This thread is to continue the idea that Litecoin needs a marketing team to spread awareness. Litecoin is lacking what bitcoin has organically grown through word of mouth: A good marketing plan.
At this point it seems as a community relying on whatever happens organically is not working. I think we need some major hype over MWEB this will help improve prices and our user base as well.
I think the best thing that can be done is something drastic and attention grabbing. This should be something that involves a majority of the Litecoin community. I think whatever we do must be visible on the public stage etc.
At this point it seems as a community relying on whatever happens organically is not working.
It is working so far. The price is growing consistently and not falling for the past months, and volatility is not as crazy as Bitcoin. This is a success. If you hype Litecoin, the currency might lose health because it will attract the wrong kind of people (speculators and pump-and-dumpers).
I think that, instead of awareness, we should have economic activity. Only economic activity can push the price up in a way that is sustainable. I have explained the reasons for that in detail in the following article:
I was reading a thread about this on HN earlier today. The problem with our community is people just want crypto to reach the next new high. These major swings are great for speculators, but not for someone who is looking to use Litecoin as a currency.
You can start a business and price your goods in Litecoin, If you already like the coin.
Even if I accept fiat today, I’m always converting it to Litecoin. People that do not understand cryptography, computer science and don’t know how to keep secrets shouldn’t get involved in cryptocurrencies directly. I think that the environment should mature more in order to allow for common folk to get involved in crypto directly. Mishandling private keys and use a compromised computer are possibilities that regular users do not take into account.
I have also written an article highlighting this other point:
I think they should most definitely get involved in crypto directly. Education about the security concerns you mentioned is the only way to solve this adoption problem.
I don’t necessarily disagree, but any swing would not be good for someone using crypto as currency. At this point, there is a necessity to convert crypto to government fiat (and vice versa at times, when purchasing crypto). Who would want to use a currency that moves in any direction? If it has a risk of dropping in value, you don’t want it in the first place (as a currency). If it has a risk of appreciating, you don’t want to spend it. Absent a peg to the USD, or a similar concept, crypto will move. There are benefits to speculators in that they bring attention to the currency, but for the purposes you mention-I am in general agreement. How would you address the inherent volatility the way govt fiat and crytpo interact?
Crypto needs wider adoption if we want to solve the volatility problem. At this point there are so few people actively participating in the crypto markets. These few have immense control over the exchange rate. Until crypto obtains mass adoption on decentralized platforms, we will continue to see massive swings in the exchange rate.
We need the regulating pressure of “actual” economic activity. “Actual” economic activity is not just exchange between fiat and crypto. “Actual” economic activity is hard to come by. We need employers who pay employees entirely in crypto. Those employees, need to pay their bills and buy their groceries and pay their taxes all in crypto directly. Until we see this kind of mass adoption by the general population (not speculators), we will continue to have the volatility that we have today.
Tesla’s announcement is an amazing step in this direction. We just need more companies and organizations to take a similar stance. How we will convince companies to begin doing business directly in crypto is a question I don’t know the answer to.
How would you address the inherent volatility the way govt fiat and crytpo interact?
There is a healthy speculation pattern, that prevents the price from growing up or down. XRP actually implements this. The XRP escrow holds more than 50% of all XRP, and it has been used to do monetary policy:
sell XRP when it’s above the threshold, buy XRP when it’s below the threshold.
This act continuously increase the fiat reserves of the one doing this monetary policy and decreases volatility. In fact, the network is paying this speculator for a decrease in volatility!
If the LTC network attracts good players, it might get the same monetary policy from the whales surrounding it.
That’s assuming that all whales will act in good faith. In a perfect world where all humans are good; yes that would work. Instead I think we would see something like bitcoin where the whales manipulate the market to their own advantage.
A boring currency, that lacks volatility, wards off unhealthy speculators (pump-and-dumpers). The longer the boring it stays, the more speculators will get away from it.
1 XRP was trading at 0.30 cents of USD before January, and it’s now trading at about 0.60 cents of USD. I see a spike at that day you mentioned (Feb 1), but that is not a big deal for me, as I do not chase the market. I think in months, not days.
I was watching WhaleAlert on Twitter when the whole XRP security lawsuit was unfolding. I have noticed that a lot of big chunks of XRP were being moved into the escrow account. Because the price of XRP has risen consistently (if you ignore that spike), I can only assume it’s because supply has been reduced in order to propel the price up.
I could be wrong. I don’t have all information. I’m just trying to survive in the middle of this nonsense.
Thanks for sharing your idea.
Let me give another scenario,
Whales find out that XRP will lose the court. They bring prices upper and upper to sell and go out of the XRP market forever.
Let’s see
@wilderness - One great thing that makes LTC stand out (which we could potentially bring out a bit more in the public) is the volume to market cap ratio. From what I can see LTC is almost always the most used coin in the top 10… I personally convert my BTC to LTC before I send it over the network and then convert it back to BTC on the other side. It’s just because LTC is so much cheaper and faster (useful), but I suspect I’m not the only one doing this judging from the table below… We might be able to get a marketing campaign out of something like this?
“what exactly does a volume to market cap ratio show?”
What is the point of a coin that is evaluated at US$ 50,000 but nobody is trading it? Because Litecoin is traded so frequently, its price is continuously being tested by the trading activity. It also means that this coin has greater liquidity, in the event you want to abandon the coin, believing fiat to be worth more.
You can see a similar phenomena in the housing market. Houses were evaluated at scandalous prices, but nobody was purchasing them. A house is only worth US$ 50,000 if someone actually buys it at that price. Low trading volumes and high prices are a symptom of a bubble.
I don’t know why but usually crypto websites and blogs don’t talk a lot about litecoin.
If you look at the foundation blog, it’s full of news. But how many of these news are shared in newspapers? Very few.
There are other coins that are definely less important (like Elrond and Nano) but every day I find a news about them.
For me it is a great indication of utility/utilization. More of the available currency is being used in a 24h period compared to other currencies. It shows just how useful LTC is (or how much it is actually being used)
The only other coins that deliver this level/ratio of utilization are stable coins. It shows that LTC is actually being used a lot more like stable coins (as a means of exchange) compared to the other coins.
Maybe some of the smarter people in the community can also weigh in?
(It also shows how undervalued LTC is, but that’s another discussion)