I thus suggest an idea for a new metric for ranking altcoins.
Sqrt(M x H)
M = Mean transactions fees paid per unit time to decentralized proof-of-work miners
H = hash rate (normalized in electricity cost per hash to SHA256).
Using
M = Sent avg. per hour, H = Hashrate (normalized):
| Coin | | Relative Adoption | | Ratio | | Adoption-adjusted Market Cap |
| 1.Bitcoin | 6.5×10¹² | 1 | $6.4 billion |
| 2.Namecoin | 8.6x10¹⁰ | 1/76 | $85 million |
| 3.Ethereum | 6.6x10¹⁰ | 1/99 | $65 million |
| 4.Litecoin | 1.3x10¹⁰ | 1/500 | $13 million |
| 5.Dash | 9.8x10⁹ | 1/663 | $10 million |
| 6.Blackcoin | 7.4x10⁸ | 1/8784 | $0.7 million |
| 7.Dogecoin | 6.1x10⁸ | 1/10656 | $0.6 million |
| 8.Auroracoin | 5.8x10⁶ | 1/1120690 | $5,931 |
| | | |
One of the reasons that Bitcoin is 100X higher than the altcoins is because its "Sent avg. per hour" is so much higher than its
Volume(24h)/24, which indicates that Bitcoin has a much higher level of transactions that aren't occurring on known exchanges that report volume. In other words, Bitcoin has more real adoption for use cases other than speculative trading, which is one of the attributes I wanted to capture with my proposed metric.
What this seems to indicate is that altcoins are nothing compared to Bitcoin, which is what I expected but a 100X greater wow.
Unfortunately I couldn't find the "Sent avg. per hour" data for the others altcoins.
Note I am using transaction value as a proxy for transaction fees paid, which isn't entirely accurate. I believe for example that Monero has higher transactions fees to mitigate spam which could be used to reduce anonymity sets.