-2

Proposal: Cosmos

Fewer than half the number of required followers have been attracted, and not even one question has 10 upvotes yet (40 questions with 10 upvotes, is needed).

The proposal has also not been active for 5 days, and 2 more days will lead to closure. Is there a strategy (or plan) for how to get more followers and upvoters? Could the creator of the proposal show us the community they had ready before starting the site (only if they don't mind sharing it with us!)?

1

What work will be done to meet the requirements?

Evidently, none. The proposal has been closed due to inactivity.

As a general matter, cryptocurrency/blockchain proposals tend to perform poorly on the Stack Exchange platform. Most proposals for sites based around these topics fail due to a lack of participation (e.g. the recent closures of proposals for TAUcoin and Substrate, along with many others which are no longer visible); when these sites do reach beta, they often have very poor activity levels (cf. Monero, Iota, Stellar, Eosio, Tezos, and the closed Augur).

Not every project is large enough to make a Stack Exchange site viable. Cryptocurrency/blockchain projects can be particularly misleading in that the community surrounding a project is often composed primarily of investors and speculators, few of whom will have the interest or knowledge needed to participate constructively in a question/answer site.

  • Monero is doing very well though. If you look at the list all sites in order of number of questions, nothing ranks better than Monero after 3y1m years, except for sites that have been around for more than 4 years (except AI, which is the hottest topic in the world right now, SiteCore, and Etherium, which happens to be another cryptocurrency). The same argument can be made for EOS.IO, except replace Monero's age of 3y1m years with 1y4m and replace 4 years with 2 years. But you raise a good point, why isn't there a "cryptocurrency" proposal which combines all these launched but not great sites? – user1271772 Sep 29 at 21:00
  • I did some research on what I just asked you, and it turns out that Robert calls the cryptocurrency sites "largely successful": area51.meta.stackexchange.com/a/28045/190792 – user1271772 Sep 29 at 21:03
  • Perhaps that's just an indication that there haven't been a lot of good proposals lately. I disagree with Robert's assessment, though; the cryptocurrency sites currently in beta are not especially healthy. (His wording that they "are so successful" seems really odd, almost like it might be a typo. I'll ask him to clarify.) – duskwuff Sep 29 at 22:01
  • He said "so successful" and "largely successful" so if it's a typo it would have to be twice. My analysis in my first comment here, also suggests they are doing fairly well. Etherium has by far the most activity for anything that's existed for fewer than 4 years. Monero the same for 3 years (except for AI and SiteCore). EOS.IO the same for 2 years. I do agree that Iota and Tezos aren't doing as well. – user1271772 Sep 30 at 2:09
  • 1
    The Monero and Eosio sites are not in an especially healthy state relative to their age. Eosio is 16 months old, and only has 84 users with 200+ reputation. Monero has been in beta for over three years, and still only has 210 such users. Both sites have under one new question and under a thousand visits per day; all of these factors indicate that the sites are failing to gain traction. – duskwuff Sep 30 at 2:24
  • Also, upon reexamination, I think Robert was referring to Bitcoin and Ethereum when he mentioned "the current […] cryptocurrency sites". Those are fine. The problem are the other project-specific sites which are stuck in beta, and seem likely to never leave. – duskwuff Sep 30 at 2:25

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .