Talk:Cardano (blockchain platform)

techopedia.com
In the vain hope of preempting yet another tedious discussion of why the nakedly promotional puff piece on techopedia.com is unreliable, other articles on that site by the same author include: This is not journalism. I would call it a clown show, but that would be an insult to clowns. Grayfell (talk) 20:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 'Chimpzee Enters Final Stage As Investors Hurry to Passive Income Opportunity With 50x Potential.'
 * '13 Best Play-to-Earn Games with Crypto & NFT Rewards for 2023'
 * 'Chimpzee Burns Another 1 Billion Tokens As Presale Crosses $2 Million'
 * '$TUK Token Crosses $250,000 As Investors Seek 50x Returns From Sustainable EV Revolution'
 * 'How to Earn Crypto Passive Rewards Up to 10,000 USDT? Scorpion Casino Provides a Credible Opportunity'
 * 'eTukTuk (TUK) is The Crypto Project To Invest In If You Want To Combat Climate Change'
 * 'The Final Presale Stage of CHMPZ is Upon Us, Learn Why This Token is So Special'
 * etc. and this is just within the last couple of weeks!

Price movements
While price movements are interesting to speculators, they are not important to the overall history here. Even if a source happens to mention a price on a particular day, that is trivia and does not merit a mention in the Wikipedia article. MrOllie (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Alright - in agreement, will remove both the Jim & price section. Jim section isn't really NPOV and also doesn't keep to the Wikipedia:Facts precede opinions mantra. Will delete, thanks for input. Bob (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Trading volumes and transaction fees are exactly the same sort of financial trivia. If you agree about pricing, I don't understand why you'd add this. MrOllie (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There are no specific values given in this instance and is now NPOV, despite real data and hard facts also being NPOV in my view. If a large amount of transaction volume / actual use is NFT based it seems reasonable to cover the topic, similar to BTC/ETH pages. I disagree that pricing and transactions should never be talked about. Cardano is quite literally a platform built for financial transactions / smart contracts / NFTs. Avoiding the topic entirely would be odd. Bob (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If you want you write that Cardano is mostly used for NFTs, you should find a source that directly says so, not hint at it with statements about transaction volume. It is not my position that that pricing and transactions should never be talked about, only that making statements about financial data during arbitrary snapshots like 'January 2022' is unencyclopedic. MrOllie (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Re-worded for specificity as you are indeed correct, perhaps my phrasing wasn't explicit enough. A time frame should be given as at the time the transactions may be billions but next month could drop to zero (if the project experiences a massive hack). Timing is quite important I would argue. Bob (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * A time frame should be given as at the time the transactions may be billions but next month could drop to zero More or less my point. To talk about such things we should rely on sources that are written after some time has passed and which put such things into a historical context. When a source that is written in January 2022 is used to note that some number ticked upward that month that context is missing, and as Wikipedia editors we cannot build it ourselves per WP:SYN. It is important not to indiscriminately list transient facts just because some financial site happened to post a number. MrOllie (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * But this argument can be used for any time... Cardano has been around for 6+ years. At what point is it acceptable? The date is specifically used to provide context and give a rough indication of use/ transaction volumes. Without this volume could be 10 dollars or 10 trillion - who knows? This is not SYN - this was literally from the source and toned down at your request by stripping all the figures. Is there no compromise here? Bob (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It is acceptable when some secondary source writes about what's been going on over the lifespan of Cardano. We should not be trying to stitch data points together ourselves. MrOllie (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree a lifespan would indeed be preferable, however where is this requirement stipulated? It is highly likely that nobody is going to be writing a "chronicle of transaction volumes" for Cardano. For wiki does that mean no context for transaction volumes whatsoever is preferable over some context? The current source provides an indicator for the most recent events. Bob (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

NFT
Apologies @MrOllie, the image was one of the first*, not the first. I was mistaken however it is still rather popular I believe. Bob (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * We shouldn't be promoting any particular NFT project, and including the image doesn't serve to inform the reader. MrOllie (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, good point! Bob (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Regarding this revert: What is the significance of January 17, 2022? Who are Messari and why is their assessment of these prices encyclopedically significant enough to include without attribution? Why include this relatively arbitrary and routine price fluctuation in the first place? What about the rest of this source? One problem is that the source isn't really saying anything of note. Most of the information in this source is either out-of-date, or trivial (or both). Readers are not going to be better-informed by tidbits about the "market cap" a year and a half ago, or gas fees, or what Michael Novogratz tweeted about it, nor by silly hype from Antoni Trenchev comparing different moribund metaverse projects. To pick the bit that personally seems informative while ignoring the context is a subtle form of editorializing. If January 17, 2022 is encyclopedically significant, use sources to indicate to readers why it is significant. Grayfell (talk) 00:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair, considering the above conversation with MrOllie and read this again today I agree. I didn't include any of the opinion from Michael or Antoni for NPOV, sticking to hard facts and data isn't editorializing but trying to stick to wiki rules. Are we to discard any article with opinion when there may also be useful information? Bob (talk) 09:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)