1. The Ethereum ETF has been approved. Is there any significance to this?
In fact, this event is similar to the impact of the Bitcoin ETF being approved at the time. In my opinion, both will indirectly benefit the price and liquidity of Ethereum in the long run, but the short-term effect is not very important. Even if there is any, it will be fleeting.
Whether it is Bitcoin or Ethereum, the most direct way to stimulate the price of the currency and promote the development of the ecosystem is the development of its internal ecological applications. This is true for the ICO of the year, the subsequent DeFi, and the inscriptions in the current round of Bitcoin ecology.
I wrote in a previous article that since the end of the last bull market and the beginning of the bear market, the relationship between the prices of Bitcoin and Ethereum has remained at about 14:1 (that is, 1 Bitcoin for 14 Ethereums) for a long period of time.
Later, when the Bitcoin Inscription ecology developed, the relationship between Bitcoin and Ethereum currency prices changed significantly, and soon became 20:1, and even 22:1 today.
Why is this happening?
These are all the results of ecological development: in this round of bear market, the development of Bitcoin ecology is better than that of Ethereum.
2. Am I involved in the BTC domain name?
I participated in the BTC domain name, but that was a long time ago. At that time, I just participated in it casually, without spending a lot of money or having high hopes. After participating, I basically left it there and didn't care about it.
3. It has been 4 months since the Bitcoin halving, and the bull market started from this Bitcoin conference.
In my previous articles, I have speculated on when the bull market will break out, but that is just a game. I think we should not be too entangled in when the bull market will break out, and we should not spend too much time and effort on these speculations.
Spending too much time on this can easily lead to negative obsessions, which will only do harm and no good.
Now that we have determined our own operation strategy, we should execute it according to the strategy. We should follow our own plan and not be led by market sentiment and our own emotions.
4. What are the risks and fatal factors of the Degen token?
When I consider whether a crypto project has any risks, I will look at the team, application scenarios, community, and other factors (such as economic models).
From the team perspective, this project seems to be a little different from general encryption projects: it does not have a clear and centralized team like other projects, it is more like a loose team composed of community members.
There are many well-known figures in the crypto community in this loose team, and all of them have promoted and promoted this project to varying degrees. At first, some players promoted it as a reward token like Dogecoin; later, a team used it as a fuel token based on existing technology to launch a third-layer extension based on Base.
Such a team does not have a clear backbone figure, and mainly relies on scattered guerrilla methods to advance the project. This method is OK when it is a small-scale operation in the early stage, but it may be problematic to make it a large project or even an ecological application in the future.
So this seems to me like it could be a risk on the team side.
From the perspective of application scenarios, it developed from social networking, but can the social scenario stimulate it to become a formal application?
I am not sure about this, and the precedent is Dogecoin.
So this could be considered an application risk.
From the perspective of the community, its main community members are now users on Farcaster. Although this group has strong stickiness, its current scale is still too small. Can it make a breakthrough in the future and truly become the social application of Web 3 that many people expect, thereby attracting a large number of users and forming a huge community?
It’s hard to say at the moment, so there are problems in this regard as well.
Finally, from the perspective of the economic model, its current empowerment is mainly for rewards and use as a fuel token for third-layer expansion. This token model is good, but not very eye-catching. It can only be said to be so-so.
In general, the risks I mentioned above are the current problems. If any of these problems are not handled properly, it will affect the future development of this project.
Therefore, I would rather continue to follow this project and observe its next trend. At this stage, I will just hold some tokens instead of making regular investments.
