In the short term, the market is a popularity contest; in the long term, it is a mechanism for weighing value.

整理 & 编译：深潮TechFlow

Guests:

• Haseeb Qureshi, Managing Partner at Dragonfly

• Robert Leshner, CEO & Co-founder of Superstate

• Tarun Chitra, Managing Partner at Robot Ventures

• Tom Schmidt, General Partner at Dragonfly

Podcast Source: Unchained

Original Title: The LA Vape Cabal vs. Millennials - The Chopping Block

Broadcast Date: February 7, 2025

Background Information

Welcome to The Chopping Block! This is a show hosted by cryptocurrency industry experts Haseeb Qureshi, Tom Schmidt, Tarun Chitra, and Robert Leshner, focusing on discussing the latest hot topics in the cryptocurrency industry. In this episode, we analyze the market turmoil triggered by the Trump trade war, which led to a sharp decline in Ethereum and altcoins (i.e., cryptocurrencies other than Bitcoin), while Bitcoin remained strong. Why are altcoins performing poorly? Is it due to capital flowing towards quality assets, or is there a deeper reason?

Additionally, we explore the unique impact of the LA Vape Cabal on meme culture, discuss whether the new leadership at the SEC will truly change the rules of the cryptocurrency industry, and analyze the Binance scandal. Finally, we examine whether the meme cycle has really ended, or if this is just another phase in the endless "casino" of the cryptocurrency market.

Market Volatility and Trade War

Haseeb:

The trade war initiated by Trump against U.S. allies and China has seen a 30-day pause in the trade war with allies. However, the cryptocurrency market has experienced a significant drop due to tariff policies. The price of Ethereum once fell to $2100, with a daily drop of over 20%. Bitcoin's price hit a low of $91,000, setting a record for the largest single-day liquidation in cryptocurrency history.

What do you think about the current market situation? Is this situation temporary? Have we entered a new phase? Will this change your view on the trajectory of cryptocurrency development during President Trump's term?

Robert:

I don't think the trajectory of cryptocurrency development under the Trump administration has changed significantly. David O. Sacks held a press conference stating that the cryptocurrency industry will continue to push forward at full speed. Meanwhile, Hester Peirce discussed the SEC's future role as a cryptocurrency regulator in an important policy statement.

The only change is this unexpected tariff policy, which has triggered a wave of market speculation and liquidation. But from an overall macro perspective, there hasn't been a fundamental change; Trump's tariffs are more seen as a negotiation strategy rather than a long-term policy.

Bitcoin Dominance and Altcoin Weakness

Haseeb:

But altcoins are still performing poorly. In contrast, the NASDAQ index fell 2% that day due to tariff impacts, but quickly recovered most of its losses with the removal of tariffs on Canada and Mexico. The rebound in the cryptocurrency market was only about 50% of the losses, indicating that market sentiment is very weak.

Robert: I'm not sure if technology-driven cryptocurrencies have really collapsed. Many of the declines occurred in memes, and those holding memes are in a state of panic.

Tarun: Those holding Ethereum are also panicking.

Haseeb: Bitcoin reached $103,000 when Ethereum was close to $4000. Every time Bitcoin's price retests its highs, Ethereum's performance worsens. Now Ethereum is back to $2500, but the market seems to be self-soothing, saying "it's okay, Ethereum is fine."

Robert: From the current situation, most capital is flowing into Bitcoin. The current market atmosphere is that investors are selling underperforming assets and shifting funds to Bitcoin. The macro narrative around Bitcoin is very appealing. Today's press conference even mentioned that the U.S. might establish a sovereign fund to invest in Bitcoin, which could be a key path to mainstreaming Bitcoin as an important asset.

Meme and Market Sentiment

Haseeb: Tom, what are your thoughts on the overall market sentiment?

Tom: I feel that the market is generally a bit sluggish, especially when facing uncertainty, this sentiment gets amplified. If you look at Polymarket's predictions on tariffs, you'll find that market volatility is significant. This is not just a standard liquidation wave, but a general sense of unease. While you mentioned that the stock market is recovering, it is actually still concentrated on MEG7 stocks. In this situation, investors are opting for "quality assets." In this uncertainty, investors' risk tolerance decreases.

Haseeb: Do you think this is the new normal for the market? Will this situation only improve once the macro economy stabilizes? I initially thought the current government's policies were favorable for Bitcoin, but now it seems all assets are declining.

