Thread by @TraderL1z

This thread will teach you the Mindset required to get the x100 ROI in #crypto.🧵

All of my friends were struggling until I changed their beliefs with the following knowledge.
👇👇👇

You've probably gotten into #crypto and quickly been convinced you are part of some emerging technology revolution that puts you ahead of the curve.

That in ten years, everything will be run on #crypto tokens. All of that is BS. It's a story. People who believe in it are being pushed to continue a game/ponzi scheme involving #alts that makes a lot of money.

This is allowed to happen due to two big misunderstandings.

The first is the idea that "#crypto" = "#blockchain."

It isn’t equal to the blockchain. Blockchain is a massive sector with huge enterprise software solutions by IBM, Microsoft, etc., generating billions in revenue.

This blockchain technology is being applied in numerous areas, from big pharma to logistics to security. There's no tradeable #crypto token in these solutions, and they don’t need one, and licenses are bought in dollars.

"Crypto" can be considered a blockchain project with a tradable crypto token. This misunderstanding is exploited to make you believe that crypto and all these tokens are this big, "world-changing" technology. That blockchain involves a tradable token. They aren't, and it doesn't.

The majority of these #crypto projects started and completed an ICO because it meant they could earn money without having to do other than distribute a token generated out of thin air and make promises that it MIGHT be worth anything near future as part of a software project.

Their whole company concept revolved upon "doing a successful ICO." When the sale was completed, they "made it."
They are not dependent on the project's success. The team #tokens are really an added benefit.

They now have a job going through the motions of operating a software project that has already made them wealthy.

If these companies were so confident in their project and its future token price, they would not be selling #crypto tokens at every opportunity as they do.

For the less cunning, it was just a technique to gain development or R&D funds for some projects without giving up equity, and they were convinced that no real inspection of their plans would be applied by VCs, so they added a token as a justification.

That doesn't imply it's a bad #investment (you can make money on complete crap in #crypto). That doesn't mean it can't be valuable. It signifies that the project's fundamental technology and what it accomplishes, in most situations, do not require a token.

The token was added in order to do an ICO and give it utility. It could be built without it or removed.

Some would argue, "How?! The #crypto tokens are required for payment/fees!" and "It is required for staking/lending!".

No. All of this is additional utility to the token to give it some (speculative) future demand dependent on adoption. Examine the project's primary solution and determine whether it is truly necessary.
Consider the following example: $Vet (#VeChain). Its token has some use.

Is a token required to use the #blockchain anti-counterfeit solution?

No. (In reality, there are corporate blockchain systems that do not require tokens and provide the same service.)
The need for a #crypto token is a spectrum of how much the token is justified.

On the opposite end of the spectrum is $BTC. It needs a decentralized token. You can't do #Bitcoin without building in a tradable token. Without a token, it is difficult to implement the decentralized aspects of #ETH and other blockchain platforms. They have a justifiable reason

Many #DeFi projects for which #decentralized governance is crucial also have a good reason forone.
When this clicks in people's brains, the first thing they usually respond with is, "But you could say this."almost every alternative!" EXACTLY RIGHT!

You may believe that "XYZ" is unique. They are real guys. They have a strong background and are reliable.

No. Everyone says that. They did what they did because they knew #crypto was full of selfish, opportunistic opportunists and that they would get rich.
What is the significance of this? Risk.

What risk? The risk is that because it isn't needed or isn't integral to the solution, it can be changed or removed.

As an example, consider #Binance.

Could you build that exchange and fulfill the same solution without the token? Yes.

Assume that the world's governments will prohibit the exchange of tokens tomorrow. Would #Binance shut down?

No. They'd just drop the token because they wouldn't let it get in the way of making money.

You don't have to worry about the token being dropped with something like $BTC because it can't provide the same answer without it. A token is required to "do" #Bitcoin .

The biggest danger in this is approaching long-term #crypto investment with a token like this (#VeChain and others) that works in the regular commercial and corporate environment.

