Telegram ICO , is it game over for other cryptos ?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Stealth923

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
352
404
233
Minimum investment is 1 million usd I thought. So for the average person not much. Something of this scale will take years to build. Their timelines are not realistic. They have not developed or had experience in the block chain space. We shall see
 

Dashmaximalist

Active Member
Mar 16, 2017
1,008
247
133
37
maptags.in
1 million is the for the pre-sale ( which all MNOs can afford :p ) , the public ico starts at the end of the year.
The real question is this, they have 200 million users and counting, they have a massive head start in user acquisition

what sort of long term competitive advantage do coins like dash / bitcoin have compared to them ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ashley Rikhotso
T

toknormal

Guest
Every crypto that's come along since "NxT" has supposed to have been "game over" for Bitcoin. Maybe people should start asking themselves why it wasn't. About 1500 and counting - almost all of them more advanced, yet none of them bigger in marketcap.

Nowadays we can make supreme colour copies of the Mona Lisa. For example - we can make them far more durable by printing onto metal sheets, far bigger - the size of buildings, we can make digitized Mona Lisas and print them onto carpets. But try getting $400 million dollars for any of them.

In other words, why isn't a "feature rich" Mona Lisa more valuable than a plain old Leonardo Da Vinci version that's well past its sell-by date ? Because the store-of-value market looks for places to park value that are as unambiguous as possible, not as "feature rich" as possible.

Technology assets are valueable as long as they are useful in terms of network service. They also need to always stay ahead of the pack in terms of feature set and scope of appeal which makes them all extremely vulnerable and potentially short-lived in terms of stock value. Just look at all the service-oriented blockchain networks popping up like mushrooms after a rainshower right now. (See a commentary I made about this from a while back on tech stocks vs monetary stocks: https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/...bitcoin-bashing’-important-please-read.13678/).

But with monetary assets, a completely different set of criteria apply. They need to be 90% store of value and 10% means-of-exchange to be sustainable because the more "technology & service oriented" they become the more ambiguous they are as an "original" asset in which to store value. Thats why Bitcoin focuses on minimising development while Ethereum prioritises maximum development.

When both (monetary and service-oriented) assets are digital, the distinctions in terms of blockchain specification appear subtle, but are still profound. For example, it would still make far more sense for Dash to inherit bitcoin's codebase than Telegram/TON's if it existed (which it doesn't). Also, if you look at how Dash's feature set has evolved, it hasn't been about prioritising services but about enhancing the known and established properties of money on a digital platform:

• fungibility (network-native mixing)
• mobility (instant send)
• security (inherits the bitcoin codebase, the only one which markets have unambiguously identified as being prioritised around a monetary store of value function)
• durability (transparent blockchain for maximum levels of sustainable public confidence)
• sufficiently-rare (first-in-class. Just look at the difference between the Dash M.Cap and the nearest masternode-oriented blockchain asset to see how the market endorses this)

Meanwhile compare those development priorities with something like Ethereum or Telegram/TON. TON is 90% payment rail and 10% store of value. For a start it's 10 years late so it's already missed the boat in terms of originality and "unambiguity" market for which the passage of time is an essential component. Telegram is targetting a technology market that's more akin to the Wassup type social networking stock than any decentralised monetary asset.

Finally, Telegram Messenger LLP is a corporate (non-profit) entity. The one thing they have is a lot of users but they don't have $1.2 Billion to spend on developing their project which at the moment is no more than a dream smorgasbord of features than almost any techy with enough dreaming power could think up over breakfast. Dash on the other hand is not a dream but a real $8.4 Billion entity that is succeeding as a monetary asset and that has 4 years of track record under its belt already.

