sleepy0x13

Every carefully crafted product that ceases service is a pity. Especially in our industry, where we never prioritize product experience.

Since Day 1, I have been using Infini's products, learning and understanding the entire process of the U Card business along the way. Today, seeing Infini stop this business, I actually feel quite happy for them. It’s rare to see a team with such courage to pivot.

Boldly predicting, the U Card will eventually be replaced by formal banks, and true crypto payments will be funds sent directly from one’s own wallet in a self-custody model. Whoever can connect the offline payment channels will be the one to take a slice of this cake.

Not your keys, not your coins
嘎嘎帅
感谢老板 @Chloeppan @Foresight_News

Isn't it really sunny, and I heard it was taken in March or April?

It feels like the previous UNI airdrop, bringing back the taste of receiving airdrops initially.

The DeFi summer is about to return.

Since yesterday, when @Mira_Network announced it would allocate 0.5% of its tokens to Yappers, Twitter has been flooded with various project introductions. After reading a few articles, I still didn't understand what this project was about.

So I went to their official website and read their white paper from start to finish, and I want to share my understanding of this project with everyone.

Mira Network: Building a Trustworthy Verification Engine for AI

Have you ever thought that sometimes, when your AI is answering your questions, it actually has no idea whether what it's saying is true? It's just piecing together a sentence that seems plausible under the influence of certain weights.

In other words, it's seriously babbling.

This is not a problem of a specific model, but rather a fundamental ailment of the entire AI technology stack: hallucinations are unavoidable.

This means that before we dream of a future where AI makes autonomous decisions, writes code automatically, and treats diseases,

there's a Damocles' sword hanging over our heads:
Who will verify whether what AI says is true?

This is what Mira aims to do.

+ Break down all AI-generated content,
+ then have a decentralized verification network validate whether the results reach a consensus,
+ and issue a "truth determination certificate" with encrypted endorsement for each judgment output.

The whole process is like breaking an article down into sentences and having different people cross-check whether each sentence is correct.

What it relies on is not a specific authoritative model, but rather multi-perspective judgments from different AIs, honest participation driven by a reward mechanism, and the consensus results that ultimately form.

You can think of Mira as the "notary office" of the AI world, an intelligent verification machine that is always online, globally distributed, and combinable on demand.

Technical Logic: It’s not about who has a bigger model, but about letting multiple models correct each other.

We have all seen AI seriously babbling; it doesn't want to deceive, but the information in its head is already a mess.

Some of that information and data is outdated, some are contradictory, and some simply lack logic.

But Mira's solution is not to create a bigger model but to think from a different dimension:

Since no single model can achieve zero errors, let multiple models compete against each other to reach a consensus.

Incentive Mechanism: Verification is not voluntary work; honesty must be rewarding.

You might ask, if verification relies on models, why would nodes honestly participate and not engage in wrongdoing?

Mira has set up a relatively comprehensive mechanism to address this issue:

+ Verification tasks will be standardized into choices; if nodes guess randomly, they may not guess correctly;
+ Nodes must stake assets to participate in verification;
+ If answers frequently deviate from consensus, the system will trigger slashing, reducing the stake;
+ Guessing randomly is less profitable than doing honest work, which is the fundamental logic that allows the verification mechanism to endure.

As the network grows larger and model diversity increases, the window for cheating gets smaller.

Privacy Solution: Decompose + Shard, nodes cannot see the whole picture.

Mira is also very restrained in terms of privacy; it does not require nodes to see the user's original content. The system will first extract each "key statement" from the original content,

such as "Sleepy is a handsome guy" that clearly states right or wrong,

and then submit them for verification one by one, distributing them randomly. Any individual node cannot access the entire context, ensuring the minimum visibility of user data.

The subsequent roadmap will also introduce encrypted computation, such as MPC or ZK, gradually decentralizing content transformation logic, making the entire system increasingly transparent while exposing less data.

Ultimate Vision: Bringing verification into the core of AI.

Currently, all large models follow a "generate first, human review later" process. Mira aims to overturn this process, allowing future AIs to complete verification at the moment of generation.

When this model is established, AI output will no longer require human fallback, and artificial intelligence will finally evolve from a "generating tool" to a "trustworthy collaborator."

At that point, we can truly discuss AI autonomy and revolutionary change.

