0xmons
@xmon.eth
nah fam idt this is it see broader discussion (me and basils posts) who is actually winning here it's literally the same shitcoin meta except now we made the numbers 10x smaller? i feel like there's a bunch of underlying assumptions if u read into the followup reply, most of which seem to imply that this is how we onboard the next XXX million developing world people because $3 means a lot more for them and this latent ongoing speculation game is supposed to better reward people who can catch such vibes early But none of that is being up for discussion (eg is that target demographic really going to be somehow better than the current market participant? does that matter? Are there other onboarding methods that don't involve cluttering the global token name/attention space? etc etc) None of that is being made explicit here, just claiming that embracing multiple coins and lower market caps is "based" or "is the way forward" No bueno
4 replies
0 recast
12 reactions
๐ถ๐๐๐๐ฉ๐
@toyboy.eth
Yeah, totally hear you. It does feel like thereโs a lot being left unsaid or waved away with vague moral framing like, โsmaller cap = more accessible = better for the worldโโwithout really digging into the implications or tradeoffs.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction