Its Hedera, no one cares
Says a lot about how thick and uneducated most retail investors are. Unfortunately, they listen to the wrong people and are incapable of using the internet to broaden their horizons.
People's : "Doge pump, shut up and take my money"
More fool them then, hedera be a global leader soon 😁
there's little to no correlation currently between TPS/use cases, and price as: 1. transaction fees are pretty cheap 2. hbar foundation is paying the fees for atma which is almost all the current tps
Etherium generates tremendous revenue and profit which validates price to some extent. Hedera is still on its way. Has anyone put together a good chart that compares layer 1s by revenue generation? I'm curious what ADA does, for example.
ADA 24h fees is $5,905.74 according to cryptofees.info
Where can we see Hedera fees?
don't think there is anywhere Can roughly estimate using metrika and the price of basic transactions though very rough estimate 24h fees for Hedera is $11,693.6523
HBAR doesn’t do “price reaction”
Other than Eth and one or two others, most is just speculative price action and not revenue. I think the point people are making is that there is less speculative price action than you would anticipate with all these partnerships (now Hyundai and Kia). XRP has a 7.5tps but was a 148bn mcap at one point, now still around 40bn with less circulating supply.
According to metcalfe's law, a network’s value is directly inversely proportional to the square of its users or nodes. We don't have many of either yet. When we get community nodes price will rise.
Directly or inversely proportional. U are confused.
I don’t think so, that’s contrary to XRP, i wouldn’t hold on to much on such „laws“
Take a look at your comment then .. Wth is "Directly inversely proportional" ?
Nothing wrong with that. Is English your first language?
Here let me help u , just google it --- Metcalfe's Law is a concept used in computer networks and telecommunications to represent the value of a network.0 It states that the financial value or influence of a telecommunications network is proportional to the square of the number of connected users of the system. The law is named after Robert Metcalfe and first proposed in 1980, albeit not in terms of users but rather of "compatible communicating devices". The value of networks grows exponentially with the number of people using that specific network.2 Every time a new user is added to a network, the number of connections increases proportionally to the square of the number of users. -- The phrase = increases proportionally. Yet u tried to change to directly proportional , which is a subset of "increases proportionally". Not the same thing. And the funny thing u mixed it with "inversely proportional". Do u really understand what's the meaning of "inversely". Are u sure your 1st language is English? Haha. Then it became "directly inversely proportional" What u need to do is just edit it. Your ego is too high. Bye bye bro. Haha
No, you've got it all wrong. But it's nice to know that this space isn't completely full of kids
Обсуждают сегодня