A Casual Guide to Investing in Cryptocurrencies

in #cryptocurrency7 years ago (edited)

casual3.png

Firstly, let me preface with a disclaimer: I'm not an expert in finance and economics. I've never invested in any company stocks and precious metals before. They aren't all that appealing to me anyway. So, much of what I know is just from my own experience dealing with cryptocurrency markets and reading books like The Black Swan and Antifragile: Things That Gain From Disorder by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. Maybe including Fight Club by Chuck Palahniuk as well.

While some of us have shorter time horizons when it comes to investing, I have a preference for investing in fundamentals that seem to be evergreen. That is, investing in sustainable organisations that can go on for a very long time. Cryptocurrencies are a good representation of such organisations. As long as they're open-sourced and sufficiently decentralized, these projects will be worked on for the long-term. But I have one extra criteria for evergreen coins, which I'll spell out in the conclusion.

As usual, only use your disposable income when it comes to investing in cryptocurrencies. You would need to be able to hold onto your position for any substantial returns over the long-run.

Truth is, it's most likely you wouldn't need this guide at all as it's easy to randomly pick some low-medium cap coins and gain from them in this bullish market. Plus, these coins have some dimensions that give rise to a certain floor for store-of-value with a large enough community. But I'm just writing this for anyone who's even remotely interested in taking a dive in being a casual investor in cryptocurrencies.

Important metrics to consider

heya.png

It's better to look at market capitalization than the price of the coin alone as it's a loose indication of network value, just as much as how people talk about Facebook being worth $500 billion as a company. Just tune into https://coinmarketcap.com and notice this figure in the charts. Also another metric worth considering is the total supply of the coin and its inflation structure, if any. Look for the latest whitepaper for any of the coins.

Starting with the network's 16th hard fork in December 2016, Steem began creating new tokens at a yearly inflation rate of 9.5%. The inflation rate decreases at a rate of 0.01% every 250,000 blocks, or about 0.5% per year. The inflation will continue decreasing at this pace until the overall inflation rate reaches 0.95%.

This will take about 20.5 years from the time hard fork 16 went into effect. 75% of the new tokens that are generated go to fund the reward pool, which is split between authors and curators. 15% of the new tokens are awarded to holders of SP. The remaining 10% pays for the witnesses to power the blockchain.

As an example, this is the supply inflation rate for Steem (check the whitepaper) that starts at 9.5% in the first year. This inflation rate decreases over time by 0.5% per year, in similar vein with Bitcoin's decreasing inflation rate of 50% every 4 years. However, Steem will have a soft-cap of 0.95% inflation rate after 20 years while Bitcoin's inflation rate will be at 0% in year 2140. With mass adoption, the 0.95% inflation rate can account for lost and inaccessible funds that will eventually happen over a long period of time.

Justifying an entry point

Let's assume that cryptocurrency markets are going to be a multi-trillion dollar market sometime in the future. Let's say $10,000,000,000,000. With that amount, we are able to house about 1,000 organisations with an average network value (or market cap) of $10 billion dollars. Due to Zipf's Law, let's stretch that out into a conservative $1 billion dollar per cryptocurrency (note that I would sometimes use the word organisation or community).

So depending on your risk-appetite, just choose your entry point into any cryptocurrencies before they hit a market cap of $1 billion dollars. My preferred sweet spot for least risk in investing is when a coin's market cap is around $50 - $200 million to accumulate most of my desired position. But generally, under $1 billion is fine for any coins that could enter mainstream use.

Invest in which coin?

There's no straight answer to this as we all see the world in different ways. You'll have your own taste in coins, and I believe there'll be different flavours in the market for everyone, even for the same kind of coins. Different strokes for different folks. Which is also why we have thousands of different brands for everything in our consumer culture. But here's what I think is important to inspect before deciding your investment position: decentralization, usability, productivity, resonance, and market activity.

  • Decentralization. Are there plenty of people holding the coins, and how concentrated is the wealth? Is it easy for anyone to game or hack the distributed ledger? This should adjust your risk appetite. Generally, the more decentralized, the better. Some have argued that Proof-of-Work works toward better decentralization. For me, sufficient decentralization present in consensus algorithms like Delegated Proof-of-Stake is good enough. Plus, some might say it's better. This will be up to your own judgement, of course. Also, note about the potential speed of distribution / decentralization. You can do some due diligence here through block explorers. As for the case of OmiseGO, an ERC-20 token, check this out and scroll to the bottom of the page to see the distribution. You should be able to check this kind of stats out in most cryptocurrencies.

