Quote: (09-18-2017 11:17 AM)Bill Brasky Wrote:
Quote: (09-17-2017 01:19 PM)NewDayNewFace Wrote:
If you invested 3k into NEO in January you would be a millionaire now. So you definitely don't need to invest too much to get the big gains. If you do your due diligence on ICO you can make some serious money. ICO's like 0x and Kyber were no brainers to me.
Ray Carlton, if we knew the answers to your questions then all of us would be millionaires fairly soon. But realistically I expect to be a millionaire within a couple years. Crypto hasn't been adapted main stream yet. Once it does I expect Coin Market Cap to be in trillions.
So my advice to anyone here is home the majority of your investments into the main coins. Invest heavily into big ICO that you have done your due diligence in. Once they get on the exchanges sell your original investment in the ICO and put it back to the main coins.
For me my long term holds are LTC, OMG, Golem, 0x, Kyber, and of course BTC.
From my understanding, doesn't Kyber render 0x and even exchanges (centralized and decentralized) obsolete. The only reason I can see one holding 0x AND kyber is if kyber somehow can't deliver on what it says it will be able to do.
Currently, there are multiple successful exchanges. I believe both ideas from Kyber and 0x will be very successful. Even though they are somewhat similar there is room for growth for both. Below is a quote on the differences between the two.
Quote:Quote:
Kyber and 0x are both high-profile ICOs that tackle similar problems, so we dedicate this section to do a comparison between Kyber and 0x.
Areas where Kyber is better:
Kyber’s idea, if implemented successfully, would create a better product than 0x. The features not available from 0x are listed below.
Guarantee liquidity: Users can always find a counterparty to settle their trades so they don’t need to worry about not being able to trade their cryptocurrency, no matter how illiquid the tokens are.
Instant transfer: Once users enter into a trade, they can receive the token that are being exchanged instantly. With the 0x protocol, unless you are the taker of the trade, you don’t know how long it takes until another party takes your order.
Kyber lets you pay a merchant with any tokens and the merchant would receive another cryptocurrency (for example, Ether) in return, eliminating the need to convert your tokens back to a more popular cryptocurrency before paying the merchant.
Areas where 0x is better:
0x has first mover advantage with many dApps and relayers using 0x as part of the component. Projects that partners with 0x include Ethfinex, Augur, District0x, Status, among others. You can see the list of dApps and relayers that adopt the 0x protocol.
Ethfinex is probably going to be the first functioning decentralized exchange that is actually good and widely used because its creator, Bitfinex, has extensive experience running one of the largest cryptocurrency exchanges in the world. This is just one of the relayers built on top of 0x, demonstrating the potential of the 0x project.
Kyber is an exchange while 0x is a protocol where other dApps can use it as a component. All else equal, protocols are more valuable because different projects can be built on top of it.
Since both Kyber and the reserve operators need to make a profit, we imagine that the fees charged by Kyber (i.e. the bid/ask spread) would be higher than existing exchanges.
Having compared the two projects, Kyber is actually more similar to ShapeShift than 0x. Kyber is like a decentralized version of ShapeShift. ShapeShift charges higher fees than most exchanges because they take on the risk of being a market maker. Same thing goes for Kyber.
I'm holding coins for both and whether one succeeds it's always great to diversify the portfolio. Especially with these high value coins.