So I am not sure if you actually want my opinion on this (not advice), but if you read the below article:
You can see that Blockgrain has a number of aspects in common with what I consider to be “worthless” token. After all it is exactly the model that I do not think will survive — namely no equity rights and the token is there to pay for their service. However, even in their white paper they explain that their services will actually be priced in fiat as the customers will obviously not want the token price risk. So then just to be 100% clear — you do not need the token at all. The Seed token on the other hand has a blockchain but is a stable coin vis a vis fiat.
I personally (just my opinion) read this as:
- actually we know we need a fiat-like payment mechanism and long term everyone can use our stable coin (the one that only “good actors” or rather long term users get to use…)
- However we want to raise money but not give away any equity participations for it
- So lets do a token that we sell to unsuspecting private investors (note how they pride themselves on no institutions; no wonder…) that we have to give absolutely nothing in return
To be clear — this business could really take off and yet a token is absolutely 100% not required for it to work (as far as I can see). Holding an equity participation in their revenue streams might be a very interesting investment. The idea of giving them money for nothing in return however does not seem positive. Of course, maybe one is lucky and this one triples on the first day it trades. I doubt it.
As always — I can be wrong, this is not financial advice and I may have easily overlooked a thing or two. But I do not see how this differs from the token models that I think are pure money grabs…