Not long ago, my kitten got sick. After taking it to the vet, I applied for pet insurance reimbursement. In addition to submitting various documents provided by the hospital, I also needed to take a photo of the kitten's nose to verify its 'nose print', which is quite interesting.

I asked and found out that the nose print is actually equivalent to the kitten's ID card, similar to human fingerprints, irises, palm prints, etc. To prevent the misuse of insurance limits, this verification mechanism was introduced.

Recently, I often come across the project @Humanityprot shared by others on Twitter, which authenticates whether you are a real person by verifying palm prints. Many people have published educational content and participation tutorials about this project, so I won't elaborate further; I just want to share my perspective.

In the era of AI, why do we need 'real-name systems'?

1｜From an anonymous utopia to an identity anxiety era

At the dawn of the Web, we embraced anonymity as freedom and a borderless world as an ideal. Forums, communities, cryptocurrencies, and even DAOs were all built on the foundation of 'decentralized identity'.

However, as we enter the AI era, this structure is rapidly becoming ineffective. We are facing a collective anxiety:

We can no longer distinguish whether the speaker is a human or a bot.

After 2023, social platforms like X, Reddit, and Discord frequently encounter bot abuse, with data farms operating on a massive scale; the Web3 world is also witnessing 'witch attacks', where one person splits into thousands of addresses to exploit airdrops and manipulate votes.

If you are a Builder, there are currently two fundamental problems that cannot be avoided:
+ You cannot know if the person you are talking to is a real person;
+ You cannot ensure that one person only participates once, rather than a thousand times.

This is not a Web3 issue; it is an identity crisis in the AI era.

Real-name systems, to some extent, are becoming necessary again.

2｜But traditional real-name systems are a misaligned solution

National ID cards, passports, mobile phone numbers, bank card bindings...

These are the real-name system infrastructure of the Web2 world.

But its biggest problem is that the binding of identity and rights is centralized, relying on governments, platforms, and banks. It addresses compliance issues, not authenticity issues.

More critically, it brings structural risks to privacy:
+ Centralized KYC data breaches are currently the largest source of data black markets on the internet;
+ Platforms abuse real-name systems for advertising profiling, credit control, and social sorting.

In the narrative space of AI + Web3, we need a new real-name system:
+ It only verifies that you are human without revealing who you actually are;
+ It does not expose information and does not store data;
+ It is not initiated by any country or platform but operates on a decentralized structure.

3｜ZK + Biometrics: not a simple KYC, but a 'decentralized real-name system'

Humanity Protocol and Worldcoin seem to be doing the same thing: using your 'body' to prove you are human.

It sounds scary, even evoking thoughts of totalitarianism, but the underlying mechanism is a complete reversal:

You are not handing over your privacy to the platform; instead, you are generating an irrefutable, untraceable, and tamper-proof 'evidence of existence'.

This relies on two key structures:
+ Biometrics: iris, fingerprints, facial features, are existential symbols that you cannot 'transfer';
+ Zero-knowledge proofs: only verify 'whether it is true', without disclosing 'specific content'.

This combination gives 'human identity' three important properties for the first time:
+ Scarcity (you can only have one self)
+ Verifiability (you can prove to any system that you are a real person)
+ Privacy (nobody knows who you are)

4｜Why is 'human proof' essentially a power structure?

Many people mistakenly think that Humanity Protocol is a 'anti-bot' tool.

In fact, it is a more fundamental structural declaration:
'Who is considered human' determines 'who has the right to participate'.

As AI sweeps through social platforms, content platforms, DAO governance, and even asset distribution, 'proving you are human' gradually becomes the threshold for entering the world.

This is not a security issue; it is a power issue.

It determines your eligibility to receive airdrops, participate in governance, sign contracts, gain reputation, and influence narratives.

It will shape a new social hierarchy on the chain:
+ Those without a human ID are the silent observers;
+ Only those with a unique ID can become 'digital citizens'.

In other words, we are moving towards an era of 'human assetization'; the fact that you are human itself becomes a resource that can be priced, proven, and empowered.

HYPE is already 40 dollars, are you still in cash?