Robert:

So, why are they declining? The tailwinds are enormous; the overall market is so driven by market forces, random and inexplicable, that indeed, there is a huge tailwind that should come from policy. Aside from the fact that almost all assets rose after the election, almost everything went up after the election, except for Ethereum, most other assets did. You know, Bitcoin has risen to $100,000, and Solana has also risen to around $215. Most of the time, that's how it is.

Haseeb: But even strong tokens like Solana have not performed well since the election; now it really is only Bitcoin supporting the entire market.

Robert: Almost everything is benchmarked against Bitcoin.

Haseeb:

I think we can all agree on the current market situation, which is that the market is continuously declining. Tom's point about the "shift to quality assets" is very accurate. This phenomenon is not only present in the cryptocurrency market but is also reflected in the stock market. If you only look at the overall data, you might mistakenly think the market is doing well. In reality, the total market cap of the cryptocurrency market appears stable, but in daily market cap changes, Bitcoin's performance masks the significant declines of many altcoins; for example, Bitcoin might only drop 1%, but many altcoins could have dropped 15%.

Perhaps my thought is that once the macroeconomic story stabilizes, possibly after we achieve strategic Bitcoin reserves, you will see this atmosphere shift towards higher risk tolerance, towards more tech cryptocurrencies. Because to some extent, the market is anticipating strategic Bitcoin reserves, which is a major news event that everyone is holding their breath for. Every meeting, every announcement from Trump or David Sacks is waiting for clear news about this major event. Once we get that news, it’s as if, oh, now there are no other truly major events happening.

Tarun: I noticed an interesting phenomenon; there are now many altcoins to choose from, so it's hard to see a single token skyrocket.

Haseeb:

I disagree with this view. There have always been many tokens in the market; this is not a new issue. Good tokens attract capital, while bad tokens get weeded out by the market.

If the theory that "too many altcoins lead to market fatigue" holds, then the tokens on the CoinMarketCap homepage (the top-ranked cryptocurrency projects by market cap) should perform well, while the lower-ranked tokens should perform poorly. This is what you call the "diversification effect." But in reality, we see Bitcoin performing strongly while all altcoins are generally underperforming. In contrast, in previous cycles, all tokens typically rose and fell together, rather than the current divergence.

In fact, the idea that "there are too many tokens in the market" has always existed. The cryptocurrency market has never lacked tokens; I never felt that the number of tokens was an issue. Just as the stock market does not allow only good stocks to receive funding because "there are too many stocks," this theory cannot explain how the market operates.

Tarun: I think one possible reason is that many new users entering the chain are more inclined to participate in meme trading because these coins have a very fast turnover.

Haseeb:

I completely agree. Therefore, some believe that the intervention of Pump.fun has led to poor market performance. There is now a chart circulating online showing that after Pump.fun entered the market, the market began to decline.

Typically, when Bitcoin performs strongly, altcoins will follow suit after a while. We have experienced "Bitcoin seasons" (periods when Bitcoin dominates market gains) and "altcoin seasons." But in this cycle, there doesn't seem to be a real "altcoin season," except for a brief altcoin rebound after the Bitcoin ETF was released last year, which quickly faded.

I think this is a more reasonable theory; at least it can be said that this phenomenon is new, as it did not occur in previous cycles. The overall scale of Pump.fun and memes is clearly far greater than the speculative behavior in previous cycles. While there was indeed an NFT craze in 2021, in absolute terms, the complexity and impact of NFTs are far less than that of memes. In terms of total capital and profits extracted from the market, if you look at the revenues of Pump.fun and Photon, as well as the operation of the entire meme supply chain, you can see that a large amount of profit has been extracted from the market.

Robert:

This is also why I believe the value of mining tools is higher than that of other investable asset classes. As you said, the list of trading assets is endless, and it will still be endless even 100 years from now.

The infrastructure supporting these asset trades will accumulate a lot of value, while the value of the assets themselves is random. That is to say, how assets accumulate value is unpredictable. If you have an endless list of assets, some will be assigned value, they will be traded, becoming tools for speculation. But in the long run, the median or average value of these assets will not be very high. So, the infrastructure is the part with more long-term value.

Haseeb:

However, I notice that many people believe memes are outdated, and almost all memes have performed poorly recently. People feel that the opportunities to make money trading memes are rapidly decreasing. When the market's "casino effect" changes, such as when people suddenly feel that "slot machines are no longer attractive," this shift in sentiment can happen very quickly.

