Ok, so my opinion goes as follows.
They way Altcoin is currently employed usually means everything not-bitcoin. I can get some of the sentiment behind this. With BTC consistently adding more than 50% market dominance, it can be argued that everything not-bitcoin is just an alternative to it.
But I think this can be a little misleading.
- Firstly, not all alternatives are the same.
- Secondly, alternative can also mean, usually in arts and culture, that which is more niche, with a smaller devoted fan-base or what goes against the popular norm.
Now, when I think about some other projects, such as Ethereum, I find it rather strange that a project so ubiquitous and dominant in the Crypto industry is still called "alternative". The same goes for important and well established defi infrastructure projects such as ChainLink, old and reliable ones like Monero, or even those tied to important exchanges such as Binance Coin, that do not seem to be going away anytime soon. If such projects are "alternative" only on the basis of being not-bitcoin, I think we are not painting a very complete picture.
I think that we could adopt something a bit more precise to talk about these projects, perhaps according to use (such as what is already done with stablecoins) or something according to their relative importance in the market like Majorcoin, Solidcoin or whatever (I'm sure much better names will be proposed).
Maybe this is just a very minor gripe and not very important in the grand scheme of things. Maybe we can do with just Altcoins, Shitcoins and Stablecoins. But I think that, as the market grows and different projects secure their place in different niches, these three definitions will no longer suffice.
What are your thoughts?
submitted by /u/gorillamutila
[link] [comments]