Author: Ice Frog

Recently, the public opinion regarding dismantling studios seems to have started to ferment again. Some attribute the inability of altcoins to rise to the studios, believing that in order for the industry to reverse this situation, the first step should be to eliminate the studios.

It must be acknowledged that the industry indeed has many problems and chaos, but I believe that not all of these issues are caused by the studios, which is worth discussing.

1. Will banning studios make the industry better?

To answer this question, one must first address a fundamental logic: studios are a product of the industry's development, not the other way around. Understanding the importance of this logic is crucial: it is essential to recognize that in any profit-driven market, many things that seem to be prohibited are the result of a multi-party interest game. Studios are no exception.

Thus, our analysis around this interest game becomes quite simple.

Who are the biggest vested interests? Who are the ultimate rule-makers? If your knife does not cut towards the biggest vested interests or the rule-makers, reform is destined to be ineffective.

Studios are not the biggest vested interests in this industry, nor are they the rule-makers. If studios had that kind of power, they wouldn't be pushed around and forced to defend their rights.

Who are the funders? Who sets the rules of the game? Who decides which tokens are listed on exchanges? Who sets the airdrop rules? Who drives the traffic? Before these fundamental questions are answered, simply attributing the mistakes to studios is hard to convince.

However, from the perspective of interests and power, when the chain of interests breaks and the capital feast ends, studios can easily become scapegoats. After all, in this industry chain, studios are a relatively special existence; they are a part of the traffic but do not have much say, often being pushed back, while retail investors find it hard to empathize, and project parties and capital have a love-hate relationship with them. Therefore, from this angle, attacking studios can easily become a politically correct choice.

Regardless of whether it is possible to ban studios, even if you do ban them, what we want to discuss is: does that solve the problem? Will the industry's false prosperity completely dissipate? Will the industry become better?

The simple truth is: false prosperity is a result of the industry's distorted development, not the cause. The biggest problem is that many people are accustomed to treating phenomena as original sins while ignoring the underlying structural and institutional issues.

The chaos in the industry fundamentally lies in: fairness, still f***ing fairness. In an industry without a fairness constraint mechanism, you can ban studios, but you cannot ban human greed and the pursuit of profit.

Furthermore, if project parties/capital/exchanges are determined not to cooperate with studios anymore, technically, you can still exclude studios. If they are eliminated this way, it is also understandable.

The problem is, in a free market, in a market without fairness regulation, you need what studios provide. You set the rules, and studios cooperate with you to play. How can studios be deemed utterly evil? You want to attack studios, that's fine, but how can you change the rules yourself, anger the market, cut the profits, and then push studios out, claiming that all of this is their fault?

I wonder if friends are familiar with this kind of script. In classic movies like "The Wolf of Wall Street," "The Big Short," and "The Godfather," within the pyramid of unequal power: the most conspicuous problems are the easiest to target, while only those vested interests and the core of power walk away unscathed.

When the "scapegoat" is eliminated, everything remains the same, and a new "scapegoat" will quickly be pushed out, while the top powers, who are profiting immensely, toast in places you cannot see.

2. Is it really the studios' fault that retail investors are left holding the bag? Who is the real liquidity black hole in the industry?

When project parties and exchanges are feasting on a lavish banquet, why attribute the end of the feast to the studios and retail investors who are left with the scraps?

To be honest, this title makes me, as someone who works in a studio, feel ashamed, mainly because I neither have the ability to help retail investors break even nor have I escaped being trapped and pushed back myself; I can only curse a few times and then endure it.

From the perspective of interests, no studio is inherently willing to crash the market. After all, being pushed back, time costs, and losses all carry risks. If project parties could genuinely focus on continuously building their projects without blindly inflating valuations, they would make long-term plans. Who would want to sell as soon as the market opens?

Truly high-quality undervalued projects will naturally receive positive feedback from the market. Even if your project appears to be of high quality, if the valuation does not match its merits, no one would be willing to take over.

In an investment market, studios seeking short-term profits, or any participants other than project parties pursuing short-term gains, is not a problem. Using the so-called long-term value to coerce others is indeed a form of "value purism."

As any market participant, no one has the moral standing to demand others to protect the market, except for the project parties themselves. Especially when project parties and capital are also offloading through various means, they have no right to demand others to do better. The most frustrating thing is that there are too many who, under the guise of "value," are cutting profits.

If selling chips by studios is seen as the liquidity black hole of the industry, it obscures the real problem.

Some say that studio FUD has affected project development. I want to say that a project with a solid fundamental is not afraid of market FUD. Its user base has never come from studios. The FUD threat from studios overestimates their power, or perhaps this is just a cover for garbage projects. The market is the true test of quality; what can truly shake a quality project is not the keyboard of a script kiddie, but the Trojan horse within the project party's own armor.

We must acknowledge the existence of chaos, but we firmly oppose and remain vigilant against using partial truths to weave an overall lie. Just as police can collude with gangs, if we attribute the complex systemic chaos solely to studios and the binary opposition of the market, the so-called studio threat theory may very well be a cover for the real market manipulators. After all, everything can be blamed on studios.

3. Are studios completely useless and contribute nothing to the industry? Whose fault is the industry chaos?

The speculative nature of this industry at this stage is a basic fact, but when discussing the industry's development, we should at least avoid making moral judgments.

In fact, if it weren't for a large number of airdrop studios investing money, traffic, and attracting users to join the community during the project's cold start, experiencing the project and continuously sharing their profit-making experiences, ordinary retail investors might not even recover their gas fees without the mass brushing by studios.

No studio rejects long-termism, but in an industry lacking constraints, the pursuit of profit by human nature is understandable and beyond reproach. You cannot attribute the destruction of rules to studios; they do not have that capability. More importantly, when the most powerful rule-makers in the industry casually break the rules, why demand studios to have higher moral self-discipline?

You can't allow insider trading while not permitting profit-taking. Furthermore, objectively speaking, in terms of rule-breaking, which is more damaging to fairness: insider trading by project parties or studios? Who is truly eroding market credibility?

This is akin to asking Las Vegas gamblers not to count cards while allowing the real house to modify the odds of the roulette.

What should true fairness be? Should it be fairness in rules or fairness in power balance? Fairness in the world does not exist in terms of equal backgrounds, education, or experiences; it exists in the same environment and rules, where everyone uses their means to obtain maximum benefits, which cannot be reproached by anyone. In a profit-driven market, people never resent your power being stronger than mine; they resent that we are playing the same game, but you are executing different rules.

The biggest original sin of this market is the unfairness and lack of transparency of the rule-makers. If project parties are willing to build long-term and capital does not exacerbate inflated valuations, and exchanges can genuinely practice valueism, studios would not be a detriment but a benefit. At least, before the industry reaches a larger stage, they provide the initial trickle of traffic, and you must acknowledge that some studios have indeed optimized projects and continuously provided better experiences and feedback.

For studios, we do not easily label what constitutes a scam project. In a market where the wealth effect outweighs everything, a project that allows everyone to make money is a good project.

If the market truly develops to the point where studios' business models are naturally cleared out, there is no need to oppose it. After all, it means that as profit-takers, we no longer have to grit our teeth and provide the only liquidity to projects during bear markets. It means the market has matured, and we no longer need to blame each other for leading the market into decline.

Finally, from the perspective of reform, if all of this does not point to the industry's biggest vested interests, perhaps studios can be banned, but human greed cannot be prohibited, or it may just be another cover for harvesting.

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。