[ad_1]
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by our editors are their own and do not represent those of U.Today. The financial and market information provided on U.Today is intended for informational purposes only. U.Today is not responsible for any financial losses incurred while trading cryptocurrencies. Do your own research by contacting financial experts before making any investment decisions. We believe all content to be accurate as of the date of publication, but some offers mentioned may no longer be available.
Forbes has labeled several leading cryptocurrencies, including XRP and ADA, referred to as “crypto zombies” in a recent research article. The term refers to layer 1 blockchains with a significant market valuation but limited utility beyond speculative trading.
Forbes cites Ripple Labs, the company behind XRP, as a prime example of a crypto-zombie. Despite XRP's active daily trading volume, Forbes says its use does not extend beyond market speculation.
Ethereum Classic (ETC) also made the list for having a large market value while generating relatively low fees on its network. The “real Ethereum” was created in 2016 when, following a hard fork resulting from the DAO incident, Ethereum Classic (ETC) emerged as a continuation of the original Ethereum blockchain.
Forbes also questions Algorand, once touted as an “Ethereum killer” for its high transaction capacity, citing low revenue from blockchain transaction fees due to lack of utility.
Somehow, the mention of Cardano was the biggest surprise. The Forbes article refers to the project as being based on the popularity of its founder, Charles Hoskinson. He notes a problem with Hoskinson's educational claims.
However, Cardano supporters argue that its ecosystem is active and thriving, providing value and utility that goes beyond mere speculation. They cite the network's contributions and ongoing development activities as proof of its vitality and relevance.
Forbes' statements may seem harsh to those who consider themselves part of the aforementioned communities. However, the researcher's point of view and opinion do not always correspond to reality and constitute only part of his personal vision. Some of the projects mentioned indeed present utility issues, while others represent dynamic ecosystems with strong arguments.
[ad_2]
Source by [author_name]