Tom:

The complexity of memes is gradually becoming more specialized. Once, memes were a creative and community-driven space where someone could launch a meme with a good idea and potentially succeed, even building a community around it. But now, everything seems to have become very organized and industrialized, which may also be one reason why people feel fatigued by memes.

However, the argument about value extraction by platforms like Pump.fun can also be similarly criticized for centralized exchanges, which are also slowly extracting value from the system. Yet, people generally do not direct the same criticism at exchanges, except for exceptions like listing fees. I believe exchanges do reinvest some of the value back into the ecosystem, such as incubating projects or investing, but the scale of this reinvestment is clearly not comparable to the value they extract.

Robert:

This reminds me of a classic quote by Warren Buffett: In the short term, the market is a popularity contest; in the long term, it is a mechanism for weighing value. This popularity contest is particularly evident in the cryptocurrency space. People often speculate based on the cuteness of icons or the novelty of memes, relying entirely on short-term mimetic social consensus rather than judging based on the potential value of the assets.

However, in the long run, the market will ultimately revert to a mechanism for weighing value. For example, Bitcoin is a typical case. It continues to attract significant capital inflow, becoming the dominant force in the market, indicating that people place more importance on its intrinsic value from a long-term perspective. Therefore, we can see that in the cryptocurrency market, the short-term popularity effects and long-term value orientation create extreme polarization.

Cultural Phenomena in the Cryptocurrency Space

Tarun: I want to look at this issue from another angle. When you discuss the users of memes, it seems you assume their goal is just to make money.

But I think, being the first to launch a certain meme can actually earn one cultural recognition. This reminds me that one of the most failed and persistently failing investments in the cryptocurrency space is blockchain games. These games can quickly become popular in the short term, but then users drop off, and the gameplay disappears. I think memes might start from financialization and then incorporate some gamified elements through these live streams. If you watch the live streams of these LA Vape Cabal groups, you'll find that this is completely different from traditional investment behavior. Many people buy memes not to make money, but because they want to fit into a group and be part of it. This is a strange subculture, and I think some people even don’t mind losing money.

In the context of the rapidly increasing number of assets, there is indeed a peculiar phenomenon where the value of "being the first on this asset" exists. This phenomenon is entirely different from other parts of token economics. I believe the significance of this behavior has transcended "Can I make money from this coin?" but I can't quite describe it accurately.

When you watch these live streams, you’ll find that some people are facing huge losses yet still smiling and seem to be enjoying themselves.

Haseeb: This reminds me of the scene in a casino where drunk people are playing blackjack; there is indeed a similarity.

Robert: Yeah, they are cheering, but the premise is that they still have money in hand.

Haseeb: As long as you have funds, you can have fun in the casino, right? But eventually, you will be "asked" to leave, and by then, even the free drinks are gone.

Tarun: I think your casino analogy is missing a bit, which is that the speed of introducing new slot machines and the growth of participants are not consistent. This phenomenon is strange because as the number of users increases, the number of playable games seems to be constantly growing.

Haseeb: It’s like the game has just changed its skin. For example, you walk up to a slot machine and find it has a Robin Hood theme, while another might have a different theme. Essentially, you are still playing the same game, just with a different skin.

Tarun:

Recently, the LA Vape Cabal has also been creating memes, launching and trading coins during their live streams. And there are indeed people buying, even while saying, "I'm losing money, I'm going to lose money," they still buy because this group tells them to do so. I think people are participating in this not purely to make money, but for other motivations.

I have been trying to understand this. Clearly, there is a strong social element in the process of launching these coins, such as "You have to live stream for me" or "Make a TikTok," which is completely different from the promotion methods of other cryptocurrencies. I think this might be the key.

Haseeb:

This also happened during the NFT craze, where a larger cultural phenomenon formed, not just "there are NFT traders who only care about making money." But some cultural symbols made people’s NFT collections highly tribalized, even creating a strong sense of belonging. In any large frenzy, these cultural attachments will always emerge. But I believe these cultural phenomena are not the fundamental reason driving the current meme craze. The real causal basis is still that people want to make money.

The data I see shows that during the meme craze, about 60% of traders are losing money, and only about 3% of traders have ever made more than $1,000 in profit. So, most people are not making money in this "casino." This is just a mathematical law, similar to real-life casinos. But for most people, this is not their subjective experience. By the time the NFT craze ended, the general sentiment was "I can't make money from this." Once memes also create a feeling of low expected value, your subconscious will start to adjust its judgment of them.

