Introduction
"Yesterday, the IOSG founder's article "The Eastern Crypto Community Can't Be a Meme forever, the Eastern Community Needs a Prairie Fire" triggered a heated discussion, and different practitioners expressed their opinions on the article's views. . This article is the response of the well-known KOL Daewoo to the article."
text
IOSG should be one of the funds that pays the most attention to industrial development and long-term value in the currency circle. Most of the projects it invests in are industrial and infrastructure projects. It discussed memes and value coins and called on the industry to shift from memes to value coins. Things of long-term value come up.
Judging from the objective laws of development, only with a solid foundation can high-rise buildings flourish and prosper. Therefore, investing in infrastructure and focusing on long-term value is very correct and admirable - the foundation of the industry cannot be changed.
Although I mainly play memes, I also said with emotion a few days ago: The currency circle cannot be just memes.
Therefore, I first agree with Jocy’s point of view and believe that the currency circle cannot be just memes and should pursue higher value.
Memes are indeed a culture, and this culture is timeless, has its own charm, and will always exist. But once this kind of culture is linked to tokenization, no matter how well packaged it is, the essence is still a drumbeat, and the people in front hope that the people behind will take over. This is true no matter which meme it is.
However, Jocy and I still have different understandings, so we discussed them together.
1. Memes are the natural selection of the market stage, and they will create a better cryptocurrency world, not a worse one.
The essence of memes is to spread flowers by beating drums, but is this valuable? There are also.
To a certain extent, this kind of simple and violent wealth game is deeply in line with human nature, so it is the easiest to attract people, so it is very helpful for attracting newcomers to the currency circle.
No one should ignore the fact that people come to the currency circle basically for the wealth effect - whether it is early Bitcoin, later ICO, then $DOGE and $SHIB, and then inscriptions, After each wave of fanatical and irrational speculation, the currency circle is actually not worse, but better, because every time Bitcoin has more believers and develops more prosperously.
When I look back at history, I will think that everything in the past has created Bitcoin today, whether it is of value or a bubble, whether it is the 3M scam that attracted a large number of people to know about Bitcoin, or the ICO that caused countless people to join the circle, or The wealth creation myth of $DOGE and $SHIB, or the craze for National Inscription, all have made Bitcoin what it is today.
Therefore, I don’t think we need to worry about bubbles masking value, memes diluting the idealism of Bitcoin, and the underlying value of the blockchain.
Market evolution has its own laws. We don’t have to worry about anything. Good things will get better and better, and bad things will be eliminated.
This time, memes are not eliminating Bitcoin and the currency circle, but those “air coins” and “sickle coins” disguised as value coins.
2. Value items are not equal to value coins
Not every project can claim to be a value currency - the opposite of a meme is not necessarily a value currency, but may also be an "air currency".
We should first define it. Value coin itself is a very general term. The generally more idealistic classification is defined by what problems the project itself solves and what it contributes to the world.
But there is a problem with this classification, that is, the project has value, but the currency does not necessarily.
Because, logically, as long as the project solves a certain need, it has more or less value in a certain sense, and there is nothing wrong with that.
However, it is different from the perspective of tokens. Tokens may be speculated very high - this kind of market enthusiasm and randomness seems to have nothing to do with project parties and VCs.
However, the cost asymmetry between the two parties is not considered here. The cost of VC, project parties and retail investors may differ by 100 times, and the professional knowledge differs by 10 times. On the battlefield, it is no different than bombers fighting naked farmers.
In this case, both retail investors and VCs are investors, but the rights, responsibilities, and interests of both parties are completely unequal.
VCs can participate in investment at a price of 0.0001, giving full play to their status and industrial resources.
When retail investors buy at the sub-level, due to careful design, they buy a chip with a value of 0.001 under a narrative packaged by the project party and VC. If this chip is found by a professional and skilled market maker, , you can also use a few days to continue to pull up, and then make another 70% drop to complete a beautiful textbook-style currency listing.
This is not fair!
Retail investors actually bought the tokens, but did not enjoy anything. Although everything seems to be "just their own fault," in fact, retail investors also have their own demands: the listing price of the tokens should not deviate too much from the true value!
Most retail investors do not know and are unable to exercise this power due to lack of investment knowledge, so they will open tens of billions of ICPs and then hang directly on the top of the mountain.
Or go for $ARB, which has a better business performance and is valued at 10 billion. As a result, the massive release in the later period smashed them into pieces. Behind the bloody trend is the continuous unlocking and smashing of investors and project parties. Another takeaway salary delivered by the second-level novice retail investors under the scorching sun.
Just imagine, if the economic models of all projects on the market were the same as $ARB, how would retail investors suffer?
Why do retail investors rush into memes? It’s not that they don’t value, it’s not that they are not idealistic, it’s just that the “last 10U” really can’t be hurt...
