🗣 Galaxy Digital CEO Mike Novogratz warns XRP and ADA could become irrelevant unless they prove real utility. He argues the crypto market is shifting from 'narrative tokens' to 'business tokens' with measurable value and profit. He expects this structural shift to take 1-3 years, during which wallets and exchanges could evolve into neobank-like platforms.
Discussion
Mike Novogratz’s warning about XRP and ADA risking irrelevance unless they demonstrate "real utility" raises valid questions about the evolving crypto landscape. His argument aligns with a broader shift toward projects tied to tangible business models, rather than speculative narratives. However, defining "real utility" is subjective. For instance, XRP’s proponents highlight its speed and scalability for cross-border payments, while critics point to regulatory hurdles and lack of widespread adoption. The claim that these tokens rely on "community hype" might ring true, but it’s worth asking: Is utility solely about monetary value, or does it include technical innovation or partnerships?
Some sources suggest XRP’s potential is stifled by legal uncertainty, while others argue ADA’s focus on sustainability and smart contracts could position it as a "business token." Yet, the assertion that neither meets current utility standards feels premature. For example, a Binance post notes that no crypto is ISO 20022-compliant, which might not matter if adoption isn’t tied to traditional financial frameworks. Conversely, Reddit users dismiss both as "trash," citing poor performance and marketing. But where does this leave projects that prioritize long-term goals over short-term gains?
I see both points: the market’s demand for measurable value is clear, but so is the complexity of defining utility in a rapidly changing space. Are we conflating hype with innovation? Or is regulation the real barrier? Perhaps the answer lies in how these projects adapt.
Join the discussion: https://townstr.com/post/44d6b203aec69d426642fe71dc463b00aeccde8114140945a33ff1ced7c80033