In an eye-opening analysis, Forbes has labeled at least twenty major blockchains as “crypto zombies,” highlighting a stark reality in the digital asset space. These projects, according to the publication, serve little to no functional purpose and are primarily driven by speculative trading. Among the criticized networks are well-known names such as Ripple, Ethereum Classic, and Litecoin. Despite the bleak outlook, Forbes suggests these projects are unlikely to vanish soon due to the digital asset market’s nature and the significant Total Value Locked (TVL) they possess.
### Ripple Labs under Scrutiny
Ripple Labs and its cryptocurrency XRP stand out as prime examples of what Forbes deems “zombie blockchains.” Initially hailed for introducing a financial standard that promised fast, low-cost money transfers, Ripple attracted attention from numerous companies and financial institutions. However, the current sentiment is that Ripple Labs has failed to live up to its potential, with little happening within the company to challenge existing systems like Swift. Despite this, XRP maintains a market value of $36 billion, ranking it as the sixth most valuable crypto asset.
### The Walking Dead of Blockchain
Forbes’ analysis reveals that the blockchain industry is saturated with projects that lack substantial activity or utility, despite collectively amassing over $116 billion in value. The list of “living dead” includes networks like Ethereum Classic, Bitcoin SV, and Cardano, underscoring the vast number of projects that struggle to deliver on their ambitious promises. However, the publication notes that these projects are unlikely to collapse anytime soon due to the unique characteristics of the crypto market, including liquidity issues and significant TVL.
### Community Reactions
The crypto community has responded with skepticism and criticism toward Forbes’ analysis. Ripple’s CTO, David Schwartz, and legal representative, Bill Morgan, have both questioned the metrics used in the article. Additionally, some users have pointed out the discrepancy between Ripple’s transaction fees and those of its supposed competitor, Swift, arguing that the comparison is unfair. Despite the backlash, Forbes maintains that the crypto space allows developers to minimize accountability, contributing to the proliferation of projects with questionable utility.
### Conclusion
Forbes’ critique of numerous blockchain projects as “crypto zombies” has sparked a debate within the digital asset community. While some defend the potential and utility of the criticized networks, others agree with the publication’s bleak assessment. As the crypto landscape continues to evolve, the distinction between speculative ventures and genuinely innovative projects will likely become more pronounced. Source
