Hating is not about valuable coins, but about pretending to have valuable air coins.

Article: Dayu, Crypto KOL

Introduction

"Yesterday, the article "The Eastern Crypto Community Cannot Always Be a Meme, the Eastern Community Needs a Prairie Fire" by the founder of IOSG sparked intense discussions, and different practitioners have expressed their opinions on the article. This article is a response from the well-known KOL Dayu to the article."

Main Text

IOSG should be one of the funds in the currency circle that pays the most attention to industry development and long-term value. Most of the projects it invests in are industry and infrastructure projects. It has discussed memes and valuable coins, calling on the industry to shift from memes to things with long-term value.

From the objective laws of development, only with a solid foundation can there be towering buildings and prosperity. Therefore, investing in infrastructure and focusing on long-term value is very correct and admirable—the foundation of the industry cannot change.

Although I mainly play memes, I also lamented a few days ago: the currency circle cannot be just memes.

Therefore, I first agree with @jinzhoulin's point of view, believing that the currency circle cannot be just memes and should pursue higher value.

Memes are indeed a culture, and this culture is enduring and has its own charm, and will always exist. But once this culture is linked to tokenization, no matter how well packaged, it is still a game of passing the buck, with the hope that those who come later will take over, regardless of which meme it is.

However, I still have a different understanding from jocy, and I want to discuss it together.

I. Memes are a natural selection in the market stage, and they will achieve a better rather than worse currency circle

Memes are essentially a game of passing the buck, but does it have value? It does.

To some extent, this simple and violent wealth game deeply appeals to human nature, so it is the most attractive and therefore very helpful for attracting new participants to the currency circle.

No one should ignore a fact: people come to the currency circle mainly for the wealth effect—whether it is the early Bitcoin, later ICOs, then doge and shib, and now NFTs, after each wave of irrational speculation frenzy, the currency circle has not become worse, but better, because each time it has attracted more Bitcoin believers and further development.

Looking back at history, I would think that everything in the past has contributed to today's Bitcoin, whether it is valuable or a bubble, whether it is the 3M scam that attracted a large number of people to know about Bitcoin, or the ICO that led to countless people entering the circle, or the doge and shib's wealth creation myth, or the frenzy of NFTs, all of this has contributed to today's Bitcoin.

Therefore, I believe we don't need to worry about bubbles overshadowing value, memes diluting the idealism of Bitcoin, or eroding the underlying value of blockchain.

Market evolution has its own rules, and we don't need to worry about anything. Good things will get better, and bad things will be eliminated.

This time, memes are eliminating not Bitcoin and the currency circle, but those pretending to be valuable coins, "air coins," and "scythe coins."

II. Valuable projects do not equal valuable coins

Not every project can be called a valuable coin— the opposite of memes is not necessarily valuable coins, but may also be "air coins."

We should first define it. The term "valuable coin" itself is a very general statement. Generally, the idealistic classification is based on what problems the project itself solves and what contributions it makes to the world.

But this classification has a problem, that is, the project may have value, but the coin may not.

Because logically, as long as the project solves a certain need, it has more or less a certain value, which is not wrong.

However, at the token level, it is different. Tokens may be hyped—this market frenzy and randomness seem to have nothing to do with the project party and VCs.

But this does not consider the unequal costs of both parties. The costs of VCs, project parties, and retail investors may differ by 100 times, and the difference in professional knowledge may differ by 10 times, which is no different from a bomber fighting a farmer with bare hands on the battlefield.

In this case, both retail investors and VCs are investors, but their rights, responsibilities, and benefits are completely unequal.

VCs can participate in investments at a price of 0.0001, leveraging their status and industry resources.

While retail investors, due to careful design, buy into a narrative jointly packaged by the project party and VCs, with chips worth 0.001. If they find a professional and skilled market maker, they can continue to raise the price over a few days, and then have a 70% sell-off, completing a beautiful textbook-style listing tutorial.

This is unfair!

Retail investors actually buy coins, but they don't enjoy anything. Although everything seems to be "self-inflicted," retail investors also have their own demands: the listing price of tokens should not deviate too much from their true value!

Most retail investors, due to a lack of investment knowledge, do not know and cannot exercise this power, so they will rush to buy into projects with a market cap of several billion, and then directly list them at the peak.

