Talk:Cardano (blockchain platform)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cardano (blockchain platform) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 90 days

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 20 December 2018 by reviewer ProgrammingGeek (talk · contribs).
	This article was accepted from this draft on 23 October 2020 by reviewer CaptainEek (talk · contribs).

Cryptocurrency Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptocurrency, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cryptocurrency on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptocurrencyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptocurrencyTemplate:WikiProject CryptocurrencyWikiProject Cryptocurrency articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS

The article Cardano (blockchain platform), along with other pages relating to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:

Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

Remedy instructions and exemptions

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any restrictions (excluding 1RR/reverting violations) and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Violations of revert restrictions should be reported to the administrators' edit warring noticeboard.
Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.

With respect to any reverting restrictions:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Delete, 29 November 2018, see discussion.
No consensus, 3 February 2018, see discussion.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

"Just Like Bitcoin Before It, Cardano Is Banned From Wikipedia". Charles Hoskinson says Wikipedia won't let Cardano have its own page despite it being "the most cited of all of the peer reviewed coins".

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

IOHKwriter (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection. (declared here)

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

techopedia.com[edit]

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:

'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!

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)[reply]

Price movements[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

NFT[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fair enough, good point! Bob (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]