The MeMe market is facing a dilemma of fair launch Starting from the three-day login of BOME to Binance in March 2024, a wave of coin issuance centered on the concept of "fair launch" has swept through the entire cryptocurrency market. At the same time, cryptocurrency users have responded to the call of KOLs for a "VC revolution" (overnight wealth). Users and funds flood onto the chain. According to LD Capital's report, Solana's new address count reached 27.84 million in March 2024. Since then, the number of new addresses has continued to grow, reaching 54.33 million in July, an increase of 151% from 21.6 million at the beginning of the year. In October, the monthly active addresses exceeded 100 million, setting a new historical high. Under this trend, many project parties have decided to follow the trend and adopt the Fair Launch method to release coins one after another. But according to the unwritten rules of meme coin ecosystem players, the project party needs to "RUN" (clear position) or hold less than 10% of the coins after issuing them. Currently, 90% of project developers in the market have also followed this unwritten rule in order to attract players to purchase. But real projects require a lot of resources to build. Originally, when a team raised Series A funding from venture capital (VC), they would sell 10-20% of their shares and retain 80-90% of their shares. If the project is ultimately successful, the team usually holds a considerable stake that can be used for operational expenses. However, in the current 'fair launch' mode, teams typically only retain 5-10% of tokens after issuing them, while the remaining 90% are distributed out. This has led to the dilemma I am talking about today: 1. The team cannot control the supply of tokens, anyone can purchase tokens and manipulate the market. The token prices of many good AI projects are controlled by certain interest groups, which raise prices in the short term and then crazily cash out, resulting in prices returning to zero. That's why there has been a wave of non RUG projects on the market recently. The project team often chooses to coexist with the project out of ethics and a sense of responsibility, ultimately resulting in minimal returns. 2. Low chip allocation is difficult to meet the expectations of team members, and 5% -10% chips are difficult to provide satisfactory benefit distribution to team members, which will greatly reduce the motivation for team members to continue building. 3. Extremely low liquidity benefits early traders but harms others The liquidity issue of fair token launch is very serious. Once liquidity increases, large players and whales may sell their tokens, leading to a sharp drop in prices. This kind of drastic price fluctuation is beneficial for short-term traders, but it is a nightmare for teams and long-term holders who focus on long-term development. 4. Fair launch rewards only builders with sufficient funds A team that already has capital can operate quickly and take the lead. Many teams have to request donations from the community to continue development after the project is launched. AI6Z has been able to survive to this day thanks to a generous donation of 11% by a whale. 5. May incur expensive legal compliance costs For real projects, fair launch may bring complex legal compliance issues, and project parties need to invest a lot of time and money to solve them afterwards, such as setting up offshore token foundations, domestic development companies, hiring multiple lawyers, etc. Doing this after the project is released is both expensive and carries legal risks. 6. Fair launch is not conducive to long-term technological innovation No one expects a token to launch revolutionary L1 level technology within 2-3 years. The current market model is more suitable for short-term speculation, where projects gain attention in the early stages but later become a heavy burden on the team. 7. Traders have limited understanding of product development and unrealistic expectations. It is difficult to accurately estimate the development time and potential technical risks for innovative technologies. V God originally expected Ethereum's PoS mechanism to be completed in 2017 and allocated tokens accordingly. If ETH hadn't risen to $3000, they might have already been in trouble. 8. Sustainability issues of open source public goods Open source projects are often seen as "free resources", and people are eager to profit from them, but neglect to establish sustainable partnerships with developers. If the project team can focus on the development of open source public goods without creating value for designing token economy models or launch platforms, then everyone will benefit more. But the reality is that most people only use the project for free to make money for themselves, without establishing a win-win partnership, which forces the project team to "think" about more revenue generating methods. I hope the market can quickly find a balance between maintaining a fair launch spirit and supporting team building with real technology. Otherwise, under such multiple challenges, the popular meme market presents another feast: The project team is passionate about technological innovation, but they have issued coins but do not have the money to do the project well. A large amount of fresh blood brought by the Trump effect was harvested by the RUG team. A very small number of short-term speculators suddenly become rich, while the vast majority return to zero. The most lively bull market with zero technological innovation, Everything Binance does is wrong, Buying anything will result in losses, Entering a bear market cycle of several years.