  • Usability. This is the most important element for me. Is there something people can use now? Do or will people use it frequently? Is it easy to build something on it? If you find yourself using it frequently, all the better. This is why I have a heavier position in Steem Power. It's the only coin I use 99% of the time when it comes to cryptocurrencies. If its slow and imposes heavy transaction fees, I would also deem it unusable over a long-run. This quality of usability is very important, in my opinion, as it is the very foundation of network effects. People need to adopt and use it in their everyday life.

  • Productivity. Most cryptocurrencies incentivize human behaviour, and subsequently, activities. What's the coin all about and what does it create? If it encourages productivity and has a positive net effect, then it's most likely a good thing because it creates value.

  • Resonance. If you feel strongly for the coin, be it for a cause or whatever, perhaps it's something that you should invest in. There's a good chance many might feel the same too. The best kind of investment is when you can contribute both material and human capital. For example, I'm all for a zero-marginal cost society in the future, so I've a preference for coins with zero transaction fees. Hence why I'm using this platform as well. For this criteria, please make sure you do more due diligence if you're emotionally attracted to any projects out there. It could all just be fluffy marketing stuff with no substance.

  • Trading volume and liquidity. It will depend on your risk appetite. Higher volume is better, obviously. I think there needs to be enough trading volume to justify an investment. It's a sign of attention, market activity, etc. Also, you would need to be able to liquidate your position into your desired currency without too much of a friction.

There's also a question of core developers / community. This is important when the network value is under $1 billion, especially when it's much lower in the region under $50 million. However, this criteria should become less important as it grows and becomes more decentralized. I'm not including this in my list as it's not all that important to me. As long as a project is open-sourced with decent distribution, people will most likely get things done with enough capital. I take a look at people only when a project is closed-sourced and / or heavily centralized in the beginning.


pexels-photo-737557.jpeg
Sorry for the wall of text. Here's an image.

HODL, but forever?

I'm from the camp that thinks this way: leaders won't last more than 10 years in this age of accelerated disruption. Not even the cryptocurrencies that we all know and love. This is why I've personally moved on away from some of the older giants, only keeping some of them just in case. The HODL memes that go around are funny and all, but you know what, even happy long-living turkeys get slaughtered when its turn comes during Thanksgiving. So, diversify.

To conclude, here's my last note on long-term investing. In my opinion, zero transaction fee is an absolute requirement for evergreen projects. It saves money, improves adoption, and allows for plenty of innovation. Network revenue generated from transactions with arbitrary fee isn't a great plus point in my books.

Please invest responsibly and only put in what you can afford to lose. Also remember to secure your coins for the long run. Don't leave them in exchanges. Store them in the appropriate wallets and be the one that owns the private keys!

Oh, and remember to take profit at some point to cover your original investment. By the way, the coolest and most casual form of investing I found.. is voting on the Steem network! Power it up for peace and prosperity.

All the best in your adventures!


Follow me @kevinwong

Sort:  

Thanks, Kevin, got some helpful information from your post. With the recent high price of SBD, I've used the opportunity to take first steps with some small investments in other cryptocurrencies.

One thing that seems pretty noticeable is how much together all the coins move. For example, on coinmarketcap.com, you can see in the prices graph how recently there was a dip for practically all the coins at the exact same time. And after that they all went up. To me this suggests that the prices are driven by speculation and hype, rather than the actual products the companies behind the cryptocurrencies (blockchain technologies) are developing. If that's the case, I will make a prediction that there will be a crypto bubble similar to the dotcom bubble. After the bubble bursts, the companies that don't have any real and useful technology will die, and the ones with real solutions will remain. And in the process people will say that it's the end of crypto/blockchain, just like they said it was the end of the Internet after the dotcom bubble.

Another noticeable thing seems the relation between circulating supply and price. The more coins in existence, the lower the price. Bitcoin was able to achieve this high price because it has a very small circulating supply. You wouldn't expect a coin like Ripple, with its much bigger supply, to reach such prices. So, yeah, the price of a single coin seems pretty irrelevant (and the result of design decisions), although that's what most people focus on. (I just find it so unfortunate that scarcity equals profit, while giving an abundance of coins to everyone on the planet would make the coins worthless. :( )

What I was wondering about is whether you look at the underlying blockchain technology protocol that the cryptocurrency you're looking to invest in runs on. Do you ask questions like: What problems are they trying to solve with the technology they're developing? What approaches do they have to tackling the problems, and how do their approaches compare with others?

One other thing that I personally (and I think many others) would find helpful is workable strategies for storing the coins. There isn't any one app for all the coins, so it can be difficult. Just throwing it out there in case you are interested in making a post about it.

Man,reading your comment felt like reading a post in itself! But I find it helpful, as much as the post itself.

Glad to hear you found it helpful. :)

With the recent high price of SBD, I've used the opportunity to take first steps with some small investments in other cryptocurrencies.

It's a great time to be doing this trying it out :)

One thing that seems pretty noticeable is how much together all the coins move.

