Why SETHER is not getting my ETHER - Oracles and Vaporware

(to all purposes, this is fiction)
Today Mr. Positive Blue and Mr. Negative Red meet Mrs. Inquisitive Brown to talk about mainstream payments. Mr Neutral Black has made a through reading of the document and Mr Technological Green is around just in case. Mr Market Purple has joined today for a beer.
- I read the SETHER White Paper, and I have quite a few questions now.
- This project comes from a company that works in social networks analytics and plans to develop an Social Networks Oracle.
- They seem to have a good team, good programmers.
- The product is much needed.
- But, what is an Oracle?
- Do you know about Smart Contracts? Remember, those are programs that are coded into the blockchain and can be called and executed in trust-less manner?
- Yes, we spoke about them a while ago in the Quantstamp entry.
- Ok, these contracts are very good at dealing with information that is already on the blockchain, but they need to interface with other "real world data".
- For example?
- If you want to make a blockchain payment for an add in Facebook, the smart contract that does the payment needs to know that the add has been published.
- Oh, OK, and that would work also with other stuff?
- Indeed, sports results, exchanges quotations, ... anything.
- SETHER is developing an API so that smart contracts can use it as an Oracle for events that happen in Social Networks.
- It has huge potential. Is a much needed tool with hundreds of use cases.
- The technical base seems also quite good.
-So, should I invest?
- I would not.
- But, why? It sounds terrific!
- These people are great programmers, but their business proposition to the investor is awful. Firstly, there is a huge hardcap. If it is reached it would mean valuating the tokens (not even the company) (they sell 50% for a hardcap of 165,000 ether, currently all tokens would be 132M USD in value).  Second, there is no softcap. They claim that the project will go on no matter what the contribution is.
- What are the consequences of this?
- As investor, I do not know how much am I paying for what percent of the tokens. That is, if I put 1 eth, what percent of property (of tokens) do I have. It is blind investment. Also, not having a hard cap an claiming that they would do the project anyway means that they do not need my investment, so they are just using a good opportunity to get additional funds to try to do a faster development.
- That approach to software engineering is not adequate for innovation. The rationale behind this is "let's get as much money as possible so we can hire a workforce as large as possible to finish this".
- So... is that possible?
- No. It does not work like that. Growth has to be managed or the chaos will eat up the funds with meagre results.
- Are there any other red flags on this project?
- Well, not really a red flag, but there is going to be a huge competence and this guys do not seem to have a good market strategy nor a pre-existing customer base.
- So... they won't succeed?
- They may succeed, but the risk does not match the reward. Particularly with that ridiculously high valuation of a software that does not exist.
- If the software does not even have a prototype (they only have a proposed API definition), the team is good but not world class, there are not pre-existing clients, no strategic partners... I have to agree, the valuation is not correct. I am out. 

ICOs to stay away from... Metronome, Pundi X, Stack, WaBi...

To all effects, consider this fiction writing. By no means is financial advise, endorsement of products nor anything remotely close to that.

Today Ms Inquisite Brown,  Mr. Negative Red and Neutral Black meet to discuss a few incoming ICOs....

- The first one is Metronome. Intends to be a new multichain crypto with a low inflation ratio. However, it is a RC20, Ethereum compatible token and the founders leave to the comunity any further development. No funds provided to it.
- I have read the white paper. As I understand the economics behind it, is a clumsy scheme to give 20% of whatever you invest to the founders with no return. The token is basically backed by the ether that buyers put into it minus 20% for the founders.
- Nothing left to ask.

- What about Pundi-X?
- The underliying technology is not ready and will not be until Ethereum goes PoS. 
- Why is that?
- Ethereum token processing speed is not ready to commit transactions with that volumen in a few seconds, which is what most people would expect when paying for a cofee or a pair of boots. Not to mention the hours delays that could happen on a saturated network.
 - Correction: After this conversation Pundi has integrated the NEM protocol and now it is functional.

- Oh, but it seems that the Stack project and the STK token are just addressing that problem.
- Exactly, they are addressing the problem, but have no solution at the moment nor any Minumum Viable Product nor code, ... Vaporware at a expensive price. Probably Ethereum PoS will short the problem far before them.

- Let´s change the markets... what about WaBi?
- They sell what will possibly become the fidelity points of products that potentially will use an electronic anti-tampering device.
- Is the device good?
- Probably, the problem being that they are selling a token whose value is not related directly to the sales of the device but to an undefined loyalty program: it lacks any real value and may never have it. I would not go there.

103 - Ecosystems and Cryptocurrencies

Today, Mr Philosopher Black, Mrs Newby Blue and Mr Sceptic red meet in the Pub and start talking about "Ecosystems"...

- Ecosystem, that sounds to me like frogs eating flies and squirrels gathering nuts.

- Yeh, well that´s kind of my idea of cryptocurrencies anyway.

- It kind of makes sense to call ecosystem to what normally would be the stakeholders. You see, cryptocurrency, like Bitcoin, do need a "habitat" to survive and thrieve.

- You mean, they need computers to live in?

- Not exactly. They definetly need infrastructure, such as networks, computers, etc. But, do you remember waht we spoke about here regarding what is value in criptocurrencies?

- Yeah, well it did not make any sense... you are giving value to things that do not have it! Bitcoin is tulip-mania.

- I guess we could say the same about printed paper: nothing but colored stamps. For the moment, I would like to know more about ecosystems.

- Well.. as I was saying, there are a few things that provide value to any criptocurrency, and that is linked to the concept of value. First of all, is the trust of the users. There are many types of uses and all of them provide value.

- Oh, anyway, most people are just speculators...