Just discovered that today we finally broke 1000 Yaps

Recently, I've resumed serious content output, gradually increasing the account's weight, and I can't be slack anymore

So, is there any news about Kaito's next airdrop? 🥹

Let's talk about prediction markets and information finance, sparked by the collaboration between Polymarket and Twitter.

When information is assetized, when cognition can be bet on, and when opinions have a price, we are entering a market structure where gaming precedes truth, and cognition surpasses reality.

Prediction markets are no longer just speculative tools but have become the infrastructure for the financialization of information.

The following four keywords might help us reunderstand this change.

1｜Information Assetization

The essence of prediction markets is to price information.

In the traditional world, information is just 'content': you see it, you share it, you debate it, but you don't pay for it.

The emergence of prediction markets has made information for the first time a 'bettable event'; even if it hasn't happened yet or its truth is difficult to discern, as long as there is uncertainty, it can be packaged into bettable financial products.

Whether it's 'Will Trump win the election?', or 'Will a certain country go to war?', or even 'Will a certain celebrity get engaged?', all can have odds opened, liquidity gathered, and be priced by the market.

The boundaries of information are no longer determined by reality but by market interest.

2｜Financialization of Public Narratives

Arguing, voting, and sharing on X have always influenced narratives; and prediction markets simply turn that influence into price curves.

Every tweet, every social media spat, every viral video essentially influences the public's judgment of 'the likelihood of future events'.

Prediction markets transform this fluid cognitive competition into stable betting behavior:
Group sentiment = Direction of chips
Change in popularity = Fluctuation of probability prices
Manipulation of public opinion = A form of 'cognitive insider trading'

Information is no longer just information; it is a bettable asset.
Narratives are no longer just culture; they are a priceable liquidity pool.

3｜Reconstruction of Economic Incentives for User Behavior

Expression equals betting, information equals speculation.

On traditional platforms, expressing an opinion is free; the cost is just keyboard strikes and emotional output. But prediction markets change everything:
You have to bet on your opinion
You have to bear the risks of cognition
The way you express your stance is no longer commenting, but building a position

This mechanism brings about a new incentive for expression; you can make money by judging the direction of information, and you can also lose money for making incorrect judgments.

Users are no longer bystanders but active participants in the market, even price setters in the betting market.
A cognitive arbitrage era is quietly arriving.
4｜Tradability Over Truthfulness

Truth and falsehood are no longer important; whether someone believes it or whether it can cause a chain reaction is what matters.

This may be the most dangerous point.

In prediction markets, what is valuable is 'whether the event can attract a large number of bets', not 'whether the event actually happened'.

As long as someone places a bet, information can open; as long as emotions can be manipulated, rumors can become sources of volatility.

This is a highly financialized alchemy of attention:

Truth recedes, gaming rises
Objective facts yield to cognitive trends
What influences reality is not the event itself, but the market's pricing reaction to it

If you know what we are talking about, I recommend you research @buzzingdotclub
A next-generation prediction market combined with AI, and a winning project from the Virtuals Hackathon.
Stakeholders, clear signals, DYOR, I love Brother Luke @DeFiGuyLuke

LOUD, which once occupied over 70% of Kaito Mindshare, now has a market value of less than 3M, and there is hardly any related content on social media anymore.

Well, didn't the project team already say, 'This is a market experiment'? It's totally normal for an experiment to fail (Ma Di face).

To be honest, this whole project gives me the impression of being hasty, as if it was something thought up on a whim.

At the beginning, what attracted users to post content was the 'guaranteed profit expectation' based on token subscriptions, a pure arbitrage temptation. Many people posted content because they thought they could make money from it, and that’s it.

The premise for the project's economic model to function is to have KOLs continuously produce content and attract retail investors, but aside from the initial guaranteed profit opportunity, there’s nothing else for KOLs to post about. For the project team, this is a huge taboo in marketing; if you want others to promote you, at least you need to give them something to promote.

This is actually the fatal flaw of projects that we currently see using InfoFi for cold starts: when you make content production entirely reliant on incentives without building a sustainable content supply system, so-called popularity is merely 'consuming the future'. It looks prosperous on the surface but is actually just spinning its wheels; once expectations fade, all users will quickly withdraw because they never came here to stay from the beginning.

Nevertheless, I still believe that InfoFi is effective. It has been proven that even if a project is terrible, as long as the incentives are in place, the market crowd can still hype it up; if it were a legitimate project, it would definitely yield better results.