Robert:

This reminds me of the ICO craze in 2017. At that time, everyone was making money in ICOs, so the number of ICOs grew exponentially. But when the market began to shift, and buyers were insufficient to support sellers, ICOs collapsed rapidly. This situation also occurred during the NFT craze. Every cycle is like this. Memes will also end in a similar way—when there are more sellers than buyers in the market, the entire system will collapse.

Tarun: This is like the rational agent model hypothesized in economics, but the participants are not rational. And you will find that in the comments section, everyone is discussing "pump and dump," and they even openly admit it.

Haseeb: If someone deliberately buys these pump-and-dump coins just for laughs, those people will quickly lose their money. It’s like a primitive jungle law; eventually, these people will exhaust their funds.

Tarun:

I don't disagree with this view. But when you enter these live streams, you will find that the proportion of participants is completely different from the NFT scene. NFT people will try to convince you that this is art or the future of culture, while here, there is no such pretense. Everyone simply says, "Oh, a certain KOL (Key Opinion Leader) said X, so I’ll give it a try."

Haseeb: It sounds like this is a culture, a subculture. Clearly, most people do not identify with this culture and do not understand how it operates. But those who do understand find it hilarious. This is the way to showcase oneself as an alpha figure in this new economy.

Tom: This sounds like a Gen Z version of Wall Street gamblers. Why do people post screenshots of themselves betting $50,000 on options and then losing it all? It’s like a voyeuristic thrill; you find joy in it.

Tarun: That’s exactly my point; this phenomenon is more like an interaction of social networks. Losing money can also bring a strange sense of satisfaction, like you can flaunt your "painful experience" on social media.

The LA Vape Cabal

Tarun: Everyone is discussing their process of discovering memes through live streaming, which is completely different from the past culture.

Tom: I understand your point, but I think the meme craze also has some unique components. For example, how many venture capital firms are buying memes or discussing using memes as community launch tools? They are trying to use memes to build great products. Everyone is trying to "intellectualize" this market, but in reality, the market has a reverse causal relationship. People equate "price" with "product." Maybe I'm wrong.

Tarun: Memes have certain unique characteristics that allow them to last longer. I think the speed and quantity of asset growth are closely related to this phenomenon.

Haseeb: We seem to have reached a consensus that we are in the later stages of the meme cycle. But what I’m not so sure about is that the sentiment in the meme market is indeed very low right now. In fact, the sentiment across the entire altcoin market is quite low. Aside from Bitcoin supporters, everyone else seems quite pessimistic. So, if the macro economy reverses and altcoins start to rebound, memes might also rebound. At that time, we might completely forget these low sentiments. Do you think this will happen, or has the meme cycle already ended, and we need to look for the next hot spot?

Robert: I don’t think it’s over. Because every day, new memes are skyrocketing to market caps of $500 million or even $1 billion. When you find something can reach a market cap of $1 billion in a short time, and it has no actual value, this phenomenon continues.

Tom:

I think Trump has almost become the "ceiling" for memes. Just as punk is the "ceiling" for NFTs. As these trends progress, people’s psychological calculations will also change. In my view, this is a metric worth paying attention to. However, in the crypto world, the only constant is people’s endless desire for new games. I believe there will always be someone creating new games to attract people to play.

Tarun:

Memes are somewhat different from previous crypto assets in certain aspects. Memes are easier to exit, but the complex structure of NFTs is very unfriendly to new users. However, I agree with Tom’s point that there are indeed some indicators in the market, and everything is tied to these indicators. If this key indicator drops, the entire market will also drop. But this is different from NFTs. The NFT market is more volatile; if a key asset drops by 20%, other assets might drop by 40%.

In contrast, the liquidity of the meme market is currently higher, and exiting is easier. Therefore, I think the meme market will not crash as quickly as NFTs but will gradually decline in a slow manner. At least it seems that way for now.

Haseeb: You make a good point. I also don’t think the meme cycle has ended. If the market rebounds, this game remains very attractive to those who don’t care about the technical details. I feel we are not at the end yet. Although everyone is saying the meme is over, to me, this is not how the market ends. The true sign of the market ending is when people completely stop participating.

Millennials and the Meme Craze

Haseeb: Can someone explain the story of JellyJelly?

