I think my Ridiculous Dot Com Bubble Comparison post still stands. We can't compare crypto to Dot Com. On macro timelines crypto is going to make completely unexpected unpredictable moves. To an extent this is what Dot Com did as well.

I chuckle whenever I see billionaires like Mark Cuban making these comparisons, because they think they can declare the winners in advance (BTC/ETH/ETC) whereas during the Dot Com phase they all got wrecked. They will all get wrecked again with that kind of thinking. Or perhaps not because this space isn't competitive and it kind of feels like everything is winning in the long run.

At the end of the day it's pretty easy to pick the winners in crypto. Support the networks with diehard communities that aren't going to cut and run; that actually work and aren't getting speculation on the promise of future development.

BTC and ETH are still viable for retail investors (for now). Hive is the ultimate moonbag at such a low valuation after so thoroughly proving itself during the hostile takeover. I bet even Doge and XRP are going to make it (surprisingly). The difference between a lot of these choices won't be a battle of success vs failure, but rather of being rich vs being super rich. (lots of #1s and #4s)

Your post is great advice, and it is not my intention to undermine it. But at the same time anyone who employs any kind of financial responsibility here could never get wrecked like they would have in Dot Com. Dot Com did not dethrone the entire financial system; it was a centralized extension of it. The amount of value pouring into crypto is exponentially higher than Dot Com, with exponentially lower timeframes.

Judging by this we only have to worry about a Dot Com level bust if we get trapped inside a multi-year supercycle. That means the next bubble would have to be exponentially bigger than 2013/2017 combined. In which case we are all what? Billionaires before the bust?

Gross: TLDR

I'd delete this comment if I didn't spend so much time on it.

Posted Using LeoFinance ^Beta