The "crypto" space is full of scams & false prophets, most of whom are pretending to be the "next Bitcoin".
Whilst that sentiment is debatable, the underlying truth is that if you're looking at the crypto space as a potential investment, you really need to educate yourself on exactly what the idea behind it is, and which aspects of it will eventually provide you with the ability to make progress financially.
Like all "technology" markets, the crypto space works to something called paradigms.
Paradigms are basically the idea that a particular "way" of doing things will take precedent at a particular time. It's more than a fashion / trend - it's an underlying improvement in the way that some solution will work. PC's were a paradigm; smartphones, the Internet, social media and now "crypto" are all paradigms.
Now, such is the capitalistic way - one company will typically rise to prominence within the "paradigm" that may emerge. We saw this with Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Apple and more. It's rarely the case that any of these massive companies will exist in a vacuum - they always have a central "market" that is committed to buying their solutions (because they exemplify the paradigm perfectly).
To this end, we can see Bitcoin's draw because it, too, created a paradigm. If it was a real business (owned by a central group of people), it would be worth billions of [real] dollars today... but as it's not a real business, its value is obviously up for speculation.
The point is that if you're looking at "investing" into the "crypto" space, it's going to be a VERY long shot for any "crypto" system to even come close to the meteroic success that Bitcoin achieved so far (and it's barely scratched the surface).
This means that rather than trying to determine which "crypto" system is going to "beat" Bitcoin, you need to examine which systems have the potential to extend the "crypto" space even further. This is what we'll be looking at in this tutorial...
Myspace Vs Bitcoin
On a note about paradigms, it's quite ironic that the "first mover" is typically the one that doesn't achieve market dominance in the end.
We saw this with the Apple Mac (the first mass-market GUI PC), Yahoo, Excite!, AOL and MySpace - ALL becoming extremely popular in their time, but eventually being superseded by a much more effective, and profitable company.
The smart money of the likes of Silicon Valley is currently looking at this with the intention of identifying the system that could be Google to Bitcoin's Yahoo - a new way to make "crypto" as user-friendly and effective as possible.
Looking at it like this means that if you're identifying how BTC will grow, you're doing it wrong. The big deal about the big paradigm companies is they are what are known as "market makers" - they create the market by attracting users (it's known as "gaining adoption").
Adoption is the ONLY metric that matters in the "technology" business. It's a blend of how much people need to use a solution, which justifies its purchase. Facebook has been adopted by its user base, as have all the other "successful" technology operations (just look around at how many people stare at their smartphones - this is adoption in action).
Bitcoin did the one thing that matters to a tech business; it drove adoption of the "crypto" ideal. However, it needs to be argued that this adoption is not indicative of financial success. It's why many people are actually highly dubious of the "Bitcoin" idea moving forward.
The main problem with BTC is that it's unregulated. In of itself, this is not a problem; the issue comes from the fact that most governments/banks won't touch it because of this.
However, more importantly, it has a deeper problem. The Bitcoin "currency" is not a currency at all, but a payment network. Whilst you'd argue that this doesn't make any sense, the simple reality is that it has no "intrinsic value" - preventing it from acting as a conduit of value. Rather, it ends up as a facilitator of transactions... meaning that if you're trying to consider it as a way to "replace" the likes of the USD, you'll be sorely mistaken.
Ultimately, this means that the next "wave" of crypto money is likely to come from the underpinning of "transactability" with real value...
The Next Wave
It's our opinion that there is an opportunity for a large company - Amazon / eBay / Paypal / Facebook / Google in scale - to come along and provide stability to the "crypto" market.
It's best to draw a parallel with the "oil" revolution of the 1850's. After oil was discovered in Pennsylvania & Ohio, hundreds of speculators went in the hope of "striking it rich" - resulting in many oil wells being created (and most not yielding anything).
Despite the risks involved, many tried to build new wells (the equivalent of each new coin we see today) - only to be disappointed that it did not provide a constant flow of black gold. Even the wells which were feasible were not operated correctly, with most of the oil being wasted and no stable market being created to provide for it.
The point is that the crypto space today is very similar to this very early oil industry. In the oil world, certain players gained quick results quite early - a number of refineries started to pick up steam and become moderately successful. This is the state of play today; BTC, ETH and XRP are the equivalent of these refineries, providing meagre profits in a HIGHLY volatile marketplace.
What the big money is looking for is the next Standard Oil. The company that took the oil industry and turned it into a single, well oiled (excuse the pun) machine. Standard Oil is still the world's most profitable company, with the likes of Exxon and Mobil being offshoots of it (after it was forced to break up after an antitrust lawsuit in 1913).
In the world of crypto, it's not oil but transactability that will determine whether a system is popular. At the moment, Bitcoin has provided the most trustworthy way to "send" money to friends/family overseas. However, without any underlying asset base, it's naked and highly exposed (hence why people are so polarized about its veracity).
What the market needs is a central company to provide an underlying asset base to the crypto space, so that each transaction is essentially "backed" by some other asset. This can only be provided if a company is willing to create/invent a method by which the entire world's digital assets can be "commoditized".