Many coins are reliant on either Bitcoin or Ethereum, which is why it all seems like they're in sync. But I agree, it's largely influenced, mostly by social media these days.

I will make a prediction that there will be a crypto bubble similar to the dotcom bubble. After the bubble bursts, the companies that don't have any real and useful technology will die

I wonder.. cryptocurrencies are rather different compared to company stocks. There's worldwide access to this thing, and we're getting a slice of a network and growth could potentially remain open ended. But yeah I guess in the end is if people are actually using the currency.

Do you ask questions like: What problems are they trying to solve with the technology they're developing? What approaches do they have to tackling the problems, and how do their approaches compare with others?

Oh yeah, thinking about it I should've included this part, but maybe I've described it in "usability / productivity / resonance". For example, I recently got into Substratum as they seem to have an elegant solution to net neutrality with browser-agnostic solutions for mainstream adoption, minimum software for node operators, and all without the need for politics.

One other thing that I personally (and I think many others) would find helpful is workable strategies for storing the coins.

I'll try to look out for an article on this, remember coming across a really good one.

Btw, thanks for the awesome comment @borislavzlatanov. I've been seeing your comments, even promoting steemstem and have always thought that you should post up more stuff!

For sure the world is changing (even in such a short timespan since the dotcom bubble) and I definitely don't think history will repeat exactly.

Glad you liked my comment - I haven't been posting because I encountered the issue with high-quality content remaining unnoticed, and at the same time a lot of low-quality content reaching great popularity. And the other thing is that I have the impression that even the high-quality content that gets popular doesn't really get read by most people, it just gets upvoted. So I haven't been motivated to post, and I was wanting to do something about these underlying issues first.

There are curation groups and all. I think the issue will mostly resolve itself when the communities feature rolls out. Since this is proof of stake, and highly staked users doesn’t necessarily mean great curators, sometimes it’s really difficult to align incentives. What are yours thoughts on the possible solutions?

Curation groups like curie have made all the difference in the world for me, and I am very, very grateful to them. So, I guess the more help they get, the more the platform as a whole will benefit. In a way, they are trying to find gems among all the massive amounts of posts published each day. So I'm thinking in the direction of arranging things so there is much less low-quality posting to begin with. How do we achieve that?

Firstly, with the coming of Communities, there will hopefully be so much less content within a given group. So the people in that group will find it easy to go through all the posts and vote on the ones they consider worthy. Like on most forums. But, if there is excessive posting from people who are looking to just make money without contributing to the purpose of the group, and it becomes difficult to go through all the new daily posts, there could be moderation or various other arrangements. (Not to be confused with a lot of on-topic, beneficial posts being made each day, which could be solved by creating subcommunities within the given community.)

Secondly, SMTs suggest some very intriguing possibilities. If we see the Steem blockchain as a very rudimentary socio-economic system, then from my understanding SMTs will allow each community to create its own socio-economic system by altering the parameters of the parent one (hopefully, without having to create their own cryptocurrency). There isn't any one correct model that all the people have to operate under (like it is with current countries and governments). It's more like - make it flexible and people will hopefully (but not necessarily) find a model that works in the context of their group and its purpose. One thing I really like about this is that the rules of the game (parameters of the system) are written in computer code, not in legal language like today.

So we have a very good starting point. Then, in order for a community to be successful in fulfilling its purpose, I would suggest they do the following:

  1. Define success metrics. This is how the people can know if they are making progress or not. For example, a success metric could be the number of successfully executed projects within the community. See what the number is, then make a change and see if the number is higher next month. Whatever metrics make sense for the given community.
  2. Start experimenting with the parameters of the system. One idea I have is to turn the post rewards the other way around - 25% for the author and 75% for the curators. Not everybody wants to be a content creator (especially writing blog posts) - why not given them the opportunity to make a buck by just curating? My hypothesis is that this will significantly reduce the number of daily posts, leaving much less competition for the remaining posts - so the ones that contribute to the community or the whole platform will still get rewarded well. By tracking the success metrics, a sweet spot for author/curation percentage split can be found for a given community. Another experiment: remove the 7-day limitation on payouts. Really high-quality content is good even after years. I hypothesize that this will lead to authors putting up less, but more high-quality stuff. Stories, books, music records, games, software products, (scientific papers?), etc. will thus bring money to their creators all the time, removing the tension for the creators to continuously post new stuff. I see this as paramount for the future of the Steem blockchain's model, but I realize that doing these experiments on the whole platform (rather than only within a given community) may have many negative retroactions.

What do you think? Do you see things in a similar way, or differently?

Good thoughts on the success metrics. One of the easiest metrics would probably be from capital generated and distributed in a community. How would you define a metric for altruism by the way?

