matthewb.eth
@matthewb
thanks for the thoughtful reply, @benna! I agree that pandering to either "side" is not a good outcome, our goal should be for crypto to be as neutral as possible and to benefit as many people as possible. that goal is in conflict with aligning ourselves with a particular political party. imo it's worth pointing out that this pendulum swing is also the result of the dems having politicized crypto in the first place during the biden/harris admin. it didn't need to be this way. although I find the trump coins a bad look that may cause reputational damage long-term, I think Eric's take sums it up nicely (see below). there will always be nonsense, but we can choose to work on what we believe can outcompete the nonsense. the early dotcom bubble was speculative, but that didn't negate the potential of the internet. https://x.com/ErikVoorhees/status/1880768009108635657
4 replies
0 recast
13 reactions
matthewb.eth
@matthewb
I also believe that speculation is a valid use case—basically attention markets—and that the hypertokenization trend isn't going away. the main thing that needs to change is better rules surrounding disclosure.
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
matthewb.eth
@matthewb
Erik not Eric* lmao not talking about the trump son
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
czar
@czar
in addition I will also say that - in the moment things look much bigger and more important than they really are. it may look like the whole industry is pandering to him and he will have an outsized influence on crypto broadly. give it some time. it won’t look as bad. crypto in general is much bigger than that. he is just one character.
2 replies
0 recast
3 reactions
YES2Crypto 🎩 🟪🟡
@yes2crypto.eth
Permissionless doesn’t break just because it’s the president
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
