Do you believe your project is an Ethereum killer?

I think people is focusing too much on the crypto sphere and neglecting the reality of the economy and society around it. Sure, we all want our bags to pump in the long term, and some think this must come at the expense of other projects, but we must understand the complexities of the business world, the international politics at stake, and the macroeconomics surrounding all of this in order to see that crypto is so much more than a BattleRoyale between cool projects.

Today I ****** you to take a glance into the business world to see this: if crypto projects don’t exist side-by-side, adoption could be killed at its youth, or relegated to smaller operations.

# Companies diversify suppliers

If we want crypto to be as big as the internet, we want it to be adopted by the industries that serve and provide goods to billions of people.

In today’s world, any manager that has been through business school is well aware of [Porter’s Five Forces Analysis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porter%27s_five_forces_analysis), and knows how relevant the bargaining power of suppliers is. To sum it up, you do not want to give too much leverage to your suppliers over your operation. You must try to reduce their bargaining power using tactics such as diversifying, which means having many different suppliers for different things, thus reducing the risk of one of them messing with your business.

Please bear with me. I’ll give you a real life example.

I work at a mid-sized multinational, and we have Salesforce managing our CMR software; Microsoft supplying the solution for intranet and company mail; a website like Kayak managing our travels account; and over 5 different memberships in supplier management platforms. We pay to other 3 suppliers for market intel and research; there is also a British service that provides databases of top **** employees of potential customers; another that hosts our webpage; and we pay Zoom for a business account. Human Resources hires another company to do all the payroll and benefits management through their platform too…

We use all of these services because our core business is not related to any of those. They’re simply supporting our real hustle. And most businesses in the world need this kind of support in order to be able to focus on their core activity.

Now, hypothetically assuming they could do all of this, why don’t we hire a “super-supplier” like Google or Amazon to give us an integral solution to all these issues?

Because its dangerous. It would give them too much bargaining power over our operation, which opens the path to abuses, corruption or unilateral price manipulation.

# So how could crypto work with business?

Just like this, any smart company will refuse to have Ethereum, Cardano, Algorand, Tezos, Polkadot or any single platform as a solution to all their necessities. Instead, the company of the future would diversify its blockchain service providers, for example; using Ethereum for smart contracts, VeChain’s solution for supply chains and logistics, LTO Network for legal documents and verifications, Algorand for asset tokenization, the Etherisc/Chainlink platform for insurance; Cardano to address the unbanked communities that provide raw materials, Stellar or Ripple for international movements of capital, and Matic or Polkadot to ensure proper network interoperability of this complex operation. This is just a tiny example, but the opportunities are almost infinite at this point.

Now, the astute reader may be surprised at how I’m apparently forgetting that some of these blockchains are *platforms for other projects*, and no company would actually "hire Ethereum", but instead *different* *services that run on Ethereum*. Of course, dear reader, you’re absolutely right. But I didn’t forget! The thing is, if only one smart contract crypto survives, let’s say Ethereum, **all the solutions would run on a single blockchain**, which is a liability.

A company of the future, which will have crypto-literate decision-makers, will be wise enough to avoid depositing all their trust in a single blockchain, probably sticking with today’s solutions instead. Remember that today’s industries don’t have any problem with using outdated technology just because it seems trustworthy. For example, most of the [banking systems today use ancient and obsolete mainframes from decades ago.](https://www.bbc.com/news/business-35880429)

Therefore, we need crypto diversity in order to make this space attractive for business and massive adoption. If things get centralized and monopolized, companies might just stick with the old solutions and we would push them away from adoption.

Now, I have laid down some arguments that support the idea of cryptos existing side-by-side, and this doesn't mean every single crypto will survive, because **even some good coins with solid fundamentals can and will die.** There's just too many variables that can determine a project's success or failiure...

But in order to make things more interesting, let’s play devil’s advocate, and look at this from an sceptic's perspective.

# If projects actually killed each other

What are the scenarios here? How could this happen? Right now, four different paths come to mind.

**- First, Microsoft style:** a mayor player with solid fundamentals will engage in some nasty anti-competitive practices, which nowadays would not only take shape as [direct intimidation or hoarding the market](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H27rfr59RiE) (very trustworthy source there), but also as DDOS attacks or more advanced informatic shenanigans.

**- Second, Netflix style:** Some players will triumph due to an unprecedented and major technological advantage over its competitors, either killing them (Netflix vs. Blockbuster) or forcing them to adapt to a newly created market in which they set foot first (Netflix vs. HBO, Disney, Fox etc…). This doesn’t seem too likely as most large projects don’t seem to be billions of light-years away from each other, and given its usual for the developers of a project to start their own or go support another, technology is being transfered rapidly. That's a major factor to consider here.

**- Third, Amazon style:** A player simply becomes so big that it can take advantage of economies of scale, political power and know-how, using its privileged position to ruin competitors and create a powerful monopoly. This does not sound too crypto-like, and also remember crypto projects have different goals and reach different audiences: BTC seems like a great store of value and it is thriving as such, but that does not cripple ETH as a platform for a myriad of smart contract based solutions, or Cardano in its attempt to bring banking to the unbanked.

Michael Phelps is not a threat to Tom Brady. They are playing different sports…

**- Fourth, whales hand pick their champions and kill crypto:** This is scary as ****, but not absurd, sadly. Goldman Sachs, Bridgewater and JP Morgan get interested in a couple of projects and want to make money by longing or shorting them, so they start to manipulate the markets.

There’s a catch here.

They won’t simply squeeze “weak hands”, or force liquidations (like most of us suspect today). These people could get involved into the governance of blockchains by holding large amounts of a coin, then they could vote for prejudicial or ill-intentioned motions to pass, just so they can do some nasty inside trading on the whole crypto economy. This could ruin the whole space and transform it in a zero-sum game.

After reading these scenarios you might have noticed something: these are deviations of the current events, this doesn’t seem like our time line, at least not yet. And there's a lot we can do today to stop any of this from happening.

Our timeline is filled with brilliant entrepreneurs that want their projects to thrive in a new and exciting technological environment. I don’t see many toxic developers hoping to kill other projects, they just want to do their work, innovate, discuss their possibilities and of course, gain traction.

Crypto doesn’t have to be a zero sum game, where one party wining means another losing. Remember we are at an early stage and the technology still has to prove itself, therefore if some project lands a nice account or signs an interesting alliance, that could be beneficial to the whole crypto space, as its another chance to gain recognition and experience.

I hope this will foster constructive, informed and respectful discussion on the topic.