Tarun:

Sam Lessin is a partner at Slow Ventures, and they are trying to promote a new video chat application through memes. However, the app is nearly unusable, and clearly, the gap between user expectations and actual experience is too large. Moreover, their promotional approach is very awkward, looking like something designed for the elderly, which could never attract meme traders. I think this is just a huge failure.

Regarding JellyJelly, when the price dropped, Sam Lessin, an early Facebook employee and a well-known venture capital partner, clearly struggled to cope with the pressure. He even attempted to recover the price through an audio-streamed board meeting. This whole situation was one of the most awkward scenes I have ever witnessed.

Robert: He eventually had to come out and apologize, saying, "Oh, I launched a meme, but I had no idea how it worked."

Tarun: I have to admit, this is one of the most embarrassing moments in venture capital history. But it also illustrates that Silicon Valley venture capitalists cannot withstand the pressure of battle and ultimately fall on the battlefield.

Interaction Between Binance and the Chinese Community

Haseeb:

Recently, the focus of discussion in the Chinese community has been Binance, particularly Binance Labs. Binance Labs has rebranded to YZI, and now YZI is clearly CZ's (Binance founder Zhao Changpeng) family office. Many people criticize Binance for alleged insider trading, kickbacks, and high listing fees. Some claim that if your token wants to be listed on Binance, you must pay a fee, and if the token's price falls below the issue price after listing, this fee will be considered "margin." Additionally, the internal circle of Binance Labs, including employees, affiliates, and family friends, seems to profit quickly from some low-quality projects. These projects can easily pass the review even when the listing threshold on Binance is high.

As a result, there has been a lot of angry voices in the Chinese community. They are very upset because many projects that were listed on Binance over the past year have dropped nearly 80% to 90%. These projects not only performed poorly but have even become worthless. Worse still, the teams behind these projects have gone silent and have never fulfilled any promises. Many of these projects are random gamified projects that may have been popular in the Asian community but are now in very bad shape.

At the core of the story is the visible anger. What I understand is that there may indeed be some questionable behavior from Binance Labs. These accusations may be true or false; I am not sure. But in the cryptocurrency space, the overall sentiment of resentment is spreading. From criticism of Pump.fun to dissatisfaction with Sam Lessin, this sentiment is now also directed at Binance.

Haseeb: Robert, what do you think?

Robert: I think offshore entities always have more freedom when interacting with the ecosystem, which does not surprise me. The real question is whether this way of operating will still work in the future. I have my doubts.

Haseeb:

My point is that the executive team at Binance typically does not respond directly to these rumors unless it’s a significant event like FTX. Their attitude is usually "keep building, ignore the noise." However, this time CZ and his team responded to these accusations on Twitter Spaces.

While I cannot judge the truth of these accusations, it does reflect a change in the overall atmosphere of the cryptocurrency industry. Right now, people's emotions are like turning on the lights after a party, suddenly realizing how much they have spent, and starting to complain, "What the hell is this? Where did my money go? This is terrible." However, once the market price rebounds, these complaints may decrease. As long as the market is good, people do not feel as strongly about being exploited. But now the market is bad, so everyone has grievances.

There will always be some unfair things happening, but the pressure seems greater now. I think this is a good thing; this pressure can prompt people to clean up their behavior. For Binance, as one of the largest cryptocurrency companies in the world, they clearly do not want these things to happen.

New Developments in Cryptocurrency Regulation

Haseeb: Finally, let’s talk about the latest developments in cryptocurrency regulation. Hester Peirce published a blog post titled "The Journey Begins," detailing the SEC's new cryptocurrency policy platform. This article is filled with positive signals, essentially expressing the attitude: "We are ready, although the details are not perfect, we will be more supportive of the cryptocurrency industry."

Some important changes we have learned about include: First, the SEC now requires committee approval to initiate any new investigations; second, the SEC's enforcement attorney team has been reassigned.

In the article, Hester Peirce mentioned some key points, such as: "We will not tolerate fraud and deception, but if someone wants to buy tokens that lack clear long-term value, they should have the freedom to do so. Of course, if the price crashes, they should not be surprised. In the U.S., people have the right to be responsible for their choices rather than relying on the government to tell them what to do or not do, let alone expect the government to bail them out when things go wrong."

She also mentioned that the No-Action Letter policy will return. In simple terms, a No-Action Letter is a formal statement from the SEC indicating that if a project follows certain requirements, the SEC will not take enforcement action against it.

