Brutal Bear Market Sends Nano Down 96%, Req is Rekt, OmiseGo OMG Indeed – Trustnodes

Brutal Bear Market Sends Nano Down 96%, Req is Rekt, OmiseGo OMG Indeed


In times long gone, one nano stood at $34 this December 2017. Now, it is barely worth a pound, standing at $1.40.

In eight months, the much hyped tree-chain DAG crypto has lost 96% of its value. Why it gained any is a mystery. Why it lost it, is not really because all cryptos have been in a brutal bear market for months.

Nano loses 96% of its value.

The Request Network, Req, shares the same story. Its blockhenized invoicing system launched this spring, but we weren’t impressed on the user interface end during our testrun.

Not that such things necessarily matter. Its price rose in April, yet the ethereum token is now down from $1.07 to $0.047.

It’s in the name, we could joke, for misery abounds this summer 2018. For many, it will be their first time. Few were around during bitcoin’s bear market in 2015 or even eth’s in winter 2016.

Bitcoin too back then briefly lost 90% of its value, but Req is now even below its October ICO of $33 million, with its market cap now standing at just $32 million.

Req loses 95% of its value.

OmiseGo, OMG, has faired better. As such, you can accuse us of including them solely because it makes for a great title.

They too are down however, of course, from $26 to now just a fiver. That makes it an 80% fall. Usually by this time ICO-ed project launch something. They tend to take about a year, but some are complex and need two years.

Whether OMG is of the former or the latter is to be seen, but one hopes they are wise enough to realize that efforts must be doubled.


Bitcoin, ethereum, all the rest, have also fallen some 70%, a tiny bit less, or a lot more. No cause for it you can say where fundamentals are concerned, but markets be markets and right now they’re all playing how low can it go.

Few will actually leave because whoever wanted to probably left some time ago. So now it is probably only holders, and holders gambling by selling now in the hope of buying a bit more later.

Which means the pricing-in theory is probably rubbish and should be replaced with front-running. The latter plays every-time, the former seems to play almost never.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>