Or rush into projects with good business performance, valued at 10 billion, only to be crushed later by massive token releases, which are the result of continuous unlocking and selling by investors and project parties, and another paycheck sent out by second-tier retail investors under the scorching sun.

Imagine if the economic models of all projects on the market were like that of the project "arb," how much would retail investors suffer?

Why do retail investors rush into memes? It's not that they don't care about value, it's not that they are not idealistic, it's just that they can't afford to lose anymore…

III. People don't hate valuable coins, but air coins disguised as valuable coins

Speculating in memes is for a slightly better future. If there are better choices, retail investors won't like memes.

What is a better choice? In fact, we have had many in the past. We can easily think of many.

For example, in 2017, the Binance ICO, @heyibinance and @cz_binance raised funds to issue BNB, which was too cheap at the time. Today, the company has grown larger, but has always placed the rights of BNB holders in an important position. The burned BNB is worth tens of billions of dollars, and when a project is listed on Binance, it directly airdrops tens of billions of dollars to holders—let's not discuss the listing itself, just from the perspective of BNB holders (I am not one), holding BNB does make one feel the existence of a holder.

However, most tokens do not. Most tokens issued by valuable projects are not valuable coins, but very vicious "scythe coins."

They have very typical characteristics:

1. Unfair token distribution

Early chips are mostly taken by VCs and project parties, very few are given to the community, and even when airdropping, they take advantage of gas fees, and engage in insider trading during airdrops, with despicable means.

2. Vicious token distribution

All early chip holders, including project parties, are thinking about how to make it easier for retail investors to take over, and are working hard to create not benefits for holders, but more viciously, to weave traps for the sheep to jump into, and to easily reap financial freedom.

One recent project that left a deep impression is $aevo, which raised the price of $rbn and introduced a 1:1 lock-in exchange for aevo, attracting sheep to pledge. When the pledge was almost complete, they directly sold off everything, what value does this kind of project have? I think it's almost the same as seeking wealth at the expense of lives.

I believe that retail investors reading my article can freely comment on how much they lost in this project, I believe it's easy to find a lot of losses, because there are basically no gains, except for the project party.

Chasing a meme to a higher price is not good, but it's clearer than dying.

Moreover, most projects have massive token releases. Check the unlocks, you can visit the following website (I also included it in http://dayu.xyz for easy access): https://token.unlocks.app

3. Low project value, high token valuation

The project party and VCs are not studying how to bring benefits to users, not how to make the project develop better, but how to reduce the circulation of tokens, how to hype, and how to sell— including how to quickly issue tokens during a bull market, and how to reset everyone to zero during a bear market.

4. Value and tokens are completely unrelated

The project itself has low value or even no value, but it has a very high valuation and extremely insidious token releases, which is the norm for 99% of projects.

And projects like Aave and Uni, as mentioned by jocy, do have value, but how much does this have to do with the users?

As retail investors who basically do not participate in voting, holding tokens has no benefits—participating is meaningless due to the small amount. And at the same time, retail investors also bear the mission of taking over the chips from VCs—such as the community's rumor about the founder of CRV owning a large villa…

IV. How to solve it?

People choosing memes comprehensively is only temporary. Everyone likes projects with long-term value—just like even bad people like to be friends with honest and good people.

I would look forward to some projects like this: fairer costs, more prominent value, and healthier distribution.

If you want retail investors to grow with the project, then please raise funds directly from retail investors at the same cost as the team and VCs, so that if there are losses, it's their own lack of insight, failure to choose the right team, and failure to choose the right project, leading to overvaluation.

If you want retail investors to provide liquidity at the second level, then please treat retail investors as people, respect their rights as holders—let retail investors enjoy shareholder-like rights, enjoy the dividends of project development: whether it's dividends, buybacks, or showing various data through community communication.

You are an oracle, so what is your revenue, what are your expenses, how does your business compare to your peers, and what do you think is your fair valuation?

If you also think the project has no value and just want to issue a meme coin, then it's best to release 100% of the tokens at once, and don't do any tricks, just a direct 100% airdrop—let the team buy tokens themselves at the second level, buy more if they think it's undervalued, and don't buy any if they think it's overvalued—after all, a truly valuable project will definitely not survive by selling tokens, right?

Overall, the project party needs to be sincere, think about the value of their project, think about whether the idea of selling tokens for maximum revenue is valid, think about how to reward token holders, think about how to rally the community through token issuance and rely on the community for long-term development.

It's late at night, so let's stop here for now.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。