Its core value is the structural optimization of marketing: traditional marketing methods also require spending money, whether it's building your own marketing team, outsourcing marketing, or conducting marketing activities, money is spent regardless, so why not find a more cost-effective way?

The problem is not with InfoFi, but rather that the project itself was not prepared to handle the traffic brought by InfoFi. Users can be driven by incentives to produce content, but what happens after that? How is the story told? How does the experience keep up? How is volume converted into trust? These are the fundamental issues.

InfoFi can amplify the project's strengths but can also quickly expose its hollowness. If your product is terrible, no amount of incentives will help. Marketing is never a panacea; the true core competitiveness always lies in the quality and structure of the project itself.

A few days ago, I met friends from the Ton Foundation offline in Beijing, and during our chat, I updated my understanding of TON.

The biggest feeling is: the information gap is much more serious than imagined.

After the hype from the previous wave of mini-games faded, they are actually advancing very quickly globally, especially in the areas of DeFi and Sticker NFTs. However, there is almost no mention of this in the Chinese community.

Sticker NFTs have become one of the most active asset forms on TON, with exaggerated trading volume and user activity, yet no one here is talking about it. Meanwhile, there are still many Web2 game companies or studios in China researching how to launch mini-games on TG, connecting with TON through some Web2 gaming exhibitions. They may not understand the rise and fall of the previous wave of TG mini-games and are just trying a new growth path in the increasingly competitive Web2 environment.

There are indeed problems; TON is working quite hard, but TG finds it difficult to make significant updates or upgrades from a product perspective because the founder has a strong obsession with the product form, and this 'minimalist aesthetic fundamentalism' has become its ceiling.

Additionally, the development team is also quite small, disproportionately so, just as I had heard before. In such a structure, it resembles an ecosystem that grows on the margins with Telegram as its interface, and many narratives were not prepared for us from the very beginning.

In other words, the story of TON itself is not meant for us. This might still be an opportunity.

Today I want to discuss the recent matter of SUI recovering stolen funds.

Many people view it as a 'decentralized collapse'; at first, I thought so too, but after careful consideration, I believe it is not the case.

I think this is actually a complete demonstration of decentralized governance logic. It exposes the actual operating logic of the consensus mechanism and reminds us that decentralization is never the dictatorship of code, but rather the autonomy of consensus.

In the past, influenced by the founders of the early Crypto industry, we have been accustomed to 'Code is law', always treating 'technological neutrality' as a sense of security. But a decentralized network is essentially a process in which a group of nodes jointly maintains a ledger; its order does not come from the absolute authority of code but from the consensus of participants.

When a significant anomaly occurs at a certain moment: code errors, asset risks, systemic crises... those logics that were once regarded as 'immutable' will be discussed again, and the result of this discussion is called consensus.

Blockchain is not a dystopian paradise, but a continuation of the power structures of the real world. In this world, every node, every vote, every proposal can leave a record on the chain, no longer a black box.

Governance is politics; it is a game of humans. You cannot want compensation, emergency responses, and repair capabilities on one hand while expecting 'Code is law' on the other.

As mentioned earlier, I initially thought this was a decentralized collapse, but now I prefer to see it as a mirror.

It reflects the complex nature of decentralization and forces us to confront: the power of governance, the power of technology, and who we are willing to entrust our trust to. I will likely devote more energy to focus on and participate in the SUI ecosystem because this incident shows that SUI actually aligns more with my expectations and vision.

Actually, I don't really recommend you all to rush in after seeing a tweet about Opensea.

Given its nature, there is a high possibility that they won't release any airdrops by 2026. If you all rush in, they can just enjoy the profits, and they have even less motivation to issue tokens.

Although I also hope they release it soon, I should be able to grab a lot of airdrops, but reason tells me that it probably won't happen in the short term.

Three years ago, a Bubble Mart employee invited us to share about NFTs within the department, but ultimately we did not venture into Web3. In hindsight, this decision was absolutely right.

Why did NFTs, which were just as popular back then as Bubble Mart, ultimately fail to become "digital trendy toys"?

Three reasons: an overly concentrated financial environment, lack of tangible experience, and disconnection from real life.