(P.S. For fun: See if you think the company characterised in these citations is capable of building the blockchain to make "game over" for all crypto):

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10639688
https://gizmodo.com/why-you-should-stop-using-telegram-right-now-1782557415

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dashmaximalist

Active Member
Mar 16, 2017
1,008
247
133
37
maptags.in
Every crypto that's come along since "NxT" has supposed to have been "game over" for Bitcoin. Maybe people should start asking themselves why it wasn't. About 1500 and counting - almost all of them more advanced, yet none of them bigger in marketcap.

Nowadays we can make supreme colour copies of the Mona Lisa. For example - we can make them far more durable by printing onto metal sheets, far bigger - the size of buildings, we can make digitized Mona Lisas and print them onto carpets. But try getting $400 million dollars for any of them.

In other words, why isn't a "feature rich" Mona Lisa more valuable than a plain old Leonardo Da Vinci version that's well past its sell-by date ? Because the store-of-value market looks for places to park value that are as unambiguous as possible, not as "feature rich" as possible.

Technology assets are valueable as long as they are useful in terms of network service. They also need to always stay ahead of the pack in terms of feature set and scope of appeal which makes them all extremely vulnerable and potentially short-lived in terms of stock value. Just look at all the service-oriented blockchain networks popping up like mushrooms after a rainshower right now. (See a commentary I made about this from a while back on tech stocks vs monetary stocks: https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/...bitcoin-bashing’-important-please-read.13678/).

But with monetary assets, a completely different set of criteria apply. They need to be 90% store of value and 10% means-of-exchange to be sustainable because the more "technology & service oriented" they become the more ambiguous they are as an "original" asset in which to store value. Thats why Bitcoin focuses on minimising development while Ethereum prioritises maximum development.

When both (monetary and service-oriented) assets are digital, the distinctions in terms of blockchain specification appear subtle, but are still profound. For example, it would still make far more sense for Dash to inherit bitcoin's codebase than Telegram/TON's if it existed (which it doesn't). Also, if you look at how Dash's feature set has evolved, it hasn't been about prioritising services but about enhancing the known and established properties of money on a digital platform:

• fungibility (network-native mixing)
• mobility (instant send)
• security (inherits the bitcoin codebase, the only one which markets have unambiguously identified as being prioritised around a monetary store of value function)
• durability (transparent blockchain for maximum levels of sustainable public confidence)
• sufficiently-rare (first-in-class. Just look at the difference between the Dash M.Cap and the nearest masternode-oriented blockchain asset to see how the market endorses this)

Meanwhile compare those development priorities with something like Ethereum or Telegram/TON. TON is 90% payment rail and 10% store of value. For a start it's 10 years late so it's already missed the boat in terms of originality and "unambiguity" market for which the passage of time is an essential component. Telegram is targetting a technology market that's more akin to the Wassup type social networking stock than any decentralised monetary asset.

Finally, Telegram Messenger LLP is a corporate (non-profit) entity. The one thing they have is a lot of users but they don't have $1.2 Billion to spend on developing their project which at the moment is no more than a dream smorgasbord of features than almost any techy with enough dreaming power could think up over breakfast. Dash on the other hand is not a dream but a real $8.4 Billion entity that is succeeding as a monetary asset and that has 4 years of track record under its belt already.

(P.S. For fun: See if you think the company characterised in this post is capable of building the blockchain to make "game over" for all crypto):

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10639688
https://gizmodo.com/why-you-should-stop-using-telegram-right-now-1782557415

Thanks for taking time to do this analysis , although i disagree with the storage aspect ( because we are in very very early stages of blockchain tech, think of facebook vs orkut/ myspace , the later are completely extinct ) , blockchain experience does count a lot.

having said that, telegram is currently acquiring half a million users per day and is so confident about their game they are ready to give you full API access to their backend and have open sourced their front-end completely, telegram is a slowly becoming a behemoth in the messaging space.

Average folks dont care about Pavel's emotional issues, all people worry about is "Paying for coffee" and as long XYZ delivers that, people will flock to that.


we definitely need to take this threat very very seriously, we can no longer afford to close our eyes to not having strong marketing chaps, like you said there are 1000s of coins , having kick ass tech is not longer enough , we need kick ass marketing team and long term marketing strategies.
 
