I’ve seen some people throw around the term “shitcoin,” referring to anything with a lower market cap than the largest crypto (not to be named so as to avoid the appearance of accusations).This term, however, is better applied to any crypto that promises more than it currently can deliver.For example, if any crypto does not deliver on its central promise should be labeled a shitcoin, whatever it’s market cap. For example: If a coin promises to be a means of transaction, but is very impractical to use and has no functional alternatives (on first or second layer) for the foreseeable future, that coin should be labeled a shitcoin regardless of how many people have expressed interest in owning it and whatever it’s current market cap.Conversely, any coin that presently does deliver on its central promise should not be labeled a shitcoin, whatever it’s market cap.Any other method of deciding “shitcoin” from not shitcoin is susceptible to various biases and misconception - confirmation bias (or, very slow confirmation bias), bandwagon fallacy, anchor bias, etc.Correct me where I’m wrong...?
Submitted August 17, 2019 at 09:04AM
No comments:
Post a Comment