That's $100. What is your logic?
https://hive.blog/steemit/@cryptographic/what-s-steem-really-worth
https://hive.blog/cardano/@cryptographic/what-s-cardano-ada-really-worth
Supply and demand. Simple math, of course it depends on the givens, in this case that there will be dozens of top tier cryptocurrencies priced at fair value.
Ethereum isn’t exactly cheap to buy - and their fees issue is not applicable to HIVE since our scaling ability is thousands of times better than theirs - but if we limit our analysis to price, ETH would seem to suggest that the building continues in spite of price, or perhaps even because of it.
In any event, in order to bring the “per unit” price down, all you need to do is “split”. Look at AAPL for example: if it had never split, its shares would be selling for $23,949 now instead of $108.86. (Source) On the other hand, with SATs, maybe that’s not needed.
Either way, regardless of how much supply there is, the price will always be a function of supply and demand. Look at the Cardano example for evidence at the other extreme. It all depends on what you think is sexiest I guess.
Regarding the idea of crypto being a ‘casino’, unless you’re referring to ETH and ERC-20, I have to disagree on the whole. Crypto is not zero sum. It’s a growth sector to buy and hold. The only people who get hurt in this kind of underlying super bull are those who mistakenly treat it like a casino, again, when referring to what is legit. (Obviously, with the scams, it’s the gullible who get hurt, like always, and anywhere, but that’s the scams.)
Hope this is helpful. Good to see you around.
Great response man and thanks for elaborating. I respect your view so this is why I asked for your opinion on how you envision Hive going to $100. Coincidentally, others are talking about the relevance of RC now too and also making the comparison to ETH GAS.
See that was my point that if we flipped blockchains and this was happening on ETH then the gas fees would be RC and it would not be the same experience. So that's why I think and wonder.. if the price of HIVE goes up, and the userbase is also large, then wouldn't that mean that purchasing RC for a new project becomes expensive in the same way lots of transactions on ETH end up costing too much?
The solution, which is a hot topic, is to separate RC from the token and have the token exist as the asset and RC as the bandwidth which could even now be lent out for things such as mass on-boarding. That makes sense so I wonder why it didn't happen already. Obviously I have no clue how that would happen but it needs to happen. Making a community for instance requires RC that a new user doesn't have. That works against growth of the platform and leaves a bad taste since the game is essentially pay2play.
It kills the buzz of "Leave the greedy tech giants and choose blockchain."
I don't see how it does. There's no such thing as a free lunch - everything has its cost, and the better the product, relatively more.
!ENGAGE 25
ENGAGEtokens.