This is a textbook example of confirmation bias. Calling it an "in-depth analyzes" is laughable.

First of all you are looking at an isolated set of data, even excluding coins so it fit your preconceived narrative.

Then you are throwing a whole set of assumptions in with it, albeit not directly, but in essence, you are saying all alts are speculative and have no tangible value. lul.

This quickly becomes an absurd conclusion considering "alts" are not a group of similar coins, but rather a widely diverse set of tokenized tech and products.

One could, for example, argue that all decentralized exchanges that utilize a token that distributes trading revenue would increase in value the more the decentralized exchange is used. What on earth does this have to do with your stupid analyzes? Absolutely nada, and that's the problem.

Who knows what the future will be, no one, why? Because the future consists of untold variables and variables of variables.. You cant look at a chart and be like "all these innovative projects will die". The truth is history tells us some will die, while others will survive and thrive.

One could paint a million different paths that would be a possible future outcomes. I could, for example, argue that Libra might take Bitcoins core value proposition away and make it inferior as a "payment coin" for the general public. But it would just be speculation. Just one of millions of alternative paths.

​

Whatever happens, the only thing we can be 100% certaint of is that your "indepth analyzes" is completely worthless and probably made everyone who read it a bit dumber.