Quant is a cryptocurrency token on Ethereum that I see is on its way to zero. This looks like an obvious investment that is going to lose money based on what it says it's doing versus far superior competition and lack of proof in anything it's creating, plus some fundamental problems as an ERC-20 token. If you're holding Quant, you will want to read all of this critical review, because I bought Quant last year myself, getting hyped up on all of the talk about Quant being the new Bitcoin and all this crap. And then I did further research, and I'm like, this just looks purely bad. This looks like it's going to go to zero.
The price chart says it all
So first off, we'll start with the price chart. Out of the top 100 cryptos, Quant has one of the worst price charts, with many of the cryptos in the top 100 having gone up significantly in the last year. Quant is actually down significantly, from $100 a year ago down to $80 now. So every single person hyping Quant up over the last year was blatantly wrong. This absolutely has gone nowhere.
And if you look at the all-time high, this has been out since 2018. It had its one bull market high in the hundreds, and almost everybody who's bought since then has lost. This to me looks like a dead token. It's not going anywhere. And that's especially true when you see the superior offerings that are on the market.
What Quant claims to do
This is what's hard about cryptos. If you don't know about the Internet Computer, you might easily get talked into what Quant is. Well, Quant has the goal of connecting blockchains and networks on a global scale without reducing efficiency and interoperability of the network. It says it's the first project to solve the interoperability problem by having a blockchain operating system. But where is there proof that I can even use that? What I have found are incredibly weak actual real offerings.
The ERC-20 ownership problem: holders own nothing
There's a foundational problem to this too, because this is an ERC-20 token. This is a token that essentially is like an ownership type of token. And there are only 152,000 holders based on a $1 billion fully diluted market cap. So you can always divide that and see what this is priced at. If you look at the total market cap, $1 billion with all those zeros, and then divide by the number of holders, 152,000 holders, that's $7,000 per holder on this token, which to me does not look like it's going to go anywhere. And that indicates that this token is quite drastically overvalued.
But there's a bigger problem than that. In theory, even if Quant's Overledger was massively successful and all kinds of people wanted to use it, the team would have ownership over all the intellectual property and they could make as much money as they wanted. And the token holders have no legal ownership and no ownership physically by code. So this means this is essentially a meme coin that the Quant team would like to give value to. But holding this token gives you no rights, no ownership, no control at all. So this token is, to me, absolutely and completely speculative with no real utility outside of people hoping it does well.
Almost nobody is actually using the token
And if you look at the transfers since 2018, there's been a little bit of growth, but there are less than a thousand transfers a day on this. And the network effect — if this was going to do well, it should have already taken off. The Internet Computer has been out since 2021, and Quant has been out twice as long. The network effect is doing fantastic on the Internet Computer. There's almost nothing you can do with the Quant token. Over the last few years there's been almost no growth at all. So if you look at how much people are actually using the token, it doesn't look promising. But there are even more problems.
What you actually get with Overledger — and where the money goes
If you go and look at the Quant Network Overledger platform plans, it says you can sign up for free, but look at what you can actually do with this. You can do bridge deployments. I mean, we're still using bridges. We're still losing all this money on these bridges. So you could pay a couple hundred dollars a month and you can deploy a few tokens, use a couple of mainnets. And here's the problem though: this money goes to them. It doesn't go to the token holders. It goes to them.
So even if this product — which they're marketing as one they're selling to enterprises — works out, how are the enterprises probably going to pay? In US dollars, to them. And being a token holder gives you none of that. It's just empty promises. Even if this works out, which I doubt it will because of more of what I'm about to lay out, this money goes to them. And even if they try and get people to pay in the Quant token, clearly there are not a lot of people actually paying with the Quant token. So this is extremely risky and I see almost no value in it.
Why chain fusion on the Internet Computer makes Quant irrelevant
Why do I feel this way? Because there's something far superior that exists today. If you're looking for the best, when Quant launched the Internet Computer wasn't around, but now the Internet Computer has been around three years and they have what's called chain fusion technology. ICP, or Internet Computer Protocol, enables direct interoperability with all major blockchains, including Bitcoin, Ethereum, other EVMs, and soon Solana. Here's the key thing: without relying on any trusted intermediary. It's unique compared to other blockchains, which means nobody else does this. ICP smart contracts can read and write different chains, enabling developers to write smart contracts spanning different chains. That's chain fusion. Nothing else does this.
And this technology makes Quant absolutely irrelevant, because you've got a Bitcoin layer two that's functioning and has been running for around a year on ICP. You have a native Ethereum integration on ICP. You have HTTPS outcalls, which eliminate the need for oracles. My website is hosted directly on Internet Computer Protocol. And there are thousands of transactions a second on this. You can look at the stats and see that it's working. You can see the chain key — there have been millions of chain-key Bitcoin transactions. And this is not some pay-gated thing people can't use. In OpenChat right now, all of this functionality is fully on chain and all of it is immediately able to be used for free. You can create a wallet for free on Internet Computer Protocol, join OpenChat, and start chatting and using it for free. Now, you have to pay to chat in my community, but there are many others where you can chat for free. You can transfer Bitcoin and Ethereum directly on these. You can swap it on decentralized exchanges.