The total supply of NFTs is too low, and all players have a strong aversion to large-scale releases and new series, causing the overall environment to lean towards financial speculation. Everyone is afraid of "dilution," yet no one thinks about how to "expand."

Is Labubu not speculated upon? Of course, some do speculate, but with high supply, numerous series, and low entry barriers, it can accommodate more ordinary people who "just want to buy a cute thing." Thus, it forms a culture, and NFTs become a trading platform.

Additionally, NFTs are virtual products. When something lacks weight, touch, or usage scenarios, it enhances its speculative attributes while diminishing its cultural value and sense of acquisition.

Let’s use an example for clarity. When you see someone carrying a Labubu on the street, you may envy them for not having one. However, when it comes to a small image, you won't feel envious because you can simply right-click to save it as your avatar.

Labubu can be placed in your home, office, car, backpack, or phone case; it is part of your living space. In contrast, NFTs typically just sit in your wallet, never truly entering your life. You cannot connect with strangers through them, and often, you feel embarrassed to admit that you are still into NFTs.

When it ceases to be a social currency or a speculative label, and once NFTs lose the potential for appreciation, they are left with only the "image" itself.

In the early days, we were too eager to turn NFTs into financial products, neglecting to shape them as "objects that can be loved." As a result, they are destined to struggle in reaching a broader audience.

I was truly surprised when I opened Kaito to check Mindshare today, and then when I opened Twitter to scroll, it was indeed mostly about the LOUD competition.

I find it hard to evaluate how this project really is, but it can confirm what I wrote a few days ago: in the face of deterministic returns, how terrifyingly effective InfoFi can be, driving how many people to publish related content.

At the same time, I believe many people are quite fed up with those nearly identical water articles; this issue is so obviously laid out in front of the InfoFi project. If a good project wants to do marketing, it cannot produce such poor content; it has almost become a negative effect. I look forward to an algorithm optimization wave to clean up these AI-generated posts.

Additionally, surprisingly, OpenSea is in second place. Indeed, even though a bunch of people have been criticizing it, they are still paying attention and waiting for the token launch, right?

The TGE has been delayed for a long time and is expected to be delayed even longer. Just take a close look at their CMO's article content:
"Before launching the token, key features must be implemented to ensure the token's utility and longevity."
"In the coming months, you can expect more updates from us."

Translating what surprise means: various 'key features' will be updated for a few months before we talk 😂

Have you ever thought about why Web3 still doesn't have a truly 'consumer-level application'?

We have been thinking for a long time that to truly develop consumer applications in Web3, relying on 'wallets' and 'transactions' is definitely not enough.

It requires richer and more scalable on-chain data, especially that which can represent human behavior and preferences.

We once tried to do it in the most direct way: by creating co-branded products, allowing Web2 brand users to scan and go on-chain to receive NFTs.

The problem is obvious: it's too inefficient, so much so that it lacks feasibility.

The best way for Web3 to intersect with Web2 is through covert integration, which is what @campnetworkxyz is currently doing. It's not about bringing Web2 onto the chain; rather, it's about directly extracting data from Web2 apps.

For example, it retrieves user behavior data from Spotify: what songs were listened to, which playlists were saved, which songs were liked...

Then, this data is packaged as on-chain behavioral assets, possessing combinability and callability.

You might not fully understand the significance of this description; the changes it brings are not technical but rather logical:

+ This means anyone can build a digital avatar on the blockchain parallel to the Web2 internet; your Web2 and Web3 are no longer separate;
+ This means entrepreneurs can build interesting applications more flexibly and efficiently based on on-chain data, forcing monopolistic giants to continuously improve instead of resting on their laurels;
+ This means your every move can be automatically recorded, traced, rewarded, and reciprocated, allowing for more efficient interaction and collaboration;

More critically, Camp does not rely on platform partnerships, does not need to 'educate users', nor does it require them to 'migrate' their habits. What it does is structural penetration.

The underlying logic of its mechanism and the impacts it brings are what attract me the most about Camp Network.

In today's world of accelerating information fragmentation and intensifying platform monopolies, one of the biggest challenges for creators and ordinary users is that the expression of behavior and value is increasingly constrained by platforms.

Once behavior can be recorded, combined, and called upon on-chain, the concept of 'expression' will be redefined.

It is no longer just about 'what was said', but rather 'what was done'.