T

toknormal

Guest
Thanks for taking time to do this analysis , although i disagree with the storage aspect ( because we are in very very early stages of blockchain tech, think of facebook vs orkut/ myspace , the later are completely extinct ) , blockchain experience does count a lot.
I've never bought the "Myspace/Facebook" argument for crypto. I see this quoted left right and centre and have seen it since back in 2013 where people said "I don't think bitcoin will be the one but something like it/more advanced will be".

The thing about social networks is that they are a mono-tier service. In that sense they're no different from a business - like Starbucks say. On the other hand the financial system is a whole lot different and isn't about providing service or features other than possibly at the point of sale where those "features" may come from lots of sources, none of which are necessarily associated with the monetary asset backing the payment.

In that regard I don't think people care about "how they pay for their coffee" as you say. I think they care about what part of their saved wealth they use to back that purchase and how well that sustains their wealth.

For example, until the recent WaveCrest clusterf*k I was using a Bitcoin/Dash backed debit card. I could use this at any merchant that took Visa payments and the transactions were fast, convenient and indepentent of the Dash/Bitcoin blockchain properties. Despite that I was actually "spending" Dash and watching the value of my savings grow because they were held in Dash. If I booked a ferry ticket, the payment system was the operator's eCommerce database, all the supporting services came from Wirex and Dash was only in the background serving as the "store of value" that made the whole transaction possible.

I agree with you that it's important to keep everything on our radar and monitr the competition - if you step into the #alt_coins forum on Dash Nation you'll see me in there almost everyday commenting on stuff. But what we shouldn't do is run off and do something differently just because someone with a big user base says they're bringin out a crypto.

What should Dash do differently that it isn't already doing ?
 

solarguy

Active Member
Mar 15, 2017
865
413
133
60
Should we pay attention to other projects in the cryptosphere? Sure.

Am I quaking in my boots that Telegram is going to be the killer app that puts Dash out of business? No. No I'm not.

It can be difficult or impossible to make the essential distinction between what is fun marketing fluff, and what is technically possible and probable, and does the team actually have the digital chops to pull it off...

Hey, I'm coming out with an ICO next week that makes a blockchain so private that several three initial government agencies wanted to hire me on the spot and causes bald men to grow their hair back. And that's just for starters.

Sounds amazing doesn't it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dandy and slamdunk

Dashmaximalist

Active Member
Mar 16, 2017
1,008
247
133
37
maptags.in
I've never bought the "Myspace/Facebook" argument for crypto. I see this quoted left right and centre and have seen it since back in 2013 where people said "I don't think bitcoin will be the one but something like it/more advanced will be".

The thing about social networks is that they are a mono-tier service. In that sense they're no different from a business - like Starbucks say. On the other hand the financial system is a whole lot different and isn't about providing service or features other than possibly at the point of sale where those "features" may come from lots of sources, none of which are necessarily associated with the monetary asset backing the payment.

In that regard I don't think people care about "how they pay for their coffee" as you say. I think they care about what part of their saved wealth they use to back that purchase and how well that sustains their wealth.

For example, until the recent WaveCrest clusterf*k I was using a Bitcoin/Dash backed debit card. I could use this at any merchant that took Visa payments and the transactions were fast, convenient and indepentent of the Dash/Bitcoin blockchain properties. Despite that I was actually "spending" Dash and watching the value of my savings grow because they were held in Dash. If I booked a ferry ticket, the payment system was the operator's eCommerce database, all the supporting services came from Wirex and Dash was only in the background serving as the "store of value" that made the whole transaction possible.

I agree with you that it's important to keep everything on our radar and monitr the competition - if you step into the #alt_coins forum on Dash Nation you'll see me in there almost everyday commenting on stuff. But what we shouldn't do is run off and do something differently just because someone with a big user base says they're bringin out a crypto.