The company that's going to "win" in the crypto world is when one of the businesses comes around (like what Paypal did) to provide a single, underlying infrastructure layer through which all the crypto dollars or alike can be transacted. It will be a global marketplace for digital asset ownership; much like the stock market.
As mentioned, "Bitcoin" will just play a part of this process. It's a decentralized payment network, meaning that if you have assets that you wish to "send" through the BTC infrastructure, you're able to do so without restriction. This works extremely well, but you shouldn't get confused about its underlying value - "Bitcoin" is nothing but a decentralized Visa/Mastercard. Ignore every claim otherwise.
@millz to stay up to date on more great posts like this. 
ㅤㅤ .png)
@millz anytime and anywhere when news business opportunity are coming , them the people could go into that? Will have the courage to the unknown and uncertain? or Will be happy to call unknown friends to participate evenly as you do?
Thanks , stay awake. I voted you.
I believe so. There's always an abundance of opportunity all around and even more just around the corner. Just gotta act when its time comes. ^.^
@millz Yes, It is the true: Wait it, >>, act.
Will listen you again.
In this bear market a game can be great to lighten the mood :) Come check out Chibi Fighters. No levelling required.
https://chibifighters.io/
We are already in Alpha 0.3 and things look fantastic
Nice article. Just since it was the first doesn't mean Bitcoin is the best. In terms of popularity and use (and using it as a tool in exchanges to get the coin you want) yes it's still the standard. But many improved coins have/will be out there.
I have a lot of love for BTC and I think will always hold a special place in my heart. Although it might turn into more of a nostalgia then where I continue to look for new innovations.
A very interesting article millz, I enjoyed reading it. I concur with your comparison of Bitcoin to Myspace and the trailblazer being overtaken and replaced by a newer team that have learnt all of the mistakes made by the pioneer.
With regards to the 'next wave' do you see a coin or coins that are currently around making the right moves to achieve the adoption needed?
I like the direction that Electroneum are taking with their 'Mobile Miner' and the focus on the Indian market they are doing.
I will follow you as I like the way you structured your post. Many thanks.
Really i think one of the biggest factors isn't always a specifical coins 'new features', but rather the marketing. Just like you can have the best product in the world but if no one knows about it won't really matter. I think with the coming of new coins, makreting is half the battle.
You make a valid point there about marketing. There is also an opposite side to the marketing 'coin' (pardon my pun). A very well marketed coin can be a scam coin in disguise. So it is incumbent on us to do our due diligence and research ICO's and coins before taking the plunge to invest.
I appreciate the reply.
Indeed, That is true too. It all comes down to doing your due-diligence before investing your time and $ into anything. and yes, especially with a new ICO launch every day.
This is also where having a dedicated team driving the new coin until it grows its own legs comes in. Rather than just another 'shietcoin' someone made in their basement, then ditches, bringing no new value propositions to the table. (Which isn't necessarily bad either, but just that people are aware of what it is, and what it is not.)
I think we'll start seeing a lot more Celebrity coins here in the future too. with nothing really unique about them. like the Kayne West coin. for example. haha. ~
You hit on the biggest need of the crypto space, which is to back it with some tangible assets. Steem kind of does this, by commodifying influence and social media archiving, but I’m talking about real tangible assets: water, corn, kilowatts...
People say Bitcoin is a new way to buy things, then point out how stupid it was for people to use it to buy things (the famous million dollar pizza, etc.), and how they are HODLing. Do they not realize that they can’t have it both ways?
If Bitcoin (or other crypto) were anchored to an asset, like the gold backed currencies of the past (and near future), its value would become much more stable and it would actually work as a medium of exchange—rather than a highly volatile store of value.
Yes, it would not rocket up as quickly, but it would not crash, either. Instead, it would become a real medium of exchange and value storage, and a stable hedge against fiat currencies. Isn’t that what it was intended for?
I agree, and really we kinda of need the best from both worlds. Not in a single coin. but well-known variants which are best suited for each of our needs. Which is whats happening thankfully. Now the trick is to have a few that pull a head of the pack and become better known for 'spending' or hodling' or other common use features.
Good clear writing. If i understand your point about transactability:
i am a buyer of cheese and the cheese seller is willing to accept bitcoin as a form of payment for his fromage, then bitcoin is acceptable as a medium of exchange, no? Provided that buyers and sellers agree to it, the transaction can be made via bitcoin, but it is no more than a medium of exchange and has no other/intrinsic value, the way that, say, a cow or corn does.
Yes, I would agree with that. It's more just lending to the point that most people I see getting swept into crypto think its an end all solution. When really it's just the start and a new one. With BTC being simply a means of exchange. Which could be done in crypto, fiat, or even sticks of chewing gum, if that's whats agreed upon. (which is a real example from eastern Europe in the late 90s.) Now, this isn't to say that all crypto won't hold intrinsic value. . some may be pegged to specific commodities, gold/silver. or some other tangible asset. ^.^
"or some other tangible asset"... That might be the key thing...
Agree w the idea that crypto has satisfied the necessary but not sufficient requirements to reach its potential