The songs a person listens to, the articles they read, the places they visit, may represent who they are better than a single sentence.

The underlying logic of Camp is to make these become digital assets; more importantly, this set of mechanisms establishes a brand new 'data flow order':

+ Transitioning from platform-controlled data silos to user-owned data assets;
+ Shifting from one-time consumption behaviors to sustainable collaborative relationships;
+ Moving from centralized mechanisms to open combinatorial possibilities.

If the previous stage of Web3 was about moving value onto the chain, the next step is to truly bring 'people' in—not just moving one address, but the complete structure of human behavior.

A true consumer application should likely grow naturally from this type of data flow logic.

@campnetworkxyz @camp_cn

There are actually two types of people: one comes to be a user, and the other comes to be a传播机器 (communication machine).

It's already awkward for the latter to pretend to be the former, and the result is what we have often seen before.

I believe that projects like Kaito bring a clear benefit to the market by distinctly separating these two types of people, allowing project teams to better incentivize them separately. Clear roles and motivations lead to a healthier environment.

Of course, attention is a tool, not an answer. The fundamental question remains product strength:
Is there a demand? Is it user-friendly? Can it retain users?

Of course, this is beyond Kaito's responsibilities; the project team must cultivate this themselves.

Many people say that doing Crypto payments and other businesses is challenging the rules of the traditional world.

Then why not just go to a place without rules?

Asia, Africa, and Latin America are very suitable.

Regulatory vacuum, dollarization, a large number of young people, and weak financial infrastructure.

The first person I know who understood this clearly and had execution ability is @sign.
Now @0xinfini's growth in Latin America is also very strong.

Let's embrace the Third World, family.
The strategy of encircling the cities from the countryside never goes out of style.

Many people say that doing Crypto payments and U Card businesses is challenging the rules of the traditional world.

So how should I respond if I directly go to a place with no rules?

Africa and Asia are very suitable. Regulatory vacuum, dollarization, many young people, and weak financial infrastructure. These places are not to be 'transformed', but to be 'reconstructed'.

The first one to understand this in my view is @sign
Now @0xinfini is also experiencing strong growth in Latin America.

It's been a while since I synced up with the bosses on work progress, so today I'm here to report:

- This week we start the promotion and collaboration with BC GAME, and we will be giving away some merchandise and tokens as event rewards;
- The development of Ghosty Tap is nearing completion, and we have just signed up for the SUI hackathon Degen track. I hope community members will vote and support us, and we look forward to winning an award;
- The publisher of Ghostly Journey has already begun producing materials, with the official release planned to start in June, very much looking forward to it;
- Another tower defense casual game is about 50% complete, and we expect to launch around June for rapid testing and validation;
- Recently, we also received a grant from the North American public chain ecosystem, and are preparing to hold a meeting to discuss promotional arrangements, ready to start at any time.

- Additionally, I have recently taken on some visual design work, including branding, UI/UX, decks, posters, and merchandise, and I can also handle the production and logistics of merchandise. Bosses in need can contact me at any time❗️❗️❗️❗️

Other ongoing projects include collaborations for the AI coffee project and cooperative activities for projects I wrote about in tweets some time ago.

While working hard to generate income, I am also looking for opportunities to raise my ceiling.
Working hard to make money is for survival, while thinking about raising the ceiling is to not rely on others in the future.

On one hand, I am a brick mover, and on the other hand, I am an architect.
It's quite interesting,
After all, not everyone has the opportunity to build their own building while walking.

Recently, this trend has become increasingly apparent: RWA, especially stocks on the chain. More and more Web3 projects are starting to move traditional stocks onto the chain, allowing you to trade Tesla, Apple, and Nvidia 24 hours a day.

Some people say this is the end of the traditional financial order, a prelude to 'global asset liberation.'

But honestly, I don't think this is an innovation. It feels more like a primal reaction of capital, a self-consistent choice made by an industry trying to survive in a globally imbalanced structure.

The popularity of on-chain stocks reveals not the future direction, but a reality: Web3 can no longer find 'priceable' native assets, and traditional finance cannot find new capital containers; thus, both are grafting each other's 'bubble surplus' together.

To understand why 'on-chain stocks' have become popular, we need to look at its background: we are in an era where asset pricing mechanisms are gradually failing.