What should Dash do differently that it isn't already doing ?
The store of wealth argument does not apply to crypto in the current phase because it's a very very tiny market ( global assets are in $450 trillion range) , right now all that is required for success is excellent payment rails accompanied with strong user base, having said that telegram might not be excessively inflationary so it might even be good of store of value.

The way i see it is there will be a big prize given to one crypto ( like 90% of market share ) while the rest would be shared amongst other coins, to reach that sort of leadership position marketing is extremely important.

what should we do differently ? we should have world class marketing and PR team which we lack currently. we should rollout partnership announcements with big brands etc which salviate investors minds , we should play a bit dirty if need be.
 

solarguy

Active Member
Mar 15, 2017
865
413
133
60
what should we do differently ? we should have world class marketing and PR team which we lack currently. we should rollout partnership announcements with big brands etc which salviate investors minds , we should play a bit dirty if need be.
Couldn't disagree more. We have hired a world class marketing and PR team. Not one, not two, but three actually, and counting. We have had substantial partnership announcements, with more in the pipeline. And one of the central, foundational, non negotiable (for me) reasons Dash is winning is that we take the high road. Over and over, we take the high road. Perfection? No. Striving to do the right thing? Yes.

What sort of little bit dirty things would you recommend that we do?
 
  • Like
Reactions: slamdunk

Dashmaximalist

Active Member
Mar 16, 2017
1,008
247
133
37
maptags.in
Couldn't disagree more. We have hired a world class marketing and PR team. Not one, not two, but three actually, and counting. We have had substantial partnership announcements, with more in the pipeline. And one of the central, foundational, non negotiable (for me) reasons Dash is winning is that we take the high road. Over and over, we take the high road. Perfection? No. Striving to do the right thing? Yes.

What sort of little bit dirty things would you recommend that we do?
the market seems to be ignoring our partnership announcements for whatever reason. we have been kicked kicked out of top 10 which is a massive turn off for most investors, we should influence the price with constant and exciting announcements so we stay in investors mind ( bit dirty thing ).

so you say we have world class marketing teams , who are these people , what are their credentials, what's our long terms marketing strategy , do we have road map for that ?
 
T

toknormal

Guest
I'm wondering how you come to the conclusion that one crypto will take "90%" of market share.

First of all, of what market ? Blockchain assets span a huge number of commercial sectors, it's like saying back in the day that one website or one eCommerce system or one browser or one social networking company will gain "90% share".

Of the monetary assets, at least it's unlikely to be true because while in technology standardisation is desirable, in investment the opposite is true - so investors looking at cryptocurrencies as a store of value will want to diversify their portfolios, not consolidate them if past performance is anything to go by.

Re. your earlier "Myspace/Facebook" remark, it's true that Facebook is large but you only need to take the caps of 6 smaller companies - say priceline, uber, netflix, salesforce, paypal, ant financial - to be in the same ballpark. Then there are thousands more in the 20 to 50 Billion dollar range. Facebook doesn't even dominate the social media sector - it's the biggest single messaging-app company but the actual market size and diversity of the social media sector as a whole is diverse.

In my opinion, Dash has carved out a market, was the first into it and now has to consolidate it. That market is for highly liquid store of value - basically the coins to bitcoin's gold nuggets. Derivative networks can do the acrobatics wherever needed to carry that store of value into higher order layers of the system but Dash has been growing year on year despite all sorts of technologically advanced blockchains sprouting up around it.

Look back 12 months (which I accept is a long time in crypto): we were at number 7 ranking, $10 per coin and $72 million marketcap. Now we're at number 10 ranking, $1078 per coin and $8.4 Billion in marketcap. There are some very exciting proposals on the boil that are actual organic ones, not some bank coming swaning in and driving the marketcap ballistic with a single announcement and finally there are technological developments in the pipeline that are very relevant to Dash's core sector and which will still be a first for any crypto.
 