- Even speculating is a value. Some currencies are a vehicle to invest. Lately, ethereum and the ERC20 tokens allow easy investmenting for the masses.

- And many scams!

- Surely, that too. But you see, these people, entrepeneurs and investors are part of the ecosystem. They provide value to everyone by using the cryptocurrency.

- Oh, yep, I think I can see your point there, just like normal money is used to invest.

- Correct. Also, you have the exchanges. Having the support of large exchanges, or at least one, makes a lot of difference. The easier it is to trade, the greater the network effect we spoke about in the value of cryptocurrencies. Also, they are very powerfull actors when forks occur, but that is a different story.

-  Oh, I have seen the exchanges list almos anything nowdays... just look at Etherdelta and the ERC20s. It just does not make sense to have so many tokens listed!

- Mmm... it does make sense, just as it makes sense to list millions of items in eBay or Amazon. But anyway, there are many other actors in the ecosystem, such as the miners.

- Everybody is talking about mining and how people go crazy about it.

- Is just a waste of time I heard, to much work for little profit.

- We should speak about mining some day, but regarding the ecosystem, the miners play a significant role when deciding where a criptocurrency is going to go when updating and deciding which chain are they are participating in. Have you seen the typical windows service packs and updates?

- For sure, and also the Android Apps upgrades. Sometimes they are good and sometimes bad.

- Well, in the cryptocurrency space the software upgrades can be quite controversial, because they inevitably favour some people and damage others. Miners support the version (they call it fork) that is best for their interest.

- I think that miners do nothing I should be removed from the ecosystem.

- At the end of the day, you need to have a distributed network, that is the essecence of a public ledger technology, and , for that, you will need to provide an incentive for the nodes and the validators. They are rewarded in several ways that we could talk about some other time, like Proof of Work, Proof of Stake, Proof of Importance,...

- And who else is there?

- We still have to list the users of the currency, the development teams and, in some cases, the hardware manufacturers.

- This seems like a jungle where everybody runs arround in circles without knowing where all this is going.

- Oh, it is quite the opposite. The ecosystem is highly "political" in the sense that there are  new initiatives continously and all the actors try to act in their best interest. Typically, the users want ease of use and security. Investor want high returns. Hardware manufacturers want to jump into the business, but some of them are unsure as of using their powerfull brands in projects that they do not control nor understand fully.

- Well, this is leading us nowhere...

- The conclusion is that when you consider how "good" is a Cryptocurrency you need to evaluate what actors are influencing it and how. Right now Bitcoin is heavily influenced by large miners, wereas Ethereum has a strong development team and leaders influence.

- But, is this not an endless fight?

- You see, that is precisely why this is an ecosystem. Not everyone in there agrees nor wants the same thing, but surely they all depend on each other to make bitcoin and other currencies strong.

Bitconomics 102 - Where is the value AKA "We have been here before"

Value is something difficult to see. When  Mrs Newby Blue, Mr Sceptic Red and Mr OldEntrepeneur Brown meet the conversation jumps from "grandpa´s tales" to a late friday pub night brawl .Using a women character as a new-by is random, no intention behind. Also, if you are not British replace pub with any other meeting place.

- I am telling you, Bitcoin and all the Alts are just nothing, a cheap piece of software that are going nowhere!

- Well maybe, I have aready spoken with Mr Philosopher Black here and I am still doubtfull about all this thing. 

- Oh... you see this white beird I have, well, I was here when there was no internet at all and I have seen a few things before the Cryptocurrencies boom.

- But this is surely different... everyone says is revolutionary.

- All? Nah.. just a bunch of carpetbadgers and cybercriminals!

- The problem is that, once more, we are in a territory where we do not yet know what is value and what is not.

- How is that? Value is always something clear.

- Oh, no no my young friend... I still remember when nobody could really put a price on Yahoo, Altavista and others.

- Alta-what??

- A thousand years ago, in the 90´s, there were more that one search engine out there. They all had funny names like Altavista, Terra and Yahoo. This was a bit after the formation of the oceans and right before Google and when there was no e-commerce.

- Wooow, no ecommerce, really??

- And... listen because this is true as isnumeric("abc")=FALSE... listen I say, TELEPHONES DID NOT HAVE INTERNET AT ALL.

- Ooooohhhh

- Yeah yeah, very interesting, but what does it have to do with Cryptocurrencies??

- Well, back in those days, nobody could put a price on those search engines, nor for that matter, to any of the web pages. And that was because they almost had no income and nobody knew which one would win the race nor how would they ever make money. It still happens nowdays with UBER and others.

- I see.. so .. how did they solve that problem?

- Several things were tried.. for example valuing the pages for the number of pageviews, since that would eventually be used for advertising, then only by unique visitors, then by engangement,... Many of this metrics are still used nowdays.

- But none of those are alive today right? So they were bluffs.

- Well that is a different story really, but my point is that WE STILL HAVEN´T FOUND THE WAY OF VALUATING CRYPTOCURRENCIES.

- That is because they have NO VALUE. It is impossible that something is 25% more in value in just a week or vice-versa.

- Hold on... so why can´t we agree on a price for these?

- For starters, the ownership is unclear. Many of them have consensus governance. Also, we still do not know what will survive the test of time. As I told you Astalavista was the Bitcoin of its time, but the Google guys invented a far superior system that ate them alive.

- So playing cryptos is just for fools... they will all dissapear eventually...

- I would rather say that we still don´t know which ones will survive, because a consensus on what is value and waht is not is starting to become more clear. Also, the users are forming communities that will lead the future developments.

- So, the cryptocurrencies of the future are not here yet?

-  We don´t know, but it is going to be interesting times again.