Yesterday, an article about the controversial MEME token was trending: the general content was: "Discussing the different views on meme coins in the cryptocurrency community". Some time ago, I was also complaining about why the MEME token, a project with no technology at all, could rise to this level, while those so-called value coins performed like weak chickens and were far from the money-making effect of MEME.
The article begins by pointing out that retail investors believe that any coin that can make money is a good coin, regardless of whether it has value or not. They follow the theory of "it doesn't matter if the cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice, it is a good cat" and "the rise of the price convinces people". When meme coins frequently appear in the top 50 tokens by market value, this mentality and viewpoint gradually gained the recognition of most people.
However, Eddy Lazzarin, CTO of venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz (A16Z), expressed a very different view on Twitter. Lazzarin criticized meme coins, saying that they undermine the long-term vision of many people to stay in the crypto space, are not technically superior, and are not attractive to builders.
Lazzarin also refuted the claim that memecoins can attract a large number of fans, suggesting that memecoins only provide casino-like services for a small number of people. He believes that memecoins may damage the public, regulators and entrepreneurs' perception of cryptocurrencies by reducing them to high-risk casinos or false promises, which will hinder the adoption and regulation of crypto technology and affect the interest of builders.
The article points out that venture capitalists usually tend to delay gratification, and they will invest based on significant technological advantages and solving practical pain points. On the contrary, if the majority of retail investors, or the so-called "leeks", can get immediate returns, why would they spend so much time waiting for delayed gratification?
There is a counter-argument in the community that instead of criticizing memecoins, it is better to criticize those disruptive pseudo-innovations. Some people think that memecoins more honestly represent their true ideas: such as providing volatility and entertainment, rather than those that issue coins to harvest under the guise of breakthrough technology.
In the final analysis, people's views on meme coins are often influenced by their respective investment positions. Institutional investors complain that the MEME project disrupts the market rhythm and capital flow, which is not conducive to the long-term development of the crypto industry, as well as supervision and ecological construction. The specific manifestation is: value coins appear to have no value, and worthless coins appear to have great value. The idea of retail investors is very simple: I will support whoever can make me money. What do you think?