Dashmaximalist

Active Member
Mar 16, 2017
1,008
247
133
37
maptags.in
Wachsman, Ogilvy and Mather and Amanda B. Johnson. Plus all the indy stuff.
they are all external people if i am not wrong, and i don't understand why we don't have an in house marketing team accompanied with them which is related to my most important point of having a strategy/ road map for marketing.

I feel we are not taking marketing as seriously/professionally as we take development
 

Dashmaximalist

Active Member
Mar 16, 2017
1,008
247
133
37
maptags.in
I'm wondering how you come to the conclusion that one crypto will take "90%" of market share.

First of all, of what market ? Blockchain assets span a huge number of commercial sectors, it's like saying back in the day that one website or one eCommerce system or one browser or one social networking company will gain "90% share".

Of the monetary assets, at least it's unlikely to be true because while in technology standardisation is desirable, in investment the opposite is true - so investors looking at cryptocurrencies as a store of value will want to diversify their portfolios, not consolidate them if past performance is anything to go by.

Re. your earlier "Myspace/Facebook" remark, it's true that Facebook is large but you only need to take the caps of 6 smaller companies - say priceline, uber, netflix, salesforce, paypal, ant financial - to be in the same ballpark. Then there are thousands more in the 20 to 50 Billion dollar range. Facebook doesn't even dominate the social media sector - it's the biggest single messaging-app company but the actual market size and diversity of the social media sector as a whole is diverse.

In my opinion, Dash has carved out a market, was the first into it and now has to consolidate it. That market is for highly liquid store of value - basically the coins to bitcoin's gold nuggets. Derivative networks can do the acrobatics wherever needed to carry that store of value into higher order layers of the system but Dash has been growing year on year despite all sorts of technologically advanced blockchains sprouting up around it.

Look back 12 months (which I accept is a long time in crypto): we were at number 7 ranking, $10 per coin and $72 million marketcap. Now we're at number 10 ranking, $1078 per coin and $8.4 Billion in marketcap. There are some very exciting proposals on the boil that are actual organic ones, not some bank coming swaning in and driving the marketcap ballistic with a single announcement and finally there are technological developments in the pipeline that are very relevant to Dash's core sector and which will still be a first for any crypto.

you can't look at all technology stocks and compared them to facebook , you should just look at social media companies. Having said that it's not fair to compare money with social media entirely.

The fundamental quality of Money is 'store of value' and goods being priced in it, by this very definition only one coin is ideal ( which can be that king). The way it unfolds in the crypto space however is network effect, whichever coin pulls most people to adopt ( like 15-20% of population ) will get the real first mover advantage and once that happens it will next to impossible to dethrone that coin unless there is a new coin with far more powerful use cases.
 
T

toknormal

Guest
The fundamental quality of Money is 'store of value' and goods being priced in it, by this very definition only one coin is ideal.
Absolutely not.

Cryptocurrencies are assets - digital commodities. They can function fine as stores of value without being used as a unit of account. (Doesn't mean they can't function as a unit of account also - an essential property of money. For example I always measure coinmarketcap.com marketcaps in BTC, not Dollars).

National currencies on the other hand are simply units of account. They don't co-incide with any particular asset except in the cases when a debt security gets denominated in their units. You could quite happily have all these cryptocurrencies co-existing while prices are denominated in none of them, in fact I just illustrated such a case in a previous post with the debit card example.

As an example of how starkly different all these concepts are, imagine if Amazon changed all their pricing denominations to Zlotis. This wouldn't affect their customers purchasing power at all since people all have their savings held in a wide diversity of assets anyway - from local currency denominated bank deposits to shares and bonds.

What makes blockchain assets "money" is that they are liquid bearer tokens. These did not exist before 2009.
 

Dashmaximalist

Active Member
Mar 16, 2017
1,008
247
133
37
maptags.in
Absolutely not.