Because governments, organizations, and enterprises do not want a questionable ICO #crypto token (risk) embedded into their million- or billion-dollar solutions, having a token is a barrier. It creates danger in exchange for ZERO benefit.

These #crypto startups do not have some enigmatic technology that no one else can build. IT partners such as IBM, Microsoft, and Siemens may write it without using a token. "Oh but X token has a "partnership" with Y multinational manufacturer!" someone will usually say afterwards

"That shows they are trusted." What you are seeing is consulting and paid work. This is adoption, and it is a fact. It appears that they will succeed, but this is not the case. What they are often being duped by is "the #crypto consultancy gig."

There are many of these in space. They did an ICO, got rich, have a #crypto token, some technology (which isn't particularly unique and could be created by anyone in a matter of months), and they target businesses, enterprises, and governments.

These firms make a brand for themselves by utilizing tokens and technology to appear to be experts, and then they conduct consultancy for major enterprises, generating a lot of money.

This consulting work also generates news, "partnerships," which #crypto token holders assume means are relevant to the project's technology, and the news boosts their reputation, leading to more consulting work.

All the while, the holders think it's progress for the token, but it isn't. Despite consultation, testing, and pilots, these companies, organizations, and governments will never deploy their technology in a production platform.
Why?

Because they are an ICO, and no large company in their best state would allow a company that did an ICO with a speculative #crypto token integrated into it, with all the nonsense that comes with tokens, token holders, Twitter hassle, negative news, and allegations of PnD...

...when releasing updates, into the production level of their plans. It introduces a GIGANTIC risk to their platform, which they may have spent (or will spend) hundreds of millions of dollars on for little value, as well as a giant can of legal and regulatory worms.

The existing IT tech partner giants of these organizations, such as IBM, Microsoft, and Siemens, will build the final #blockchain solution without a token and without the risky baggage, and the #crypto company will still get rich

but the people who get screwed are the #crypto token holders, who got played and used (usually by being an online fan club pushing awareness and helping the company build its image).

All of this happens in varying forms. Sometimes a project simply wants its tech to be tested by the organization as part of #blockchain technology trials.

They know they won't win, but they know that being involved will boost their team's tokens when the results are announced!

If they truly had something special, they would have never done an ICO (and avoided all of the issues), would have no token in their #blockchain solution (because it isn't required), and would have had VCs biting their nails. That they didn't take this route tells you everything.

The only rare exception to this is large open-source #crypto #blockchain projects, which can, under certain circumstances, get some enterprise action.

Not one crypto company outside of those has ever gotten its token integrated into a production-level enterprise app.

Think about that. Put yourself in the shoes of a #government or a large corporation. You're building a million-dollar software project. You want low risks.

Who would you choose?

A #blockchain solution from a globally trusted IT behemoth with vast resources with whom you've collaborated for years OR A similar solution came from a small #crypto company that's a few years old and did a shady ICO.

You don't know how long they will be around, and worse, it comes with a legion of lunatic token holders who will harass you on social media or holders of other projects who will attack you.

You'll also have issues with how you release updates in order to avoid being accused of manipulating the #token price. You'd have to be an idiot (and probably lose your job) to opt to go with the token-based solution over the tokenless #blockchain solution from enterprise IT.

Instead, many smaller companies assist with consultancy, exploring and preparing for the final product with trials and pilots, regardless of whether they have done an ICO.

Give @TraderL1z a follow if you've gotten value so far!

Stay ahead of the game by following me! My next thread is packed with valuable insights and strategies that will take your #trading and #crypto skills to the next level.

Don't miss out on valuable information and resources – Get my content delivered directly to your email inbox:
open.substack.com/pub/l1zle/p/de…

https://twitter.com/TraderL1z/status/1608103491477856257?s=20&t=dMSVUXhiJ9nM-z-keRQ7Dg