ETH about to retake #2

A week ago, the ETH marketcap was $3 billion under XRP. The difference is now under $450 million.One or two more pumps and ETH is going to reclaim its rightful place, the whales dumping ETH no longer have funds and XRP shills are slowly realizing their coin has no use case.

Attached: 1526667069780.png (750x375, 5K)

Other urls found in this thread:

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1078682801954799617.html
youtu.be/FeNYjYA2lVg
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

numerals checked
THANK YOU MONEY SKELETON

ETH will shit itself:

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1078682801954799617.html

Attached: B0F6F3FA-E51C-449F-85A7-B3CB288D3E0B.png (604x610, 159K)

3/ I've followed Ethereum since 2014 & feel a responsibility to share my concerns. IMO contrary to its marketing, ETH is at best a science experiment. It’s now valued at $13B, which I think is still too high.
4/ I agree with Ethereum developer Vlad Zamfir that it’s not money, not safe, and not scalable.

>not scalable

>Turd Meister.

5/ To me the first red flag came up when in our weekly hangout we asked the ETH founders about to how they were going to scale the network. (We’re now 4.5 years later, and sharding is still a pipe dream.)

>the undeniable truth

It's gonna happen sooner than you think.

ethereum never left number 2, market cap means nothing when most of the current top 10 coins in market cap are only there because of market cap manipulation. xrp is the most obvious offender.

try scaling by volume, or even better, if you could, by users. the gulf between btc and eth would be so large you'd think it wasn't real.

7/ Recently, a team of reputable developers decided to peer review a widely anticipated Casper / sharding white paper, concluding that it does not live up to its own claims.


11/ In 2017, more Ethereum scaling buzz was created, this time the panacea was “Plasma”.

>wheres this shit? anything new or did they throw it away, like all other plans.


17/ Over the years, this has become a pattern in Ethereum’s culture: recycling old ideas while not properly referring to past research and having poor peer review standards. This is _not_ how science progresses.

>tweet from two years ago