, these will all likely be treated with the same rules as securities
Doge, and Shibu and other things like that are just really market manipulation meme #### that just may will itself into existence just because.
blockchain technology works for many things and works behind the scenes in a lot of cases. just look what walmart is doing with it. So when a lot of people say all this cryptocurrency stuff is ####, that doesn't make sense, because blockchain technology will be in everything in the not too far future, just maybe not as currency, or maybe as a Fiat currency.
|
Crypto's usage in the long run IMO will still be blockchain. I'm not entirely sure how it might look with the tech as the primary focus vs using it as a vehicle for value storage, but I definitely feel like a significant amount of value will be stripped from it, or it will end up being replaced (kinda like how there's so many coin variants right now). I wouldn't be surprised if it predecessors ends up going full circle to become a super token though. It sounds useless in that sense, but IMO it's not. We just have not envisioned it yet. Instead of currency as cash IMO, crypto may replace stocks as we know it. They will continue to verify existence and store value in the way it attempted to as a currency, but as an ownership to something of real world value that is not a consumable good (digital or physical). Doing this might kill stock options as we know it with RSU (restricted stock units) and literal casino style gambling on tokens replacing options going forward. I also wonder if crypto will be used to block script based massive purchase/sales of assets like stocks. Otherwise, in the long run, computers running scripts could easily purchase and sell massive amounts of "stocks" to crater their value and then buy when humans panic exit.
NFT's usage in the long run IMO will be an evolution of DRM (Digital rights management). Simple verification kind of thing. Like how you play a video game and get a rare collectible. You can swap that digital asset that actually has some form of utility value in the long run (other than the fake receipt crap out there right now). Whether that means having music tokens that you can use to ensure you have the rights to use a specific music created by someone else on video content you've created, digital items in a game, game trophies etc. or beyond, I don't know for sure. But NFTs as a verification of digital items does make sense in the long run. I think you could use them in a manner to NFC certain physical goods and then use NFTs to verify physical good authenticity of basically consumable goods (digital or physical). You'd use it to combat physical and digital counterfeits.
But that's just my guess. Who actually knows what will happen. IMO with hindsight, the current iteration of the technology/process is worthless like the dot com type of stuff. However, the dot com tech/method actually wasn't worthless. It literally just needed to be combined with something non-consumable with desired value to make it useful like impulse buying combined with in game ads. Without the impulse buying + in game ads, it was just number shuffling with no real consequence because real money wasn't involved.
I feel like crypto and NFT's are the same right now. Crypto will be binded to a non-consumable good with desired value/ownership to become useful in the future. Like, instead of a Amazon stock, you'd hold Amazon coins that essentially behave like Amazon stocks now. Holding current crypto coins now might be worthless. NFT's might be useful for verification of subscriptions, confirmation of your ability to use certain digital assets, combat counterfeits etc. But it needs to be binded to a consumable good that people desire.
EDIT: My stance is still the same. I still don't get how crypto and NFTs have value. I thought they were worthless years ago, I still think they're worthless. I also think that the average crypto bro is like 90%+ wrong on what they think the future of crypto and NFTs are. I feel like the vast majority are just playing an imaginary "potential" card. Many also over imagine what the implications are like how digital readers will displace physical books and how the microwave will save us a ton of time cooking so that we can spend that time being productive during our day. Crypto and NFTs are not going to displace existing assets and technology IMO, it will innovate current assets and technologies in a manner we didn't realize would make sense, but make a ton of sense after it is implemented.
Eh... I dunno.