So, I don't really get it.
Coins that seek to replace or otherwise play some kind of role in "being" money - BTC, XMR Ripple, LTC or any of the other "bitcoin lite" version with fast tx times and low fees - make sense to invest in. They could reasonably be the "future of money".
But what about the ones that just make use of blockchain technology in a unique way?
For example TNT, as far as I can tell, it's just a way to immutably create Proof of Existence for arbitrary data verification purposes. Pretty cool/futuristic, but I don't see how monetary value, or any abstraction thereof otherwise, matters to it or should enter into the picture at all. Especially when its parent company holds hostage a significant portion of the coins in order to control the market a bit. Hell, even Ripple, which will try to be a sort of backend for money in large banks for international transfers, shouldn't theoretically go anywhere near the moon at all...and they have even more of a vested interest in controlling any possible mooning so as to play nice with the existing fiat currency system.
So why am I holding XRP, or one of those weird """gaming coins""" for online game items & assets, other than for pure speculation? Someone help me understand this.
blockchain coins represent the resources required for their blockchain to work.
If the Ethereum blockchain becomes busy because everyone adopts it, people who need coins to run their operations on the blockchain will want to buy them from you, pushing their value up.
SO yeah, Ethereum, TNT, Ark. These are not meant to be currencies, their resources, like coal is a resource to power turbines. No one uses coal to purchase goods, but it is a commodity that is bought and sold.
>>3276641
sounds like you do get it. btc, xmr, and a handful of others are good. some others are fun and interesting. many others are ethereal follies that do not build on the fundamental value proposition of the technology
>>3276792
bump?
>>3276792
Luck.