Regarding the complex game between VC coins and Meme coins that has been a hot topic recently, Psy believes that this is not only a confrontation between capital and emotions, but also a microcosm of mankind's eternal pursuit of "certainty" and "possibility".
VC coins and meme coins (such as TRUMP, PEPE, TST, etc.) are labeled as opposite poles, but they actually reflect the competition for value definition rights at different stages of the market.
VC coins build long-term value through private financing, technology narratives, and ecosystem construction, but the problem lies in the centralized power structure: venture capitalists acquire tokens at low prices in the early stages, and retail investors become "exit liquidity", causing the price of tokens to collapse after they are unlocked (such as the TIA and DYM cases).
Although its business model has been validated by traditional finance, the transparency of the crypto market amplifies the contradictions of unfair distribution, forming 'structural exploitation.'
In contrast, Meme coins attract retail investors with decentralization, community consensus, and narratives of quick wealth, attempting to break VC hegemony. However, its essence is a zero-sum game: liquidity is concentrated in the hands of early token holders, later participants rely on a 'run fast' strategy, and consensus is maintained solely by FOMO emotions, ultimately leading to a 'panic sell-off.' For example, after TRUMP sucks dry the on-chain liquidity, other Meme coins, even with a good narrative, find it difficult to rise, exposing the scarcity of market attention.
The confrontation between the two is essentially a process of the market seeking a new balance. However, at the current stage, neither has resolved the fundamental contradiction—the true source of value.
If we are to invest, let it be valuable investments, but humans are advanced beings that encompass both emotion and rationality.
As the saying goes, one cannot have both fish and bear's paw; the investment process is an eternal tug-of-war between rationality and emotion.
The 'common divisor consensus' of Meme coins relies on simple symbols (like Trump and Doge) and myths of explosive growth, essentially exploiting human greed and herd mentality. This consensus is like a mirage; once liquidity recedes (like when the Pump.Fun team transfers SOL to an exchange), faith collapses instantly.
And although the VC model is criticized as a 'game of taking over', its high FDV new coins can still be traded, reflecting the market's distorted dependence on 'certainty'—even knowing the valuation is inflated, investors are still willing to bet on the short-term arbitrage space brought by institutional endorsement. This contradiction exposes the encroachment of symbolic value over practical value in modern finance.
As French philosopher Baudrillard's 'simulacra theory' vividly interprets here. Whether it's the technological narrative of VC coins or the cultural symbols of Meme coins, both become 'hyper-real' simulacra detached from true value. What investors chase is not the asset itself, but the 'meaning bubble' constructed by media and communities.
Looking back, why has the discussion around VC coins and MEME coins intensified recently, sometimes even reversing opinions drastically? The key lies in the fact that—regardless of which coin is on the exchange, it seems unable to escape the historical pi of listing and breaking the price; upon deeper reflection, the way out for the crypto market may lie in deconstructing binary oppositions and reconstructing the foundation of value.
Why we hate VC coins, what we hate is their distorted high valuation system, and the despicable intermediaries mentioned by the clubhouse bros.
The self-redemption of VC coins lies in projects (like Hyperliquidx) taking a different path, attempting fair distribution mechanisms, allocating 31% of airdrops to the community, proving that technical projects can restore trust through decentralized distribution.
Additionally, utility tokens (like Uniswap's UNI) have regained market favor through technological implementation (Layer 2 expansion and V4's hook mechanism), showing that VC coins need to shift from 'capital games' to 'value creation.'
A few Meme coins (like the recently popular TST, KOMA, etc.) have transcended short-term speculative attributes through long-term community building and cultural accumulation. If they can feed back value into public chain development and drive the rise of on-chain DeFi and other infrastructures, perhaps they can avoid the rush to listing all at once.
Market cycles continuously repeat the rise and fall of VC and Meme; only by stepping out of the binary mindset and acknowledging the multiplicity of value (technology, culture, governance) can we move toward a healthier ecosystem.
The essence of this game is humanity's eternal inquiry into freedom and order:
VC coins represent 'constructive rationality': attempting to establish controllable order through technology, capital, and rules, but falling into the alienation of elitism.
Meme coins symbolize 'deconstructive carnival': grassroots power challenges authority, ultimately devolving into chaotic nihilism.
The opposition between the two exposes the fundamental contradiction in the crypto market: the irreconcilability between the ideal of decentralization and the reality of capital. Perhaps the answer is not to choose one side, but to acknowledge the absurdity of the market and, like Sisyphus in Camus' writing, find meaning in the process of repeatedly pushing the stone uphill.
If the crypto market wants to break the cycle, it needs to transcend the binary narrative of VC and Meme, and return to the original intention of value creation—whether through technological innovation, community co-construction, or fair distribution mechanisms.
