In 2017, when everything related to cryptocurrency and blockchain still looked fresh and interesting, it seemed that there would not be a day without a new “revolutionary” project or idea. Decentralized financial system, decentralized torrent tracker, decentralized desktop documentation system. Decentralization, decentralization and decentralization.

The overuse of words such as transparent, distributor and blockchain-based quickly made most newspaper newspapers widely available. The closer we get to the Bitcoin price peak at the end of 2017, the more ridiculous the names of new projects will be: Ethereum-based payment system for slaughterhouse workers, Blockchain-based dwarf horse breeding platform, Personal peer-to-peer banking for blind divorce and so on.

The question is, who needs it. In many cases, no. Of the many thousands of cryptocurrencies launched since the spread of blockchain technology, only about 30 cryptocurrencies currently have any investment interest.

After cryptocurrencies, many cryptocurrency exchanges launched on the wave of blockchain popularity are dying – they have nothing more to do with trading. The situation is especially noticeable on viewing platforms, where cards with hundreds of closed projects are stored, often with angry user reviews.

Let’s take a look at some projects and analyze the reasons for their failure.

Telegram Open Network, or TON
In late 2017 – early 2018, it was first reported that Telegram was planning to launch its blockchain platform and original cryptocurrency.

Also known as Grams, TON coins were supposed to be based on the open Telegram network with the TON blockchain at the heart of the platform. In the official document of the project, the developers presented this futuristic currency as a potential standard cryptocurrency that can be used to regularly exchange value in everyday life.

He stated that while Bitcoin (BTC) was considered “digital gold” and Ethereum was a crowdfunding platform, this new TON cryptocurrency would be an alternative to traditional cash and traditional payment systems such as Visa and Mastercard, according to the White Paper, in which cryptocurrencies absent. To the qualities necessary to attract a mass consumer. On the other hand, Telegram will be able to implement a system suitable for group use, given its experience in encrypted distributed data storage, experience in creating user-friendly interfaces, and huge user base.

While the company has its own point of view on some of its statements, it seems like a massive PR campaign to me. Why should Telegram implement this new financial system and not any companies with experience in the financial industry? How will he be able to distinguish this new currency from other similar goods? What could be better than traditional financial systems implemented by a large, centralized company?

There was no answer. However, the Telegram ICO launched in 2018 was a huge success. The company raised $ 1.7 billion in investment in two rounds of private sales, and it was really promising.

RELATED: EXCLUSIVE: New Report Reveals Telegram TON Blockchain Details

But it didn’t end well. On May 12, 2020, Pavel Durov announced that Telegram would officially end its participation in the project after a lengthy litigation with the US Securities and Exchange Commission. Of course, the company did not have the legal resources to implement such an ambitious idea. Most likely, technical difficulties and strong market competition also played a role.

On the subject: SEC vs. Telegram: Part 1 – Important Findings So far

For me, this case sums up the whole crypto hysteria of 2018 – the company participates in an organization that is not ready for this, either legally or technologically, without specifying a clear place for the product. The end result is wrong.

Petchains was introduced as the future global information management system and trading platform for the pet market. According to press reports, the system will allow users to save and maintain data on animals living in homes and shelters. The goal of the presented project was to create a community of pet owners, experts, professionals, institutions, service providers and volunteers. The system had to be developed as usual using blockchain technology and big data. The initial funding was to be obtained through an ICO.

A good question is whether the world really needs blockchain-based information and trading platform for the pet market. I would not say that there are many problems with excessive centralization. Pet stores are usually chosen by shoppers after analyzing brand reputation and online presence.

Some of the problems customers in this market may face include misleading information about the health of the purchased animal or previous owners.

Source: CoinTelegraph