1/ 1.1 - Crypto isnt blockchain

You've probably got into crypto and quickly been convinced you are part of some emerging technology revolution. That youre ahead of the curve.

2/ That in 10 years everythings going to be running on crypto tokens. All of that is BS. Its a story pushed to continue a game/ponzi scheme involving alts that makes a lot of people money by suckers believing in it.

This is allowed to happen due to 2 big misunderstandings.

3/ The first is the idea that crypto = blockchain. It isn’t equal to blockchain. Blockchain is a massive sector with huge enterprise software solutions by IBM, Microsoft etc, generating billions in revenue.

4/ This blockchain technology is being applied in numerous areas from big pharma to logistics to security. Theres no tradeable crypto token in these solutions and they don’t need one and licenses are bought in dollars.

5/ "Crypto" can be considered a blockchain project with a tradable crypto token. This misunderstanding is exploited to make you believe that "crypto" and all these tokens are this big 'world changing' tech. That blockchain involves a tradable token. They arent and it doesn't.

6/ Most of these crypto projects launched and did an ICO because it meant getting rich without having to do anything except distribute a token made from thin air and make promises that someday it MIGHT be worth something as part of a software project.

7/ Their entire business plan was "Do a successful ICO". They "made it" when the sale completed. They don't need the project to succeed. The team tokens are just a bonus. They now have a job for life going through the motions of running a tech project they are already rich from.

8/ If these companies were so sure of how big their project will be and its future token price, they wouldn't be selling the tokens at every opportunity as they do.

9/ For the less scammy it was just a means of getting development/R&D funds for some project without giving up equity and as positive there would be none of serious scrutiny of their plans that VCs would apply, and so they added a token in as an excuse.

10/ It doesn't mean it isn't a good investment (You can make money in complete crap in crypto). It doesn't mean it doesn't have some utility. It means that the core tech of the project and what it does, in most cases does not need a token.

11/ The token was added in in order to do an ICO and give it utility. It could be built without it and could be removed.

Some people will say "How?! The tokens needed for payment/fees!", "Its needed for staking/lending!".

12/ No. All of that is utility they added in to give the token some (speculative) future demand based on adoption. Look at the core solution of what the project does and ask if its really needed? Lets look at an example: Vechain. Its token has some utility.

13/ But do you need a token to do that blockchain anti-counterfeit solution? No. (And in fact there are enterprise blockchain solutions with no token that provide the same solution). The need for a token is really a spectrum of how much the token is justified.

14/ On the opposite end of the spectrum is $BTC . It needs a decentralised token. You can't "do" BTC without building in a tradable token. $ETH and other blockchain platforms also are tough to implement the decentralised aspects without a token. They have a justifiable reason.

15/ Many #DeFi projects for which decentralised governance is crucial also have a good reason for one.

When this clicks in peoples brains the first thing they usually respond with is "But you could say this about almost every alt!". EXACTLY RIGHT!

16/ You may think "XYZ is different. They are legit guys. They have a solid background and are trustworthy". No. Everybody says that. They did what they did because they know crypto is full of greedy dumb opportunists and knew they would get the money. Why does this matter? Risk.

17/ What risk? The risk is that because it isn't needed/isnt integral to the solution, it can be changed or removed. Lets take @binance as example. Could you build that exchange and fulfill the same solution without the token? Yes.

18/ For arguments sake lets pretend tomorrow the world governments banned exchanges having tokens. Would @binance shutdown? No. They'd just drop the token because they won't let the token get in the way of making money.

19/ With something like $BTC you have no worries of the token being dropped because it can't fulfil the same solution without it. You can't "do" Bitcoin without a token.

20/ The biggest risk in this is when you approach investing crypto long term with a token like this (VET and others) that operates in the traditional business/enterprise world.

21/ Having a token is a hindrance because governments/orgs/enterprise don't particularly want a shady ICO token(risk) integrated into their million/billion dollar solutions. It brings risk for ZERO benefit.

22/ These crypto companies do not have some magical tech that nobody else can write. Their IT tech partners such as IBM/Microsoft/Siemens can write it with no token involved. Usually here someone will say "Oh but X token has a "partnership" with Y global manufacturer!!

23/ That shows they are trusted" No. What you are seeing is consultancy and paid work. This is cited as fact that this is adoption. It looks like they gonna make it.. but it isn't how it appears.

What they are often being duped by is "The crypto consultancy gig".

24/ Theres many of these in the space. They did an ico, got rich, they have a token, they have some tech (which isn't that unique and which could be made by anyone in months),they target business/enterprise/govs.

25/ These companies build names for themselves using the token & tech, making themselves seem like experts, and they then do consultancy on the back of that for large orgs, making a lot of money.

26/ This consultancy work also generates news, "partnerships", which token holders assume means is relevant to the projects tech, and the news also boosts their reputation, which in turn leads to more consultancy work.

27/ All the while the holders think its progress for the token, but it isn't.

Despite the consultancy, trials, pilots, these business/enterprises/govs are never ever going to use their tech when it comes to making the production platform. Why?

28/ BECAUSE THEY ARE AN ICO, and no large company with any sense would ever allow a company that did an ICO, with a speculative crypto token integrated into it, with all the crap that comes with tokens, token holders, twitter hassle, negative news, allegations of PnD when…

29/ …releasing updates, into the production level of their plans. Its bringing in a GIGANTIC risk into their platform, which they've potentially spent (or will spend) hundreds of millions on, for no benefit, and brings in a massive can of legal & regulatory worms.

30/ The existing IT tech partner giants of these orgs such as IBM/Microsoft/Siemens will build the final blockchain solution, without a token and without the risky baggage & the crypto company still gets rich, but the people who get screwed are the token holders, who got played…

31/ …and used (usually by being an online fanclub pushing awareness, helping the company builds its image).

All of this happens in varying forms. Sometimes the crypto company just wants to get its tech tested by the org as part of trials into blockchain tech.

32/ They know they won't win in the end, but they know for sure being involved will pump their team tokens when its announced!

33/ If they really did have something special they'd have never done an ICO (and none of the issues), have no token in their blockchain solution (because it isn't needed), and would've had vc's biting their hands off. That they didn't do this route tells you everything.

34/ The only rare exception to this is large open-source crypto blockchain projects which can in certain circumstances get some enterprise action.

Not one crypto company outside of those has ever gotten their token integrated into a production-level enterprise app.

35/ Think about that. Put yourself in the position of a gov/large enterprise. You're building a million dollar software project. You want low risks.

Who would you chose?

36/ A blockchain solution from a global trusted IT giant with vast resources that you've worked with for years OR A similar solution from a small crypto company thats a few years old who did a shady ICO.

37/ You don't know how long they will be around and worse it comes with a legion of lunatic token holders who will harass you on social media / holders of other projects who will attack you/ media issues.

38/ You'll also have issues on how you release updates in order to avoid being accused of manipulating the token price. You'd have to be an idiot (and probably lose your job) to opt to go with the token based solution over the tokenless blockchain solution from enterprise IT

39/ Instead what happens is that many smaller companies help in the consultancy, exploring and preparing for the final product with trials and pilots as that they might have done an ICO does not matter with this.