https://play.3speak.tv/embed?v=jongolson/2rdp6q6m
This really bothered me last night...
There's a project that I've been using in crypto for almost a decade now, pretty much almost as long as I've been on this blockchain.
And it was just stupid simple to use, it had a great use case but...Never caught on. Last night, they closed up shop.
Here's a question I'd love to get some feedback on...
Why are all the super simple projects in crypto, hard to generate hype or adoption?
While the super and uber complicated project (pretty much everything from the Ethereum family tree) get the most love in the markets?
Does use case actually even matter in crypto?
Did it ever matter?
And how can the 'simple' and easy to actually use projects start getting more attention?
I'd love to hear your thoughts....
18 comments
Some of the best ideas are simple enough to be understood by everyone, simplicity is often underrated.
I think it's almost ignored...And I'm not sure why :(
What was the project that closed?
PreSearch
Every single project requires someone who can act as a liaison between the engi-nerds in the design sphere and the user base on the mainstream. Can the engineers explain an interface and find what they need for a blockchain project or photocopier (There's a story...) or anything else? Of course. But can the user without any of the development process follow the logic? Usually not. HIVE is among the easier projects for onboarding, but most people just want a stupid "sign in with Google/Facebook/Apple" prompt. The Keychain extension is a good start for handling those issues if we can get people to just take the first step once.
Yeah I think if people spent 5 minutes to understand keychain and the keys, they wouldn't have an issue getting onboard but most people are lazy...and just want a one click solution.
Could it be that investor psychology inherently favors complexity and novelty over straightforward utility? Maybe it’s the :peakd/hive: branding, :peakd/hive: storytelling, and :peakd/hive: marketing that will garner influence adoption... compared to actual product usefulness, but... also interesting to see what the investors of these popular projects are actually doing. Anyways, glad to have listened to your thoughts on this. Hive on!
Yup, I agree...The branding and entire 'feeling' of this chain needs a major overhaul.
I think it's tough, but I think the simple stuff might also be easy to replicate. The more complex things are, the fewer knockoffs there are.
That's a good point, and Hive has had plenty of splits and clones.
I suspect that in the cryptosphere, and also in the general population, the important issue is not whether a crypto project is simple or complicated to use. But rather, that from a point of view of resources investment, people see everything from the following perspective and relationship: Knowledge + Time + Work + Effort + Dedication = Profit
And I'm afraid that in a world where most people want and intend to obtain those profits "as soon as possible" with the least investment in knowledge, time, work, effort and dedication possible, that's what has never made Hive too attractive for them.
Since that majority of people who would invest only have spare cash to invest. But they have neither the knowledge, nor the time, nor the capacity of work, effort and dedication to invest them, or if they do, they don't want to invest them for a "potential" long-term profit.
People with true spare money to invest generally don't have the time or patience to wait to get profits from their money investing in Hive. And only those who don't have money to spare but have everything else, those are the ones who actually invest those other "resources" in our token. Hive has never been an attractor of capital, it has only been an attractor of workers.
Great look into it. I still can't understand why people dont adopt something that it 'easy' in the crypto space with actual use case. But you are right, the actual use case for this stuff is...can it make a profit.
Use case definitely has a place. But the blockchain itself has to have some way of generating revenue so that it provides value to people who hold the token.
One great example is Hyperliquid (HYPE). Most of the fees they collect in USDC buy back the token and burn it. In this way the value of the token increases long-term.
Binance Smart chain also buys back and burns coins.
Cronos is about to launch their app, which will use earnings to buy and burn CRO tokens.
Even ETH burns a portion of transaction fees, which can exceed the issuance of new tokens from time to time.
There has to be some business model for the chain that can use revenue to provide value to those who are using the tokens.
In the case of BTC and LTC, they don't burn tokens, but the issuance diminishes over time.
And meanwhile here, we dont even know how many tokens are to be issued or what the total amount is...If there is, it's not common knowledge.
It's a slowly shrinking supply of new tokens. The inflation percentage declines over time.
What they ought to do is use the DHF to periodically spend a percentage on coded buyback and burn. The HBD stabilizer generates some income and the fund itself grows from inflation, so it likely won't ever run out of funds. But even if the funds get low, the amount of buyback would also go down in proportion.
Yeah I wonder if there is something that measures the amount in circulation compared to how much is being burned...Might be something that would interest people?
I think the use case in crypto is a big factor for it to be recognized by more people
For me I would be interested on something that is simple to understand, and the complex details are explained in layman terms