Cryptocurrencies are assets - digital commodities. They can function fine as stores of value without being used as a unit of account. (Doesn't mean they can't function as a unit of account also - an essential property of money. For example I always measure coinmarketcap.com marketcaps in BTC, not Dollars).

National currencies on the other hand are simply units of account. They don't co-incide with any particular asset except in the cases when a debt security gets denominated in their units. You could quite happily have all these cryptocurrencies co-existing while prices are denominated in none of them, in fact I just illustrated such a case in a previous post with the debit card example.

As an example of how starkly different all these concepts are, imagine if Amazon changed all their pricing denominations to Zlotis. This wouldn't affect their customers purchasing power at all since people all have their savings held in a wide diversity of assets anyway - from local currency denominated bank deposits to shares and bonds.

What makes blockchain assets "money" is that they are liquid bearer tokens. These did not exist before 2009.
you are talking about current state of affairs , i am talking about a future where fiat currencies cease to exist, in such a scenario goods and services will be priced in a crypto. when this happens it's far more comfortable to have one coin for this purpose than have a ton of them .
 
T

toknormal

Guest
you are talking about current state of affairs , i am talking about a future where fiat currencies cease to exist, in such a scenario goods and services will be priced in a crypto. when this happens it's far more comfortable to have one coin for this purpose than have a ton of them
Whether fiat currencies cease to exist or not, arbitrary pricing units are unlikely to ever cease to exist.

Cryptocurrencies are diverse because they prioritise different monetary and technological characteristics, not because people think they are going to be used as a global unit of account. If those technological and monetary priorities are there today they will still be there tomorrow whether fiat currencies exist or not.

Anyway, what your describing in all your posts is bitcoin - not Telegraph. If a "one to dominate all" crypto was to prevail then Bitcoin is the only real contender being that it's the least ambiguous for markets, most original, most secure and most widely recognised.

P.S. "Fiat" curency is no more than monetised credit. That is an essential component of an advanced financial system and isn't going to ever go away, even if there are mass sovereign defaults.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dashmaximalist

Active Member
Mar 16, 2017
1,008
247
133
37
maptags.in
Whether fiat currencies cease to exist or not, arbitrary pricing units are unlikely to ever cease to exist.

And anyway, cryptocurrencies are diverse because they prioritise different monetary and technological characteristics, not because people think they are going to be used as a global unit of account. If those technological and monetary priorities are there today they will still be there tomorrow whether fiat currencies exist or not.

Anyway, what your describing in all your posts is bitcoin - not Telegraph. If a "one to dominate all" crypto was to prevail then Bitcoin is the only real contender being that it's the least ambiguous for markets, most secure and most widely recognised.
Money by its definition needs to be an account of account, if crypto were to become Money, Goods needs to priced in it.

The reason why bitcoin might not be money is because we have very new powerful coins in the market and we haven't scratched the surface of full market
 
T

toknormal

Guest
Money by its definition needs to be an account of account
What that requirement means it needs to be capable of functioning as a unit of account. That property follows from it being fungible. For example you couldn't use a gold nugget as a unit of account because it's different from every other gold nugget but you could use a gold weight as a unit of account, e.g. ounces.

But the "unit of account" property doesn't mean that money needs to be widely adopted as a unit of account - that would be ludicrous because almost every monetary asset other than debt securities is not co-incident with a national currency. Dash has a unit of account and so does every other cryptocurrency - that's what makes it spendable because it can be quantifiably expressed in any other unit of account. So Dash is "spendable" regardless of how Amazon chooses to price their goods.

Whatever the merits of relative blockchains, there's one thing you can be sure of: if a global cryptocurrency comes to dominate as a store of value it will definitely NOT be widely used as a pricing unit for retail. That's because if it's any good at storing value it will be deflationary in relation to a growing economy and a distinct unit of account will be sought that can measure that economy's value more stably. (That is one of the few useful things that central banks do right now).
 
