How can a crypocurrency achieve audience: Authority, Marketing, Trust/Network-effect/popularity or better Technicalities.

If developers with big pocket design a new coin that can have superiority in main features such as better transaction speed, security, transactions per second (TPS), smart-contract features, wallet naming (e.g. string vs human readable name), privacy, size of a hosting node, level of decentrentralization etc, then will it achieve the desired marketcap?

Unfortunately, few people with technical know-how will able to dive deep and put their recommendation on it. However, even experts can be biased by providing more weight one design space than others and thus may not able to judge the superiority of the new coin.

Now interestingly, if that coin is marketed well with a shiny webpage, a massive social media campaign with hired celebrities, SEO, referral program, even viral videos, bribing to enlist in big exchanges etc., then does it guarantee a success?

Probably, nothing is guaranteed to provide success: better design versus better marketing.

Because, nobody exactly knows what will drive the users to the new chain. However, the more one spends, the probability of success gets better.

However, authority is the biggest attractor of all the parameters.

For example, @dan has made an authority in blockchain by building several world class blockchains such as @steem and @bitshares. When he built another one and said that his new creation is better, people trusted him without analyzing major bottleneck parameters such as centralization due to expensive node-size (e.g. biggest node maintainer are mostly crypto exchanges) etc.

Most of the smart-contract based blockchains are founded by ex-ethereum developers such as Cardano, Zilliqa etc. Most are based on ETH's codes. Therefore, they get some attention to investors due to the super success of Ethereurm.

However, now if @dan leaves EOS again and then found another blockchain, will he able to bring his authority to new chain?

There is a rumor that Vitalik Buterin would leave @ethereum and join Google. ETH holders were scared, then he publicly announced with a tweet that he is not leaving. Later, he sold half of this ETH stash and got criticized for that. It means people want Viatlik to stay always with ETH to provide legitimacy to ETH even if he is able build a blockchain with better technology. Therefore, un-corrupted authority is the biggest driver for a blockchain.

Now a blockchain with less technical aspects can still thrive due to early trust, network-effect and popularity of it. For example, Litecoin is a just simple copy of BTC with changes in PoW algorithm and block production time.

The code change was so easy and become so popular that every week there was a new coin with new PoW algorithm, lower block production time and interesting names such as DOGE or piggy.

However, LTC survived due to being the early mover, having authority of being founded by a MIT graduate and gaining the trust of many early crypto-enthusiasts or bitcoiners. Now not only whales but also institutes hold LTC regardless of its technical ancientness.

Now there is a couple of issues with early-mover advantage and network effects. There were few coins who had occupied top ranks and even had technicalities but lost their position. For example, MasterCoin, PrimeCoin, PeerCoin or NameCoin have lost footings either due to lack of marketing, authority or combination of them.

For example, NameCoin had interesting ideas to store data within its own blockchain transaction database. On that time it was revolutionary, but devs keep delaying updates and spend no-money in marketing. Technology get progressed, better blockchains such as Steem took its place. Even PrimeCoin had a better idea, instead of breaking (useless) puzzles (e.g. BTC and LTC), it was design to find newer, bigger prime number. However, devs were poor at marketing.

On the other hand, Founder of LTC, Charlie Lee is literally a smart guy both technically and charismatically (in decision making). His brother was the founder of one of the earliest and largest crypto-exchanges. When LTC was added to that exchange, it got big traction in China. Moreover, he attracted a large number of bitcoiners who were GPU miners. He joined coinbase to make ensure to add LTC there which pumped LTC to moon literally.

Interestingly, coinbase effect had died out and XRP was added to coinbase recent, its price declined. Lee sold his LTC holding at around $300-500M USD at $250-300 range. He has become a legend besides Satoshi Nakamoto, Vitalik Buletin and Dan Larimar due to his moves but with little innovation!

Steem has Trust/Network-effect/popularity and Technicality in its side. It lacks centralized marketing effort similar to TRON or EOS. It could be due to STINC lacking in cash due to low price of Steem while these ICOs raised literally billions at the peak of ICO bubble. However, Steem is doing decentralized marketing through its user-base. Steem also lacks authority after @dan's move and absence of @ned.

It can house or lure a big, famous ex-ethereum, ex-BTC, ex-Facebook dev to bring back authority of trust. Or, is it even necessary?

Most probably if STINC ultimately releases updates such as SMTs and community in a reasonable time, then with its relatively large and enthusiast community can keep moving words forward, then it can reach higher ranks even topple EOS or LTC in some day.

It is a big claim, however, LTC's sustaining power has shown that how powerful is the early-mover advantage is or having a big authority as founders.

Disclaimer: This opinion is not a financial advice, it my personal perspective and opinion. Please seek professionals for financial decisions. This opinion is only for educational purpose.

Image sources: Most images are open sourced (e.g. Pixabay, Wikimedia etc.) with Creative common license. Some images are used with due courtesy to respected owners.

Thanks for reading.
@dtrade
Cryptominer , occasional trader and tech blogger since 2013

Posted via Steemleo