3. People don’t hate value coins, but air coins disguised as value coins.
The purpose of speculating on memes is to have a slightly better future. If there are better options, retail investors will not like memes.
What's a better option? Actually we used to have a lot of them. We can think of a lot.
For example, in the Binance ICO in 2017, Changpeng Zhao and He Yi raised funds to issue $BNB. It was too cheap at the time. Today, the company is getting bigger and bigger, but it always puts the rights and interests of $BNB holders in an important position, and the $BNB is destroyed. BNB is worth tens of billions of dollars. When a project is listed on Binance, billions of dollars are directly airdropped to the holders - let’s not discuss the listing of the currency for the time being, just from the perspective of a $BNB holder (I am not one) Look, those who hold $BNB can indeed feel that they have a presence as a holder.
However, most tokens do not. The tokens issued by most value projects are not only not value coins, but also very fierce leek coins.
They have very typical characteristics:
1. Token distribution is unfair
In the early stage, the chips were divided between the VC and the project team, and very little was given to the community. They even used gas during the airdrop, and the airdrop was in the middle of the airdrop, which was a despicable method.
2. The chip distribution is very bad
All the early chip holders, including the project team, are thinking about how to let retail investors better take over. What they are trying to do is not to provide benefits to currency holders, but what is even worse is to weave traps to make the leeks jump and cut them off with just one hand. to wealth and freedom.
The project that impressed me most recently is the $AEVO project. By raising $RBN and announcing that $RBN will be locked up for $AEVO at a ratio of 1:1, it attracts Leeks to pledge. The pledge is almost complete, and it will be smashed to death. This kind of project What value is there to talk about? I think it's similar to seeking money and killing someone.
I believe that retail investors who read my article can casually talk about how much they have lost on this project in the comment area if they wish. I believe that they can easily find a large number of people who have lost money, because there is basically no profit, except for the project side.
I don’t think it’s good to follow a meme, but in comparison, death is a bit clearer.
And not only that, most projects are released in large quantities. Go to Token Unlock and take a look. Every month, at least hundreds of millions or even billions or even billions of dollars are unlocked to secondary retail investors. The cost of these unlocked chips is basically The above are 10 times and 100 times.
3. Low project value and high token valuation
What the project team and VC are studying is not how to bring rights to users, not how to make the project develop better, but how to reduce the circulation of tokens, how to speculate them higher, and how to ship them - including how to take advantage of the bull market. When issuing coins, everyone will return to zero in a bear market.
4. Value has nothing to do with tokens
The project itself has low or even no value, but it has extremely high valuations and very insidious releases. This is already the norm for 99% of projects.
Projects like $AAVE and $UNI mentioned by Jocy are indeed valuable in themselves, but how much does this have to do with users?
There is no benefit to holding tokens as a retail investor who basically does not participate in voting - participation is meaningless because of the small amount. And retail investors also have a mission to take over VC chips - such as the large villa of the founder of $CRV circulated in the community...
4. How to solve it?
People's overall choice of memes is temporary, and everyone likes projects with long-term value - just as even bad people like to be friends with good and kind people.
I will look forward to some projects like this: fairer costs, more prominent values, and healthier distribution.
If you want retail investors to accompany the project to grow together, then please raise funds directly from retail investors at the same cost as the team and VC. If you do this, you will lose because you have no vision, did not choose a good team, did not choose a good project, and overestimated your investment. value.
If you want retail investors to provide secondary liquidity to take over orders, then please treat retail investors as human beings and respect the rights and interests of retail investors as currency holders - let retail investors enjoy the rights and interests of shareholders and enjoy the dividends of project development: whether it is dividends, returns, etc. Purchasing is optional, or the project itself has great development and communicates more with the community to display various data.
You are making oracles, what is your revenue, how much are your expenses, how does your business compare to your peers, and what do you think is your reasonable valuation?
If you feel that the project has no value and just want to issue meme coins, then it is best to release 100% of the chips at once, and don’t make any small moves, just airdrop them all 100% - if the team wants the coins, they can buy them at the secondary level. I think If it’s undervalued, buy more. If you think it’s overvalued, don’t buy any. Anyway, real value projects will definitely not survive by selling coins, right?
Generally speaking, project parties need to be sincere, think about the value of their projects, think about whether selling coins is the biggest source of revenue, think about how they plan to repay currency holders, and think about how to pass Issue coins to win over the community and rely on the community to achieve long-term development.
It's late at night, so let's stop talking here.
[Disclaimer] There are risks in the market, so investment needs to be cautious. This article does not constitute investment advice, and users should consider whether any opinions, views or conclusions contained in this article are appropriate for their particular circumstances. Invest accordingly and do so at your own risk.
This article is reprinted with permission from: "Deep Wave TechFlow"
Original author: Dayu
