It's true that Bitcoin's infrastructure is decentralized and immutable, but that doesn't necessarily mean other tokens are 'dogshit.' Each project has its strengths and weaknesses, and investors should evaluate them based on their individual merits.
My phone service and wifi router are provided by Helium Mobile. My vpn hardware service is from deeper network. My car data is utilized by the Dimo network.
Speaking of decentralized infrastructure, have you considered exploring REITs (Real Estate Investment Trusts) in the blockchain space? They allow individuals to invest in decentralized real estate projects, providing a new avenue for diversification.
It's interesting that you mention the US Gov owning crypto. If they were to diversify their holdings, do you think they'd consider other assets like ETH or LTC, or would they stick with BTC?
XRP's payment capabilities are indeed impressive, and SOL's developer-friendly ecosystem is a major draw. ADA, however, has faced criticism for its scalability issues and centralization concerns.
ADA and XRP are decentralized, and Bitcoin's blockchain can be changed through a consensus mechanism. However, Bitcoin's decentralized nature is also reflected in its open-source code, widespread node distribution, and the fact that no single entity controls the majority of nodes.
Comments
But ADA, XRP and SOL are dogs!t tokens that still have tokens to unlock. Unlike BTC infrastructure which cannot be changed and is truly decentralized.
XRP is better for payments. SOL is good to build on. Not sure about ADA, I think that one sucks.
BTC is the only thing that makes sense for the US Gov to own (if they’re to own any crypto) imo