Written by: Haotian

Just because of a comment from Sister Mu, Bn's old issues have been brought up again, and a group of Western KOLs are almost cursing it. But looking at the reviews in the Chinese-speaking community, you might be surprised why Bn always prides itself on being the "big spender," yet is viewed with outrage as an "industry tumor"?

The logic is actually hidden in three terms: "discourse power," "internalization," and "positive externality."

The Absolute Monopoly of "Discourse Power" and "Darkness Under the Lamp"

In the past, no company in the crypto space had the ability to gain such enormous "discourse power."

The ICO boom in 2017 was dominated by various token issuers, but at that time, the market capacity was still too small, and the margin for error was high; it was the era of wild profits.

The wave in 2021 was driven by internal innovations in DeFi and the external influx of NFTs, leading to a Cambrian explosion of technical narratives.

However, the wave in 2024 belongs to a stage burdened with technical debt, where the market lacks the ability to generate original technical narratives. A large number of institutions are waiting to exit, and many development projects without PMF are also waiting to exit. As the CEX with the most abundant liquidity and the largest user base, Bn suddenly realized that it had become the last link in the liquidity harvesting chain, with many on-chain projects ultimately failing after moving from third-tier and second-tier exchanges to Bn.

Thus, Bn made a decision that seemed "defensive" but was actually "monopolistic": tightening the gates and redefining the logic of listing tokens.

This was originally intended to protect liquidity from being drained by junk projects, but the result was a terrifying "discourse power bullying." When an exchange can define what constitutes a valuable project through its launchpad, and even easily determine the life and death of a sector, the industry inevitably falls into "darkness under the lamp."

Builders no longer think about how to serve users well but instead try every means to cater to Bn's listing team's review. VCs no longer cultivate value Alpha from a technical perspective but instead gather resources to obtain that "listing ticket." Over time, this monopolistic discourse power ultimately filtered out a bunch of exquisitely self-serving "customized" projects.

Therefore, in an innovation-deficient, continuously declining bear market sentiment, users are no longer simply cursing the project parties but are also targeting Bn, which holds the final say. Bn doesn't need to cry injustice; this is the inevitable price of discourse power monopoly biting back.

Extreme "Internalization": From Casino to Slaughterhouse

Everyone knows that the future of the industry lies in mass adoption, but looking back, this cycle dominated by Bn has fallen into an unprecedented "internalization" predicament.

Take a look at the projects launched on Bn's launchpad; high FDV, low circulation, and the inescapable support from BNB holders have become the standard. This is essentially a carefully designed "internal liquidity extraction machine." Think about it: in this model, project parties and market makers hold chips at extremely low costs, using Bn's liquidity premium to distribute at high levels, while retail investors are forced to pay for these enormous bubbles in the secondary market.

Later, Bn Alpha and Meme Rush, BNBChain ecosystem support, MEME tracking and speculation, and a series of attention-grabbing tricks further intensified the internalization model.

As for BNBChain, as its own ecosystem, Bn's provision of important resources for support is understandable. However, since there are better exit channels, BNBChain should have become a model for the development and innovation of other on-chain applications. Unfortunately, BNBChain has not been able to enjoy this inherent channel advantage and has gradually become a breeding ground for "shitty projects," project circles, and hacker cash-out machines.

The adverse effects of such play are that, perhaps due to prejudice or inability to operate, external incremental funds are unwilling to come in, while internal existing funds are repeatedly washed out. The market has transformed from a "casino" with both wins and losses into a "slaughterhouse" where almost no one survives except for the house.

Bn's internalization strategy seems to have built a vast ecological island, but it has invisibly siphoned off most of the industry's liquidity. The key is that it has not been able to convert traffic into a driving force that benefits the industry; instead, it has consumed users' trust and capital in continuous PVP games and Meme festivities.

Therefore, from the perspective of Bn as a commercial entity, everything seems to be market behavior, and it is indeed unreasonable to attribute all the grievances of industry development shortcomings to it. However, as the largest liquidity pool in the crypto industry, failing to expand the pie through funds or application innovation is a fundamental sin.

The Absence of "Positive Externality": Why Are Old Issues Always Brought Up?

Why can a seemingly casual criticism from Sister Mu resonate so strongly, even prompting a collective attack from Western KOLs? Apart from the fact that the truth behind the 1011 initiators has never been disclosed, the main reason lies in "positive externality."

A true industry leader, while growing itself, must have the ability to continuously output positive externalities.

Let's make a comparison:

Although Coinbase's trading experience is criticized and its listing process is slow, it has built a compliant bridge connecting traditional finance and has made significant contributions to the approval of ETFs, which is a compliant positive externality.

The Ethereum Foundation, despite its inefficiency, has always been pushing the boundaries of technology, from smart contracts to Layer 2, which is a technical positive externality.

Even FTX, which has become history, at that time sponsored teams and made political donations, providing reasons for Wall Street funds and VCs to flock to it, which can also be considered a form of "positive externality."

OKX @star_okx has operated its Wallet and Dex Infra for many years and has gained a good reputation, which is also a result of "product strength" bringing a mature positive externality to the industry.

In contrast, Bn, in its frenzied expansion over the past few years, has created the largest liquidity pool in the industry and popularized the concept of crypto trading, which can also be seen as remarkable progress. However, when a platform becomes large enough to "represent" the industry, its positive externality begins to be diluted by the "burden" brought by its scale. What burden? It is the various aspects where the market expected it to act but it went against those expectations.

For example, the market expected that when technical narrative innovation was weak, Bn would increase its selection rigor, using its listing effect to lead value technical innovation, but it chose the MEME sector, further exacerbating the long-term disillusionment with useless technology at the cost of short-term excitement.

Another example is that the market thought Bn would leverage its APP and super entrance position to open up through standardized protocols, becoming a truly comprehensive cross-chain trading infrastructure to connect other fragmented application layers, but it instead built a closed-loop ecosystem resembling a family bucket, which seemingly maintained a moat against commercial empires but also became a siphon preventing liquidity from flowing into the real on-chain ecosystem.

Bn can certainly completely deny these, but "to wear the crown, one must bear its weight." As a super giant in this industry, its every move has long been deeply tied to the fate of the crypto industry.

The giant that once rose to prominence with the image of a "grassroots hero" and still holds a dominant position today, if it cannot timely sever ties with the "past," will naturally become the biggest obstacle to the establishment of a new order in the industry.

Even if it is not Bn, any company occupying top resources without taking responsibility for the industry will face a long period of criticism and FUD.

In the end, the public opinion dilemma that Bn currently faces is not simply FUD, but a giant that has reaped the industry's dividends, behaving like a merchant who only wants to protect its assets in the face of responsibility and accountability. This mismatch of virtue and position has led to a reckoning in industry public opinion.

• When "liquidity" becomes a tool for monopolizing discourse power, it leads to the stifling of innovation and "darkness under the lamp";
• When "ecological expansion" falls into extreme internalization harvesting, it leads to liquidity exhaustion and mutual destruction of existing funds;
• When "industry growth" loses positive externality, it leads to compliance obstacles and mainstream prejudice;

The once dragon-slaying youth ultimately faces the ultimate challenge of how to avoid becoming the evil dragon.

The solution lies not in public relations counterattacks or pushing more Meme coins to divert attention, but in whether Bn can break free from the "self-centered" traffic mindset, truly return discourse power to the vast crypto community, return liquidity to genuine on-chain technological innovation, and create large-scale positive externalities to benefit the industry.

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。