Core inflation in the U.S. remains high, interest rates continue to stay elevated, and 'long-term capital' is becoming conservative;
The activity in China's asset market is declining, A-shares are sluggish, the real estate deleveraging continues, and although M2 is accelerating, money has not effectively converted into credit expansion;
Europe's economy is weak, and Japan's asset market has strengthened, raising concerns about structural bubbles, while global risk aversion is rising;
In the crypto market, native assets are continuously collapsing between bulls and bears, BTC and ETH are being 'institutionalized,' lacking new narratives, new consensus, and new wealth leverage.

The 'asset genealogy' of the entire capital market is experiencing fractures: asset types that can tell stories and be monetized are rapidly disappearing.

Thus, capital begins to seek 'secondary narrative space.'

On-chain stocks are financial 're-narration' containers born out of this background.

Essentially, it transforms assets that have already been priced in the real world into a mirror product that can be re-traded and re-timed.

In other words, it does not create new value but rather repackages existing value.

Why can Web3 take this baton? Because it also lacks consensus, lacks assets, and lacks increment.

After experiencing the bull and bear market of 2021-2022, the crypto industry has gradually entered a state of 'structural overcapacity':
Project narratives are similar;
Applications lack user retention capabilities;
Native assets are difficult to reactivate faith.

This generation of Web3 entrepreneurs is facing seasoned investors who have seen through incentive mechanisms, inflation models, and Ponzi structures.

You cannot create assets through incentives; you can only rely on 'familiarity' to provoke trading behavior. You cannot create consensus; you can only bring in assets from the old world that already have pricing and volatility, disrupt their trading rhythm, and apply them to new DeFi templates on the chain.

This is not a revolution; it is grafting. But grafting is also the most rational choice for realists.

Many of us mistakenly think that 'on-chain stocks' are a reform of the traditional stock system; in fact, it does not change the essence of stocks but changes 'who controls the trading clock.'

Traditional financial markets have clear trading times, settlement rules, and clearing cycles; these are the anchors of the system. But therefore, it also limits the 'granularity' of liquidity.

What the on-chain version does is very simple:
Convert stock assets into tokens that can be traded at any time;
Use contract automatic clearing logic to replace clearing institutions;
Fragment traditional assets and introduce mechanisms such as liquidity mining, oracle, and leverage positions;
Most importantly, transfer the transaction fees and clock power that originally belonged to exchanges, brokers, and custodians to on-chain protocols and token holders.

This is the biggest change in on-chain stocks: it's not 'who owns the stock,' but 'who can share the profit slices from this trading time.'

Ownership becomes less important; controlling the trading scenario and mastering the liquidity profit within the time window is key.

Trading rights, rather than ownership, are the core of this financial structural reconstruction.

Many people are worried about regulatory issues, thinking that 'trading Apple on-chain' will attract the SEC and securities regulatory commissions. But I believe that these are not the most concerning issues.

The real problem is whether these project parties have properly established legal protections, clearing mechanisms, and credit guarantees behind the technology that wraps trust.

If not, then this is essentially a game of decoupling reality, virtualizing liquidity, and distributing the illusion of trading rights.

To some extent, it replicates the 'magical contract logic' of derivatives such as CDS and MBS before the financial crisis: constantly wrapping old assets, continuously slicing and re-trading, and amplifying volatility, but the assets themselves do not grow.

This is the cycle of bubbles.

The essence of 'on-chain stocks' is not the future, but a financial refugee camp in the context of capital structure collapse.

Traditional finance can no longer create high-growth assets; it can only find 'volatility substitutes'; Web3 cannot create native asset consensus anymore; it can only seek 'familiarity anchoring';

Thus, both shake hands in the gap of 'tokenization,' forming this seemingly innovative but actually compromised financial puzzle.

This is not the endpoint of Web3, nor its utopia. But it is the intermediate zone it must traverse, the gray area before all civilization transformations.

Do not become obsessed with this system, but do not underestimate it either.

It is a symptom of the failure of the contemporary capital system, the real business direction of on-chain finance, and also a link we must transcend.

We cannot just stay at the level of 'can it be traded'; we should further consider: what exactly are we pricing in this market?

Is it assets, or is it the volatility itself?

And if it is just the latter, then the future of Web3 lies even further ahead.