Coins are not a single category
Treating every crypto asset as one asset class is the error that makes most coverage useless.
A settlement network, a platform for running code, a stablecoin pegged to a currency and a
token whose value rests entirely on attention are four different things with four different
failure modes. They share an infrastructure and very little else.
Sorting by what an asset is for makes the risks legible immediately. A settlement network
fails if nobody uses it to settle. A platform fails if the code running on it turns out to be
exploitable. A stablecoin fails if the reserve behind the peg is not what it was said to be. An
attention asset fails when the attention moves, which it always does, on no schedule anyone
can forecast.
Questions that transfer between assets
- Who can change the issuance schedule, and how
- What happens if the largest holder sells
- Where the supply is concentrated
- What breaks if developer activity stops
Questions that do not
- Whether the price is currently up
- Whether a well-known name has endorsed it
- Whether the community is enthusiastic
- Whether the branding looks professional
Why bitcoin gets its own page
Not out of deference. Bitcoin is the reference point the rest of the market is priced against,
and its issuance schedule is the one piece of the design that is genuinely fixed and publicly
checkable. Understanding that schedule explains more about how crypto markets behave than any
chart pattern will, because a large share of the market’s own narrative is built on it.
It is also the cleanest case for separating a mechanism from a forecast. The supply cap is a
property of the software. What that cap implies about future price is an argument people make,
and it is a much weaker claim than the one it borrows its confidence from. The page keeps
those two apart on purpose.
Market capitalisation is a multiplication, not a measurement
The figure quoted everywhere is circulating supply multiplied by the last traded price. It is
not the amount of money that has entered the asset, and it is not what could be realised by
selling. For a thinly traded token the last price may reflect a small transaction, and
multiplying it across the whole supply produces a number with very little behind it.
This matters because ranking by that figure is the default everywhere, and it flatters assets
whose supply is large and whose real depth is not. Reading it alongside actual liquidity, meaning what it would cost to sell a meaningful position, gives a very different ordering from the one on
the front page of most tracking sites.
Custody questions are asset-specific
Wallet support is not uniform, and the gap between “the device supports this asset” and “the
device supports this asset in the way you intend to use it” is where people lose access. The
Ledger and XRP page exists because that specific combination generated a steady stream of the
same question, and the answer involves a setup step that is easy to miss.
The Monero paper wallet page is the opposite end of the same subject: generating keys offline,
by hand, for an asset where privacy is the point. It is included partly because it is one of
the few procedures where doing it slightly wrong produces something that looks correct and is
not.
Supply concentration tells you more than the roadmap
For most assets outside the largest few, a small number of addresses hold a large share of the
supply. That single fact governs how the price behaves: it means the market can be moved by
one decision, that visible trading volume may reflect very little real depth, and that an
unlock schedule is a more reliable calendar than any announcement.
It is also checkable, which is what makes it worth privileging over a project’s stated plans.
Holder distribution is on the chain and can be read by anyone. A roadmap is a statement of
intent, and intent has a poor record of surviving contact with a falling market.
A last note on how these pages are scoped. Coverage here follows what can be checked rather
than what is being discussed, so an asset with a published supply schedule and readable chain
activity gets more space than a larger one whose case rests on announcements. That produces an
ordering that will not match a market-capitalisation table, which is deliberate.
On the analysis material
Technical analysis is covered here rather than dismissed, with one qualification stated at the
top of that page: crypto markets trade continuously, are thinner than they appear, and are
moved by a small number of large holders. Techniques developed on markets with opening bells,
circuit breakers and deep order books do not transfer cleanly, and pretending otherwise is how
the material usually gets taught.
Be the first to comment