Sure. And I meant their sole target, in the beginning, should be crypto.
Cardano has much bigger plans than just crypto. They want to revolutionize many markets. But they have to focus on crypto first because that’s the space which will get them adoption.
Frankly, I think too many people on here think that once people just see the product, everyone is going to jump on board. It’s not going to work like that. Adoption will be HARD.
True. So it will be even harder for a copy.
I don’t necessarily think it will be harder for a copy. All it will take is the proper vision for adoption.
AS hard? Yes. Harder? Will depend on how established we get first, and how much catch up they have to do.
Bitcoin was not the first digital currency.
Actually, even crypto itself is too large of a target in the beginning. The first target should be developers WITHIN crypto; preferably those with expertise or contacts in additional markets like finance, social media, etc. This should include entire crypto projects with the purpose of integrating on to the safenetwork.
It’s fine to have a vision of universal acceptance as long as you recognize the baby steps it takes to get there. I know a lot of developers (non-crypto) since much of my family are in that industry, and anecdotal as it may be, it is quite clear to me that we have a LONG way to go to convince them of this project. This should not be underestimated.
I think convincing people (of anything) becomes significantly easier when the product is actually alive in the wild working and you can now turn around the scarlet letter of “it’s been in development for 15 years” to “it was carefully curated over 15 years”. I think you should be looking at selective mass adoption opportunities.
Certainly. But the “build it and they will come” mentality is insufficient. At least, until it is sufficiently built. The underlying tech itself is not going to be enough. It will depend on what is built on top of it.
Why are we pandering to large audiences right away exactly? Always thought this project was about the most natural adoption possible, and not showing the controlling world its hands so that it can be stamped out faster/at all. People aren’t even going to understand that a real project actually exists, one that benefits them in all the ways that they haven’t even dreamed about yet, for being always wrapped up in this system that maximizes human nature/greed. If one person can donate almost 2 million dollars (and then some if ETH keeps growing), then that shows that the smallest numbers are just as or more powerful than the biggest ones.
Sure, do something to get on more exchanges and spread awareness, but not “based on research”, whatever that research even is? Being adopted by the crypto crowd is indeed the first place that it will be adopted—but there are so many other areas that the network will solve, whether big companies want to see it yet or not let alone people who just want to store their data/communications securely, that these areas could very well be as easily marketed to, this time without ultimate forms of greed/nature but rather need/desire.
Just my thoughts. This would also make the original slowly gather steam without so much awareness to then be able to do whatever it needs to to prevent copies from taking it over. I feel like there are many people who have yet to chime in on this topic of the past day.
If the project is seeking an early adoption user base, I would target those that sail the digital seas, first. Many of those people are also college aged tech guys that may be interested in developing for the platform as well.
I frequently see threads on hacker news that essentialy boils down to “Wouldn’t it be great if we had something like the SAFE Network?” and then a few hundred posts saying “yeah, that would be awesome”. Sometimes SAFE is mentioned in some buried post somewhere, but isn’t given much attention. There is a LOT of developers that is waiting for something like SAFE, but convincing them that it actually works and does what they want will not be trivial.
True, but, as you imply, few believe it can actually be done. My brother loves the idea, just doubts it’ll work (or be universally accepted even if it does).
So why do you think when it is working it will be hard to “convince” him? It makes no sense to say everyone you know will be hard to convince when you then say this about him.
We don’t need to convince lots of people, that happens as more people experience something new which they value and know others will value. Different people are convinced at different points for different reasons by different sources and messages.
It’s not “build it and they will come”, it’s when it’s working, market it well. Nobody knows in advance what that means, we just have opinions.
I’ve watched a lot of very convinced points of view, but not so much to convince anyone else of those views. We’ve had this debate over and over, and I conclude we don’t know. What we have is people with strong contradictory beliefs.
It’s a pointless debate. Let’s get ready to market, plan what to try, how to measure and once there is something to market, off we go.
I don’t understand how you come to this conclusion?
We are now about at the place 160 in market ranks, with marketcap $323,060,934. To climb to to top 10 would mean we would need to be priced about 40 times the current price, which means 46800 satoshis or $30.
