Quote from: NotATether on July 13, 2025, 05:03:16 PM

Quote from: BenCodie on July 13, 2025, 11:32:01 AM

While much better examples of a shitcoin could have been used in this image (there are some quality projects in the shitcoin section of that image), that visual is just about what I was picturing to pair with research frameworks, including conditions that properly evaluate a cryptocurrency/token.

Yeah

Chainlink and maybe NEAR and UNI should not be in Shitcoins lmao.

But I barely recognize the rest, so I just lumped them all there.

Glad you agree, I didn't bother to start correcting what I thought shouldn't have been in the Shitcoin section as I didn't want to derail this into a big debate about it (we all do our own research and have our own beliefs!) though I agree with you that UNI and Chainlink don't belong in shitcoins, both have very real products and generate revenue...NEAR too (Good tech but questionable tokenomics, should've been much more successful than it has been I think!). Hyperliquid, aave, kaspa, are a few others in there that don't deserve to be (hyperliquid is a hugely successful decentralized exchange, aave a long-time leader in decentralized lending/borrowing, kaspa a POW chain that has been quite successful in innovating scaling on POW chains).

The more I look at the image, the more I think that someone has made it just to confuse people...they could have picked so many other things to put in the shitcoin section, except they chose successful memes and projects with products, promise or even success (even pepe and shiba inu can be considered successful to a degree, because of their communities and performance since inception - though they could be considered successful memecoins/shitcoins I suppose Tongue

). Anyway, I've yapped on a lot Grin

Might create something similar to this in my spare time. Thanks for sharing (sorry I can't merit, no sMerit!)