So for anyone who's thinking that, well, Quant has Overledger to integrate these other blockchains — Quant is way behind technologically. Being able to create smart contracts on ICP that directly make transactions on Bitcoin, and pretty much anything else built into this, is the cutting edge of blockchain interoperability. Quant is way behind that. And anyone who knows about the Internet Computer would not want to invest in Quant, because chain fusion technology is one single thing the Internet Computer does. Whereas for Quant, that's a one-narrative, single play. If you want to go deeper on why I believe that capital flows toward ICP, I broke that down in why I think money will flow into ICP when Ethereum DeFi collapses.
The CBDC problem that got me to dump it
One thing that, when I was holding Quant and researching it last year, got me to dump the token: Quant is going around talking favorably all the time about CBDCs, which are central bank digital currencies. And CBDCs are basically the worst thing that can happen to people financially, where you've got centralized total control, even worse than it is now, over the financial system. Some of the CBDCs we've seen in other countries are absolutely outrageous. And Quant goes around — if you look at a lot of their tweets — promoting CBDCs all the time. Why are they promoting CBDCs when they're supposed to be about blockchain interoperability?
When you go look at what they're doing, they're saying on their website that they're the foundation of digital finance. Well, how can you actually pay or do anything? On the Internet Computer, you can build applications that take all these different tokens, and you can use all of it and see that it's functioning today. This sounds a lot like, if you read the XRP documentation, they're saying the same things — but XRP at least has a functioning coin and network that could send payments like this. Quant doesn't. It's an ERC-20 token. They have an article on their website about making CBDCs work for offline payments. This to me is the opposite of why I invest in crypto. On the surface they're saying they're more of an enterprise play for governments. Well, if that narrative is going to work out, XRP has already beaten you there, and they have what looks like billions and billions to dump on here.
Where is the engineering team?
I see problems with the team on this too. If this is actually going to deliver on being the foundation of digital finance, then you would need to see a big team of engineers making the future of digital finance. And when you look at the leadership team, you've got a founder and CEO, then a head of product, a marketing officer, a finance officer, HR, innovation and technology. There's one tech guy on here, maybe two on the product side. And then where's everybody else that's working on this? I don't see any proof that there's a significant amount of engineers actually making a real product.
Contrast that with DFINITY and the Internet Computer, where you've got the largest research and development team in blockchain, and you can see the whole staff. Mary just did a video a couple of days ago that I watched, presenting verifiable credentials, which is the first of its kind — a technological breakthrough for crypto, for ICP. Her face might not stand out to you among the hundred-plus people there, but you can actually see Mary and many of these other people. Dominic Williams has tons of videos. Jan has lots of videos from conferences. This is a superstar team. But from Quant, what do you have? A relatively small team of mostly business people. Where are all the engineers? Where are all the innovations? And even if they're successful, where do the token holders get any value out of this?
The ERC-20 custody headache
So for me, Quant is an absolutely-not, no-way-I-would-hold-this situation, because ERC-20 tokens in a bull market can also get to be untransactable. So you pretty much need to hold them on an exchange, or get stuck with huge gas fees to transfer them. And then you're stuck using some third-party wallet, often like MetaMask or even a Ledger. Ledgers are between you and the Ethereum blockchain with their piece of hardware. If their hardware breaks and you can't get another one, you could lose everything on it.
This is the same custody and counterparty mess I keep running into with these tokens — it's a big part of why I wrote about why I think AIXBT is realistically heading to $0 and why a $6 billion coin with a 404 team page is exactly the kind of thing I'd never touch. I keep a running record of these reviews and the thinking behind them in my Money playlist, and I talk through coins like this one with members directly inside the Jerry Banfield Family.
My verdict on Quant
This to me purely looks like there's nothing interesting about it. It looks like an investment that I have a high confidence is going to go to zero. I'll put this on my spreadsheet and see how it does compared to ICP over time, and I'll keep you updated with that.
I share these honest reviews because I actually care about your success investing in crypto. I see you as a friend, a family member, a neighbor, and I don't want you to get ripped off on junk altcoins. So many of you have gotten destroyed on garbage coins that I could have taken ten minutes to tell you looked like they were going to zero — and at least you'd have another perspective. If you value that, the best place to chat with me directly, request coins for me to review, and swap all kinds of cryptos on-chain is inside my community. I deleted my Discord and my Telegram because this is doing so well, and I review as many cryptos as I can for you there.