At the moment about 11 BTC would be enough to double the current price. That is about $660 000, less than a half a of the amount that a forum member just donated to this project. I think there are more than one forum member with considerable wealth in other cryptocurrencies. I would think they might very well buy up whatever is on offer in Bittrex (+HitBTC), thus driving the price up.
What I don’t understand is why would there not be enough buyers to drive the price up given only the exchanges we have? I do understand other reasons for having more exchanges, but this particular one just escapes me. If we get a working product (or maybe already the testnet), do you really think there are going to be so much more sellers than buyers in current exchanges, that the price just will not rise?
If you think the top 10 is not achievable with theses exchanges, then what position you think is possible and why?
Though he loves the idea, he believes there are fatal flaws (of the idea in general, not SAFE specifically). I’m not knowledgeable enough to explain what he thinks those flaws are, sorry. And he is also hugely skeptical about the adoption, even if it is a great product. He has seen far too many superior products in the space outshined by the Microsofts of the world.
I like when other people write my exact thoughts, better then I could have haha. Thank you!
On that basis he won’t believe it until it has swept the world and been “universally adopted” so not much point trying to convince people who are that skeptical. They will be late adopters and there’s no need to market to them. So we agree on that!
I understand his point of view, and he’s representative of a large number of people with some technical knowledge, but nowhere near all people who see the sense and value of Safe are like that.
There are plenty who are interested and will be relatively easily convinced: I encounter them myself, and they are not in the crypto space.
I don’t know if we’ll find it easier or harder to make progress with crypto folk. My bet is harder than the people I meet in the fediverse space based on my experiences there over the last few months. I make my judgement based on the attitudes I see and the difficulty competing for attention in the crypto space, where there are many projects competing for limited attention, many people already invested and ready to say anything to promote their favourite and defame others.
If we were pitching an idea, that might be the place to go because there’s cash looking for a home, but that’s not where we are. Speculators and investors are not who we need right now, we need some to invest in farming, but that’s not only pros but in our case also amateurs and every user is a potential farmer.
The fediverse is full of people who have ideals and values very close to Safe and this community, but are not into crypto, who are interested and will listen, are not already committed to a project, and can be convinced as users, developers and farmers. This is where not being like other crypto projects is a big plus and another reason I don’t want to see MaidSafe or Safe Network go down that path.
I think it’s usually a mistake to follow crowds, especially when you have something unique, or which in our case doesn’t need what those crowds are really about.
I have said that I recognize that my observations are anecdotal. Until we are ready to go large scale, we don’t know which trend will prevail. I’m simply urging caution to those who think that the hard work is done when the project is up and running. The reason I think that the crypto space will be the easiest place to start is that there are a lot of people, developers, financial experts, and what not who ALREADY think outside the box. But that is a small percentage compared to traditionalists.
I’m not suggesting to follow crowds. I’m suggesting using them. In particular, the crowds more apt to bring us success.
Because no one wants to get stuck. The lack of liquidity means that a huge buy (say 10 BTC) would only momentarily drive up the price. Then if that person for any reason wanted to trade those coins, the probability they could do so profitably would be very low given current market depth, general willingness to pay, and the people willing to sell below the price at which the person who bought 10 BTC paid.
Increasing the number of exchanges would increase liquidity, signal a revitalizing market, and lower the risk associated with taking a substantial position.
Neither premise seems valid:
I don’t see people arguing against marketing, as if the hard work is done when we have a working product. The argument is as far as I’ve seen about where to market and how, which IMO is moot. We can start with a plan, but should or pre judge. We need to measure and adapt when we’re doing it.
You’re playing with words. My point is that the crypto crowd is not obviously a good place to market for users, developers and farmers. We can disagree, for me you haven’t given a convincing argument about why the crypto ‘crowd’ would be a better prospect than elsewhere, such as the fediverse for example.
Because the people in the crypto take risks - the crypto is socially imposed because of its decentralization. Ie just because something is designed to store data forever doesn’t mean it will. It takes faith and a willingness to take risks to take the time to create an app for something that can’t be proven can exist tomorrow. People in the crypto are willing to take such risks.