Why Forbes Tagged Ripple, Cardano, Fantom as Zombie Tokens

In a recent Forbes exposé, cryptocurrencies like Ripple (XRP), Cardano (ADA), and Fantom (FTM) have been highlighted as “zombie tokens.” These command multi-billion dollar valuations despite minimal practical utility.

These blockchains, termed “good-for-nothing,” trade heavily on speculation rather than functional demand, mirroring traits of a speculative bubble rather than technology-driven markets.

Ripple (XRP), Cardano (ADA), Fantom (FTM) Are Good For Nothing: Forbes

Despite Ripple’s ambitions to revolutionize banking transfers, competing directly with SWIFT, it has largely failed to meet its goals. The network continues to operate, processing $583,000 in transaction fees last year, a minuscule figure compared to its $36 billion market value.

In a new report, Forbes explains this discrepancy points to its speculative nature rather than actual financial utility.

Cardano and Fantom tell a similar tale. With high market valuations of $23 billion and significant sums locked in treasury, their real-world applications are lagging.

Despite its comprehensive developmental plans and public engagements by founder Charles Hoskinson, Cardano has yet to move beyond pilot stages in many respects. Meanwhile, Fantom, although less publicized, rides the same wave of high speculation with minimal transactional throughput.

“It’s like early-stage venture capital funds or companies that raise too much money and don’t know how to adequately deploy it. There’s no way to return the treasury to the investors,” Matt Hougan, CIO of Bitwise Asset Management, said.

Forbes categorizes over 20 cryptocurrencies as zombies due to their lack of substantial user bases or functional applications outside trading platforms. This situation highlights a broader issue within the cryptocurrency market. The substantial capital is tied up in projects with questionable futures and utility.

Read more: 11 Cryptos To Add To Your Portfolio Before Altcoin Season

This scenario prompts investors and users to tread cautiously, as the longevity and success of these platforms rely heavily on market sentiment rather than fundamental value.