I am writing this article with great grief and indignation because the cornerstone of blockchain has collapsed.
To borrow the words of Yang Dong in The Three-Body Problem: Token economics no longer exists.
In yesterday's article, there was a point that I had already written about, but then I thought it was not rigorous and deleted it because I didn't want to give others an excuse for such a detail.
This detail is: the specific process of currency exchange.
Generally speaking, there are two ways to exchange coins:
One is automatic mapping. In simple terms, it will directly map the current currency address and quantity to you according to the set ratio, and then the previous contract will be invalidated. This is not a difficult problem technically.
If the token is in an exchange, just connect to the exchange directly. Whether it is splitting or exchanging coins, the data can be synchronized directly on the exchange.
This is a more humane approach, which reduces the friction cost for users and can even make it imperceptible to users.
But there is another way, which requires you to manually change the currency, which is quite disgusting.
It requires you to go to a designated website, submit your relevant information, and then complete the replacement of new currency within a period of time.
I wanted to mention this and tell people not to do such disgusting things and deliberately set barriers for users, but I was afraid that they would map automatically and I would get slapped in the face, so I didn't write it.
For example, the change from MATIC to POL is a combination of both methods.
I know Pol will definitely say that it’s not that we don’t want to, but it’s technically impossible.
It is true that the process of exchanging MAT for POL is relatively complicated and requires manual currency exchange, but Juzuo dares to bet that in subsequent projects someone will take the initiative to set thresholds for users.
But do you know what manual currency exchange means?
This means that it will be difficult for a considerable number of users to participate in the currency exchange in a short period of time, because there is a time difference in everyone's reception of information. Many people do not only hold this one currency. They do not exchange currencies according to the rhythm of the project party, but according to their own needs.
This resulted in a group of users whose assets had already been diluted and were close to zero being lost in the coin exchange process.
This is definitely a good thing for the project owners, because it increases their own chip ratio in disguise and allows them to achieve a higher proportion of control, but all this good news is based on the direct losses of users.
It’s not an exaggeration to say that these are bloody chips!
If I were a relatively bad project owner, I could really play the leeks around.
When a new currency is launched, I can pull it up and sell it at the same time according to the favorable conditions.
As selling pressure increases, I can sell off all the liquidity before the big players sell.
Even if the price of the currency hits rock bottom, I can still repeat the operation to trap the leeks.
The plate is really broken, I can still play a coin exchange game for you.
When you exchange coins, I will give you a proportional harvest + inflation increase.
When you go to exchange coins, I deliberately ask you to do it manually to block a group of people who are not proficient in the operation.
I will even set a redemption deadline, so if you don’t redeem it by then it won’t be my problem.
Do you think there is something wrong with all this?
In the past you could defend your rights, but how do you defend your rights now?
The reason why Ju Zuo feels sad is that this group of people have crossed the bottom line.
Once upon a time, there was an iron rule in the cryptocurrency world that no one could change, which was that they had to abide by the token economics originally designed.
The 21 million bitcoins, which will never be issued in excess, are the most powerful resistance to the issuance of secular legal tender and the unshakable cornerstone of the entire cryptocurrency world.
Therefore, for a long time, players in the crypto circle have regarded this as a golden rule.
Later, because of the inflation properties and the fact that traditional economics believes that appropriate inflation of around 2% is conducive to stimulating economic development, Ethereum set up inflation rules, but they have never changed over the years.
Later, due to its special properties, Tether could be issued in larger quantities, but at that time Tether would also be destroyed based on specific circumstances, rather than being issued indiscriminately.
Later, exchanges became the mainstream track in the industry, and various exchanges launched platform coins one after another. The point that platform coins can gather consensus on is destruction - taking out part of their own profits to repurchase their own platform coins and destroy them, and then using the platform coins to bind to various usage scenarios.
So back then, Binance and Huobi really took out a lot of real money to repurchase and destroy, giving feedback to the market and serving as proof of their own industry status. This is truly a real proof of credit.
Ju Zuo has talked about so many cases, all of which are saying one thing: token economics is the cornerstone of the entire cryptocurrency industry. It is equivalent to the constitution of a project and cannot be modified at will.
Even if you feel stretched by the original setup, that's your problem. You can run a temple in a snail shell, but you must abide by the bottom line and laws.
But now, project developers are using the tactic of exchanging coins to bypass the originally designed token economics. What is the difference between this and declaring the past constitution invalid and directly activating the constitution that you have the final right of interpretation?
Look at the bullshit said by the founder of self chain: increasing the token supply is to strengthen network security.
If the network is not secure, it should not be online.
Because the blockchain world does not need an insecure chain.
If you say that the reason for exchanging and issuing more coins is to enhance network security, then why don't you raise the price of the coin and make profits from the secondary market to build your network security, but instead bleed directly from the users?
Fuck you, you can't even cover up your lies.
What kind of community governance and decentralization are you talking about? You are a fucking dictator! Fuck you!
However, no one came out to stop such things that shook the foundation of the industry, and even the exchanges tacitly acknowledged that this was the right of the project owners.
Juzuo can say that if this batch of projects takes this lead and is not punished, then all future projects can exchange tokens at any time and play again.
I am not trying to be alarmist here.
To be honest, after this incident, it directly shook my faith in the industry - if all project parties can have the final right of interpretation without having to make any explanation to the coin holders, it will only make the already passive leeks even more miserable.
Look at the coin exchange plan with a dilution rate of 98%. What's the difference between this and robbery?
Just do it this way. If everyone plays like this, the industry will be ruined in your hands sooner or later.
Ju Zuo suddenly remembered a sentence from The Three-Body Problem:
Now, this group of project parties that have broken the bottom line are the fish that dried up the sea in The Three-Body Problem.
They drained the industry's liquidity, made a fortune, evolved limbs, and became lizards.
Then, from the dark forest of the cryptocurrency circle, we rushed into another dark forest.
All that was left were small puddles of water and fish that were about to die of thirst.