However, under previous SEC management, No-Action Letters were almost never genuinely issued. It was more like a trap—they would say, "If you want a No-Action Letter, contact us." Then you submit all the information, and they end up using that information to investigate you.

But now, Hester hints that No-Action Letters will actually work. While there is no guarantee that every application will be approved, she encourages everyone to try.

Another important change is that the SEC may provide retroactive relief for projects that issue tokens in good faith. She mentioned: "If certain projects are willing to provide transparent information, such as disclosing token ownership, open-source code, etc., and agree to accept SEC regulation, then we may agree that these tokens are not securities and allow them to continue trading."

Overall, these policies provide more flexibility and clarity for the cryptocurrency industry. This is exactly what everyone has been looking forward to.

Additionally, the article also mentioned some policies regarding lending and staking, and even proposed establishing a Cross-Border Sandbox to address the reality that many cryptocurrency activities occur across multiple jurisdictions. For me, this article feels like a long-awaited roadmap for the industry. Robert, what do you think?

Robert:

I agree with that. This is an excellent roadmap that outlines the SEC's regulatory direction for the next four years. I think it addresses many issues that have been discussed for a long time but have not been implemented. However, during Hester Peirce's tenure, due to the committee being led by Gensler, she did not have much actual power. Concepts like "safe harbor" have long been proposed, aiming to provide a clear regulatory framework for tokens that meet good behavior standards, while society has been gradually exploring whether relevant legislation or policies are needed.

In the past, it felt like there was always a threat looming behind. I think this statement is calling for everyone to interact directly with SEC staff to clarify the rules together. What I find most encouraging is that this mindset has undergone a 180-degree shift. Previously, dealing with the SEC meant huge risks, even threatening the survival of projects. Now, this interaction may actually reduce risks and even make teams feel that it is something to look forward to. This is truly a significant change.

I think the most notable change is that the SEC's attitude has shifted from "We have a gun to force you to register" to "We have a pen and want to work with you to solve problems." This shift is very healthy, and I appreciate it.

Haseeb:

This statement makes me feel that perhaps in six months or a year, we will no longer frequently talk about the SEC and will not overly focus on them. In the past, our industry was almost overshadowed by the SEC, and I believe this situation will change. Previously, going to the SEC felt like "don't talk to them," as people often said, "It's better to avoid trouble." You worried that once you opened your mouth, you would get into trouble. So everyone chose to avoid the SEC and dared not ask for their opinions or advice.

But now the situation may be different. You can directly consult the SEC: "I want to do this project; is that okay?" They might tell you the answer, like getting free legal advice from lawmakers. This is indeed a positive change. Of course, the SEC will still file cases, enforce the law, and there will still be fraud and some counterexamples.

These are all part of the normal operation of the market, and I believe the SEC is no longer a "terrifying presence" overshadowing the entire industry but rather a more normal regulatory agency. Ultimately, we may only need to pay some legal fees, fill out documents, disclose information, and as long as we do not violate the rules, we do not need to worry excessively about the SEC.

Tom:

I think Hester set this tone very well in her first sentence. We are not the first line of defense, but we should shift towards more disclosure systems, and people should be free to trade the assets they want to trade. This reminds me of the concept of "stupid investment certificates" proposed by Matt Levine. Matt Levine is a columnist for Bloomberg, and his point is that the SEC could provide something called a "stupid investment certificate." After signing it, the SEC would clearly tell you: "You might lose all your money; are you sure you want to do this?" If you answer "yes," they would symbolically "remind" you and then issue you the certificate, allowing you to make any high-risk investments. If you complain afterward, the SEC would "coldly reject you." The core of this concept is to empower investors with freedom and rights rather than overprotecting them.

Haseeb:

Speaking of freedom, I actually appreciate memes a lot. Many people have issues with Binance because they charge listing fees as gatekeepers. But I think if you are going to be a gatekeeper, you should do it well. If you do it poorly and still charge fees, then you deserve to be criticized. And the charm of memes lies in the fact that there are no gatekeepers at all. Everyone knows the rules: no one will protect you, and if you get scammed, no one can complain. This is the zero-gatekeeping philosophy.

I hope the current low sentiment in the market is only temporary, but I am actually very optimistic about the overall trend this year. From a fundamental perspective, many things are moving in a positive direction. Whether it’s Trump or external issues like tariffs, there will be fluctuations and chaos, but ultimately, they will be resolved. For the industry, the things we truly want are basically already in place.

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。