In 2017, when everything related to cryptocurrency and blockchain was still looking fresh and interesting, it seemed that there would be no day without a new ‘revolutionary’ project or idea. Decentralized financial system, decentralized torrent tracker, decentralized desktop documentation system. Decentralization, decentralization and decentralization.
The overuse of terms such as “transparent,” “distributor,” and “blockchain-based” quickly made most of the press coverage global. The closer we get to the bitcoin price peak at the end of 2017, the more ridiculous the names of the new projects become: “Ethereum-based payment system for meat workers,” “decentralized platform for breeding dwarf horses based on blockchain,” “Peer – to peer-to-peer banking for blind signals.” And so on.
Can any of this ask? In many cases none. Of the thousands of cryptocurrencies launched since the spread of blockchain technology, only about 30 currently have any investment interest.
After cryptocurrencies, many cryptocurrency exchanges launched in the wake of the popularity of blockchains are fading – they simply have nothing to do with trading. The situation is especially noticeable in the runways, where cards are stored with hundreds of projects closed, often alongside angry user reviews.
Let’s take a look at several projects and analyze the reasons for their failure.
Telegram Open Network, or TON
End of 2017 – In early 2018, a message debuts that Telegram is planning to launch its blockchain platform and cryptocurrency.
Also known as Grams, TON coins should be based on the open Telegram network with the blockchain TON at the core of the platform. In the project’s technical document, the developers presented this future currency as a potential standard cryptocurrency that could be used for the regular exchange of values in everyday life.
He stated that while Bitcoin (BTC) was considered “digital gold” and Ethereum was a platform for mass sales, this new TON cryptocurrency could replace traditional money and traditional payment systems such as Visa and Mastercard. According to the White Paper, other cryptocurrencies lacked the qualities needed to attract the mass consumer. In contrast, Telegram would be able to implement a system suitable for group use, given its expertise in encrypted distributed data storage, experience creating user-friendly interfaces and a massive user base.
While the company made sense when it came to data, it looked like a massive PR campaign. Why should Telegram implement this new financial system and not a company with experience in the financial industry? How will he be able to distinguish this new currency from other similar products? How is it better than the traditional financial systems implemented by a large centralized company?
There was no answer. However, Telegram’s debut coin offering, which launched in 2018, was a huge success. The company raised $ 1.7 billion in investor money in two rounds of private token sales, and it was very promising.
About the topic: Exclusive: New report reveals details about the Telegram TON blockchain
But it didn’t end well. On May 12, 2020, Pavel Durov announced that Telegram would officially end its involvement in the project after a long legal battle with the US Securities and Exchange Commission. Of course, the company did not have the necessary legal resources to implement such an ambitious idea. Most likely, technical difficulties and strong market competition played a role.
On the topic: SEC vs Telegram: Part 1 – Significant results so far
For me, this epitomizes the entire cryptocurrency hysteria in 2018 – a company that participates in a company that is neither ready for it, legally nor technically, without a clear location of the product. The end result is wrong.
Petchains was introduced as the future global information management system and trading platform for the pet market. According to the press releases, the system will allow users to maintain and store data on animals that live in homes and shelters. The aim of the presented project was to create a community of pet owners, experts, professionals, organizations, service providers, and volunteers. The system is designed to be developed as usual using blockchain technologies and big data. The original financing was planned to be raised under the first coin offer.
The good question is whether the world really needs blockchain-based information and a trading platform for the pet market. I wouldn’t say that there are many problems with over-centralization. Pet stores are usually chosen by customers after analyzing their reputation and online presence.
Some of the issues that buyers may encounter in this market include incorrect information about the health of the animal being purchased or past owners.