After reading the long article by the founder of LONG, I feel that he has turned the Meme launch platform into a DeFi graduate student defense venue. The seven major points of technology were discussed, but the two core issues of business were not fully explained. To be frank, I feel a bit self-centered. Firstly, it should be acknowledged that deep liquidity has value and can improve the trading experience; Changes in stock prices do indeed affect the value of paired assets and arbitrage behavior. These are not nonsense. But how the mechanism operates and why users pay are two different things. Firstly, why would a village with funds, resources, and operational capabilities be willing to come to you to post? Is it easier to start cold? Can we get in touch with more real buyers? Stronger dissemination and distribution? Or can the project generate more sustainable returns after completion? He emphasized that deep pools make bundling chips and controlling supply more expensive. Preventing malicious trading is certainly valuable. But if you increase the cost of the old gameplay, you have to explain clearly what attracts people to the new gameplay. It's not that if something Zhuang doesn't like is made, good projects will automatically queue up for entry. You need to show teams willing to bring money, people, and content why the same investment is more worthwhile in LONG. This is the supply side of the launch platform. Without continuous new projects and new participants, no matter how beautiful the mechanism is, it may just be a few old pools proving themselves advanced to each other. Secondly, what additional buying reasons does the rise and fall of underlying stocks provide for Meme players? To be precise here: He didn't fail to explain how stock prices are transmitted. He explained the price relationship, but did not fully explain the user's needs. Nvidia's rise may increase the US dollar value of stock tokens in the pool; Arbitrage will adjust the asset ratio and price of the pool. But a 20% increase in stocks cannot be directly understood as Meme holders earning 20%. AMM pricing and arbitrage mechanism The more crucial issue is: If I am only bullish on Nvidia, why not directly hold Nvidia related assets and take on an additional layer of Meme risk? If I were to play Meme, what I would like to see are attractive narratives, sustained dissemination, reliable operations, and reasons for funding to continuously participate. Our pool can become an important source of liquidity for stocks, which is a result of infrastructure. But it still needs to answer: how does this score become a reason to hold this Meme? Arbitrage robots have business, and external LPs have transaction fees, which does not mean that ordinary coin holders have the same benefits. Due to different roles, accounts cannot be mixed. He also emphasized that growth and expansion should be prioritized, and more value feedback should be considered in the future; I hope users are not seeking dividends, but rather identifying with stocks and forming a community around them. This direction can be chosen. But we cannot replace 'why should we expand now' with 'we can capture more value after expanding'. Where do new buyers come from, why are they willing to stay, and why are they willing to continue spreading? These things cannot be automatically accomplished by a single phrase of long termism. Not all Memes are required to distribute dividends, nor are platforms required to accommodate all villages. But a launch platform must at least simultaneously answer: Why would anyone be willing to come here to work on a project. Why are people willing to come here to buy projects. My biggest question about this long article is: He explained clearly how beautiful the system would be after the funds came in. But I didn't explain why the funds continued to come in. The user asked: Why should I participate? His answer was: You sit down first, and I'll tell you about arbitrage. This is what I call self pleasure. It's not that technology has no value, but rather that the superiority of technology is seen as a market demand.