Communities will almost certainly make curation better as there'll be moderators and more focused pile to work on. I'm pretty sure the devs are delaying the release of the communities feature for a reason. I think there are a lot of good community suggestions that are being considered like what you've mentioned for SMTs and rewards pool parameters.

Wrote something about communities and UI/UX yesterday that relates to what you're talking about, with some inspiration from @thevenusproject. Would love your thoughts on it: https://steemit.com/asksteemit/@kevinwong/how-would-you-map-out-steem-s-community-in-an-organizational-ui-ux

I wouldn't try to measure altruism. I would try to set up a system and measure the performance of that system. The social sciences often try to measure people and their "qualities" and it gets very, very difficulty and messy. I see the way forward as building a system and measuring how it performs. Then tweaking it continuously.

A community can have projects. If somebody wanted to know about the community, they would look at the projects pursued by its members. If the goals of the projects are directed towards meeting human needs, then it would be clear to people what that community is about. And they could call the community altruistic, humanitarian or any other word they prefer to use. At the end of the day, it's the goals that matter - and those goals have to be measurable so the people can know if they are meeting them or not.

For example, if I initiated a project about creating a new website on the Steem blockchain, one with educational materials that enables people to both learn and make money, some goals of my project might be to have people successfully complete sections of the content, keep them coming back and going through more and more advanced materials, etc., etc.

Loading...

Hoping to learn to this post as i am new in crypto. I will follow you and make to read your article in crypto.. thank you very much hoping and wishing to guide me on this. @kevinwong

Awesome, i never really thought of looking at the actual qty of coins to price as a metric. Thanks for the info.

THIS WAS A GREAT HELP

There is a difference in price appreciation of alt coins. Even visible on CMC if you watch closely.

The coins that are real, working today, blockchain is cranking through blocks, the chain is being used. Those coins are slowly heading higher.

Coins that are just play toys, but not real or not aligned to long-term goals elaborated in original whitepaper, are slowly losing ground.

There will be a big shake out. Just like dot com boom and bust.

There will be few survivors. ADA will be one of the survivors.

XRP token will survive, but it will be 1/10,000th of current over pumped value.

Very informative piece. I appreciate your frankness about your HODLing strategy. While holding for an extended period of time may be useful, there is a time to cut-bait and move profits into newer and better opportunities.

very good experience and advice, Kevin.
i am a new investor of cypto market, now i am holding ETH, KNC, EOS and other IC0 which not be listed on exchange now. Hope they will go to moon in 2018. haaa..

Very great information here, thank you for sharing! I have been such an avid fan of crypto currencies lately! We are changing the world people!

5 criteria that @kevinwong looks at when it comes to investing in cryptocurrencies

  • Decentralization
  • Usability
  • Productivity
  • Resonance
  • Trading Volume and Liquidity

This post is clearly one of the more insightful and thoughtful posts when it comes to investing in cryptocurrencies. Rather than convincing one why is this coin good, why is the other coin not so good.. you educate the mass on what are the general signs to look for and how to determine on our own what suits our taste or not. Thanks brah!

Just make sure there are actual devs working on the thing lol xD Thanks man.

xd actual devs

I do some risk management every 6 months. what can I afford to lose, securing profits and re-investing.
I keep positions on old coins that are probably of sentimental value and not because of usage. And invest in new promising techs with some of my spare earnings.
When and if crypto bubble pops I am keeping the memories and the friendships formed. And also some of the experiences I collected during this trip. It has been a hell of a ride.

that was really useful, i am currently researching as i want to invest in other coins except steemit ( although i consider it the best) but i had no clue where to start, what wallets exchangers to use and coins to invest into. What was really helpful at your post that i haven't gave a lot of thought is the what problem they try to solve and if they have a real product. That change completely my thinking!

Thanks, although what was your main focus other than those criteria before reading this??

the main focus was kinda stupid as i was checking the top 10-20 just because they are 10-20 but now i said to myself that i will take my time look every aspect , research and read a lot everywhere around the internet before investing to something

If you're basing any decisions in your life on what is written in the book 'Fight Club' by Chuck Palahniuk - you're gonna have a bad time.

Lol not necessarily if repackaged

What do you think about a quantum computer and how it could imply on crypto?

IOTA and QRL have addressed that

Cheers for the in-depth write up on your investing thoughts.

I think one thing that many new investors miss is the supply and how different the distribution is between coins. Not all coins use PoW and mining, and distribution through pre-mine, insta-mine or ICO's can be very confusing for new people to the space.

As you mention above HODL is great but I think it is important to choose exit points (even if they are in the distant future) or choose points for distribution/re-allocation. I believe Crypto is here to stay but in future what is on top could easily switch as new assets and offerings are created.

Thanks again. New here so just looking around Steemit for people to follow and found yourself.