T

toknormal

Guest
Last edited by a moderator:

solarguy

Active Member
Mar 15, 2017
865
413
133
60
they are all external people if i am not wrong, and i don't understand why we don't have an in house marketing team accompanied with them which is related to my most important point of having a strategy/ road map for marketing.

I feel we are not taking marketing as seriously/professionally as we take development
Hang on a second....so you want a world class marketing team, but you want them to be in-house....? The people we hired are a world class branding/marketing team. They were expensive. They specialize in FinTech. How would them being internal or in-house be better?

And if you believe that Amanda B. Johnson is "external people" then you have seriously misunderstood the Dash Ecosystem.
 
Nov 27, 2017
41
6
48
Pretoria
Telegram ICO will be a game changer, it's reported to have the potential to be the biggest ever.If successful we could see many big companies fellow suit eg Facebook.Maybe as a community we should get used to seeing Dash in lower placing in terms of marketcap, though I believe it will take some time for such organisations to get established in the crypto space, believe Dash will be widely adopted by then.
 
Last edited:

tungfa

Administrator
Dash Core Team
Moderator
Foundation Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Apr 9, 2014
8,902
6,734
1,283
i am not sure if this will be the "game changer" everybody is talking about
each and every crypto had their Telegram Bots (dash or other Alt payments over Telegram) and as far as i know 99% of them all died !
ICO's with that much hype already turn me off
the telegram guy is totally solid, there is no doubt , but that does not mean that 'his' crypto will change the world as everybody is talking about here
(Mobiles still have a ton of security issues and such )
lets see ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: solarguy

slamdunk

Member
Jul 31, 2016
115
52
78
www.dash.org
we should influence the price with constant and exciting announcements
I think this is known as "talking [our] book"

It's not hard to find the contingent of bloviators that talk their book these days, cryptosphere or otherwise. These jokers are everywhere and some of them have the mainstream microphone.

I sincerely hope DASH is aiming at a rock solid software implementation that will speak for itself and our patience will be rewarded with the best general purpose coin. If that becomes reality, everyone will be talking DASH's book.
 

Dashmaximalist

Active Member
Mar 16, 2017
1,008
247
133
37
maptags.in
Hang on a second....so you want a world class marketing team, but you want them to be in-house....? The people we hired are a world class branding/marketing team. They were expensive. They specialize in FinTech. How would them being internal or in-house be better?

And if you believe that Amanda B. Johnson is "external people" then you have seriously misunderstood the Dash Ecosystem.

i am not implying amanda to be external ( but she is only 1 -2 people team ), having said that , yes i do want a world marketing team to be in house , that's how world class companies run, do you think Amazon would outsource their marketing 100% ? absolutely no.

Marketing is the lifeblood thats runs businesses and outsourcing it completely is foolish, Again would you consider outsourcing majority of development , i am guessing no.

Now is time to correct the past mistakes , hire a world class marketing team Asap , let them come up with a proper strategy/ marketing road map.
 

Dashmaximalist

Active Member
Mar 16, 2017
1,008
247
133
37
maptags.in
i am not sure if this will be the "game changer" everybody is talking about
each and every crypto had their Telegram Bots (dash or other Alt payments over Telegram) and as far as i know 99% of them all died !
ICO's with that much hype already turn me off
the telegram guy is totally solid, there is no doubt , but that does not mean that 'his' crypto will change the world as everybody is talking about here
(Mobiles still have a ton of security issues and such )
lets see ;)
i agree with parts of what you said , but there is a lot of difference between a Dash Telegram bot and a native telegram bot, which would enjoy first class status within the ecosystem.
just the fact that they would start with an airdrop to 500 million people would give it enormous value.

The interesting thing about cryptos is its absolute competition and we can all copy good features from each other, telegram could as well copy good features from dash , ethereum , bitcoin etc, we are quickly coming to a point , where marketing and user reach become increasingly more important.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.