Content pfp
Content
@
0 reply
18 recasts
21 reactions
Jacek.degen.eth 🎩 pfp
Jacek.degen.eth 🎩
@jacek
@kenny is right — as $DEGEN grows, it’s like Bitcoin. Early days were easy, now the difficulty has to rise. Most won’t mine BTC today cause it’s too costly. Same with $DEGEN: we need high-effort, high-return ways to earn it. No free lunch. The difficulty ratchets up 🎩
8 replies
5 recasts
37 reactions
nøx pfp
nøx
@fpsnow
2/3 Yes, some are trying to secure their bags, avoid dilution, and preserve early gains. That’s understandable. But fast-forwarding maturity is counterproductive. Emergence takes time. What matters now is the volume of experiments, creative flow, and utility. Not simulating the maturity of a Layer 1 too early. Comparing BTC to Degen is like comparing a seed to a tree. Same potential? Maybe. Same stage? Absolutely not.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Jacek.degen.eth 🎩 pfp
Jacek.degen.eth 🎩
@jacek
Totally agree we’re not at the same stage—BTC is a full-grown tree, $DEGEN is still sprouting. But BTC had the same core mechanics from the start: getting it got harder over time. $DEGEN’s in that early, easier phase now, but that window won’t stay open forever. The difficulty will ramp up as the ecosystem grows.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
nøx pfp
nøx
@fpsnow
Logically,👌 💯 Now… 👉 If we raise the difficulty without structuring utility, onchain use cases, and community integration, we risk creating scarcity that’s disconnected from meaning. The smart move isn’t just making access to $DEGEN harder. It’s making sure those who access it generate more value than the token itself. 😎 Economy. Utility. Integration. Without that, difficulty is just a filter — not a driver. 😉
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Jacek.degen.eth 🎩 pfp
Jacek.degen.eth 🎩
@jacek
Totally agree — I’d really love for that utility to come from the app we’re building. Feels like a much stronger starting point than jumping straight to the Degen L3. We can always expand there later. Look at Pump.fun — they didn’t launch a chain, but they’ve reached a scale where they could if they wanted to, and it’d probably be huge. App first, then everything else.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
nøx pfp
nøx
@fpsnow
I understand your approach better now, it makes sense, even if it frustrated me at times: being active onchain via an app on Base & // dev, then considering a move to an L3 depending on traction. On my side, I used to believe that starting directly on a dedicated L3 (ANN), with an integrated logic from day one, was more legitimate and coherent long-term. But over time, I’ve come to recognize that models have evolved. There are now multiple valid paths to reach the same goal. The “app-first on Base” approach clearly allows you to save time, reduce cost, and leverage a marketing monster like Base to gain attention and users fast. Why not capitalize on what’s already working shine where the attention is and later reinforce it with your 🎩 L3 when the time is right! In the end, what matters is hitting the target. The destination matters more than the starting point!! 👍 👍
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction