Vito168

Even $888BNB has risen, it seems that the popularity of BSC is starting to come back.

It's still possible to earn some small money by returning to the familiar and accustomed BSC territory.

But when will $Koma wake up?

小群的群友们对于这个问题爆发了激烈的争论。

亲爱的，想听听你们怎么选？

There was a founder who, with the strong support of Binance's ecosystem, gained a certain status in the industry, and then launched a project that looked impressive from afar but was essentially already close to zero. He then thought he was amazing. Recently, he has been making big claims about launching a platform project on Solana, saying he would overturn the meme gameplay, but in reality, it’s just the same old thing with no innovation. If nothing unexpected happens, it won't last a week before it heads back to zero.

Then, with his tail between his legs, he shamelessly crawls back to Binance Chain seeking help, begging for an Alpha to extend his life. So, should we really demystify that so-called great god? After all, who made who back in the day? I hope he knows clearly in his heart.

The above story is purely fictional and should not be taken as a reflection of reality.

Yesterday someone told me that #Kaito was ranked first in the Chinese-speaking Twitter area, and sure enough, I checked.

I promptly took out 100U to hold a lottery for my supporters.

Just comment and retweet. I'll draw 10 winners.

Hehe, can you compliment me?

What events led to Peter Thiel and Musk joining the 'Shenzhen Gang'? How did all this happen?

Many people may not know that a lot of significant events have happened recently, all related to the internal struggles of the 'Shenzhen Gang,' which has drawn in Musk and Peter Thiel. What exactly is going on here? How did this all happen? I personally have a relatively good understanding of the 'Shenzhen Gang,' so let me elaborate for everyone.

Before specifically introducing what happened, let me first introduce the relationships between the key figures. Everyone knows who Musk is, so I won't introduce him. Some of you may not know Peter Thiel, so let me give a brief introduction: he is the man behind Musk and many other big shots in Silicon Valley, known as the 'Godfather of Silicon Valley Venture Capital.'

Peter Thiel co-founded PayPal with Musk in his early years, and after selling it with Musk, he entered the venture capital field. He has invested in companies from Facebook, Airbnb, LinkedIn to SpaceX, OpenAI, Neuralink, and DeepMind. The book 'Zero to One' was written by him, redefining the logic of venture capital, attempting to 'use technology to conquer death,' which is why he is also referred to as a 'thinker in the investment world.'

At the same time, he is also an 'extreme right intellectual promoter' in the United States. Thiel believes that AI will reshape the political landscape and advocates for reduced regulation to promote technological innovation. He uses capital and technology to push an anti-establishment political agenda, becoming the 'mastermind' of the right-wing forces in the U.S. He admires libertarianism and neoconservative philosophy, advocates for elite-led society, and questions the efficiency of democratic systems. Since 2016, he has become an important supporter of Trump, focusing on funding right-wing political figures, including U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance, and influencing national security policies through companies like Palantir.

Therefore, Peter Thiel has a significant direct influence on Musk and other Silicon Valley big shots, as well as on the current Trump administration, playing a very important role in the latter's joining of the 'Shenzhen Gang.' So how did Peter Thiel come into contact with and join the 'Shenzhen Gang'? This is related to a British man named Nick Land, who is also a key figure in the internal struggles of the 'Shenzhen Gang.'

Who is this Nick Land?

It is said that a truly mature P player never laments the injustice of fate.

Every move he makes has a plan to change his fate

Every Sol is a change of perspective

Every Sol is a clear loss

Do you think it is right? Anything else to add?

P Xiaojiang's latest schedule calibration table, the heatmap distribution of the appearance times of Gold Dogs with an increase of more than 10x in the last 2 months.

Interesting.

Is there really this much at five in the morning on Sunday? A bit unexpected, which P Xiaojiang can explain what the logic is?

Let's see how many Kols will issue tokens under the temptation of $boop's airdrop.

With a 1% fee rate like this, it’s impossible to have an ecosystem. Just think about why Ethereum's shitcoins can't rise, and you'll understand that dreaming it can take off is just a self-pleasuring logical loop.

Only those Kols who are poked to the G-spot by the airdrop have the impulse to issue tokens and harvest the leeks. When $boop can't hold up and falls later, the incentive effect declines, leading to a death spiral, resulting in a loss of both fame and fortune.

With such little substance, it's elevated so high; it's a bit annoying to see this thing praised every day. It brings no intrinsic value, no external influence or increment, and calls it innovation, yet it’s still the same old repackaged junk. Encouraging such things is truly speechless, just a bunch of bored people obsessed with fancy gambling.

Thanks to Master @Paris13Jeanne for the on-site guidance today.

I feel my business skills have improved, and the service fee can be increased again.

The overall tone of Token2049 this time is the yellow storm of Binance @binancezh and BSC @BNBCHAINZH, combined with the recent continuous Alpha @BinanceWallet pig trotter rice, and the eager one billion dollar liquidity injection plan, there is a vague sense that BSC is about to systematically produce a big golden dog. In March, the big sister @heyibinance and CZ @cz_binance were just warming up.

Starting in April, the initial form of a systematic ecological support system has clearly emerged. The previously mentioned 'not engaging in so-called political correctness, not doing those things that temporarily please the market but continuously consume oneself, but clearly supporting BSC, favoring it to the point where the market no longer believes, and correcting the extremes must be done properly.'

It is evident that today, the Binance ecosystem is following this pragmatic path. Under precise fertilization, the soil of BSC is becoming increasingly fertile, while certain overly mythologized public chains without the Binance ecosystem as a liquidity exit guarantee are somewhat objectively returning to their rightful positions and on-chain valuation levels. It's all the same things; does a white person's fart smell better? Without the smooth liquidity exit guarantee of the Binance ecosystem, a fart is just a fart, and the market is gradually demystifying.

In such a high-potential environment, we expect naturally high-ceiling projects to emerge on BSC, which in turn will serve as a touchstone to test the phased achievements of BSC's institutional system construction, while also acting as an accelerator for BSC's self-reinforcing Matthew effect and further climbing the ladder.

It is also pulling and absorbing the cosmic chain flow step by step with a sucking method; the stove here is already heating up. If you don't come to play, you may not even have food to eat in the future. Of course, they may soon be forced to open up new battlefields. In fact, that’s good and worth looking forward to; this is a good way to stimulate innovation. After chasing them all over the mountains, they may have to think about opening up 'new continental routes', who knows.

Perhaps it's said a bit simply, brutally, and nakedly, and may not be politically correct in Web3, but the rough truth is this: the logic of how this world and its rivers and lakes operate is just like that. Otherwise, developing countries wouldn't have so many foreign investment bans and industrial protection policies, and the Americans wouldn't start trade wars, promote manufacturing repatriation, Make America Great Again, and America First, such grand slogans.

So don't be too naive. Don't be too simple too naive. The West itself is struggling with its own political correctness. Support the Binance ecosystem in implementing pragmatism to the end, and positively build an ecological traffic moat for BSC. Status is earned, and we look forward to the yellow storm of BSC sweeping the globe.

Keep it up.

GoPlus @GoPlusSecurity has crawled out of the trenches, hoping to remove the observation label soon~ A project with such good fundamentals, given the current market value, can only say that the excess has been dried up, and it can expand as soon as it absorbs water.

What might be the big opportunities in this cycle when viewed from the perspective of 'small players', 'big players', and the credit cycle of cryptocurrency?

A recent conversation seems to reveal the issues surrounding the credit cycle in cryptocurrency, along with some thoughts and reflections that I would like to share with everyone.

I won’t name names to avoid disrupting anyone's financial path, especially since compared to a bunch of rotten peaches, it’s not bad. After all, I am more familiar with their founders, so the conversation was quite frank.

The so-called major public chains with valuations in the billions of dollars have very few real active users, relying solely on self-manipulated data to support their empty shells. The main means of maintaining team expenses is to create financial chips and turn oneself into a gambling hall in a casino. I can only speculate with the best intentions that they are not out to exploit others but merely trying to survive, or to put it nicely, waiting for an opportunity, or experiencing a slow death.

The threshold for gaining trust in the cryptocurrency circle is becoming higher. Although the on-chain mechanisms have always been credible, the construction of the crypto ecosystem has become increasingly unreliable due to the lack of capacity of the main entities to fulfill commitments.

A potential trend to solve this problem may emerge: higher-level credit entities such as companies, institutions, or even countries with high credit levels in the traditional world will lead and construct the ecosystem. The on-chain mechanism, being transparent and trustworthy, will in turn impose constraints on these credit entities to combat opacity and prevent wrongdoing.

Some may question whether this resembles a flavor of 'state control over private enterprise'? It seems that decentralization is regressing while centralization is strengthening. However, I don't think that’s the case; the two are not in a binary opposition.

The advantage of super credit entities lies in their ability to take responsibility for the ecosystem they commit to based on their centralized credit. This part cannot be decentralized unless human intervention can be bypassed. Once mechanisms and rules are established, they should simultaneously undergo a process of rule formalization on-chain to impose constraints on themselves. This process ensures that decentralization safeguards overall consensus.

Ultimately, power is conferred by a decentralized consensus mechanism, and the conferral process certainly requires a reasonable consensus process. It is somewhat akin to congressional authorization and oversight, with the government executing. However, this congress is an on-chain mechanism, more reliable than congressional members. It effectively incorporates high-credit central entities into a decentralized network.

Will ordinary individuals be squeezed under such circumstances? At this current stage, I don't think so; in fact, they might even benefit from it. At the very least, the situation will be better than now, achieving higher overall welfare in web3, with a more Pareto-optimal outcome. The current situation is that low-credit entities, under the guise of high-level authorization (an unalterable decentralized consensus mechanism on-chain), have obtained high credit rating narratives but fundamentally cannot fulfill their commitments to ecosystem development (PPT scams, and then disappear).

It has turned into a situation where weak players attack each other, leading to credit overexpansion, mutual undermining, and the over-exploitation of weak participants, which ultimately causes the collapse of the web3 credit system and the emergence of the so-called 'no one takes over'. This, in fact, constitutes an obstacle to the further global expansion of crypto credit.

So why was it possible before but not now in this upper structure? Initially, the technical threshold was relatively high, and the established technological barriers could capture enough profits and broad consensus, which in turn also constituted a strong credit level and default cost constraint. Once substantial profits were made, everyone became cautious about their lives and reputations.

However, as technology spreads, the positive aspect is that startup barriers have lowered, leading to industrial prosperity and a rapid increase in the number of participating entities, resulting in a flourishing and active market. However, from the perspective of credit entities in the financial market that can issue currency, it is not necessarily a good thing; the lowered thresholds make it harder for crypto projects to gain broad consensus and high profits, while default costs have significantly decreased, leading to a general decline in credit.

In the next phase, we may need so-called true 'big players' to use their high-level credit to reshape the currently 'broken etiquette and music' market, reassemble the fragmented consensus, and genuinely deliver ecosystems, restoring the thresholds and standards for obtaining high credit. A multi-tiered credit and pricing system should be established to reconstruct broad consensus.

This seems to be a process of spiral ascent; an inappropriate analogy might be:

During a depression, relative centralization is needed to concentrate forces on major tasks, repair the credit of social entities, somewhat Keynesian, reminiscent of Roosevelt. During periods of prosperity and technological diffusion, it will lean more towards liberalism, following the Austrian school and Reaganism, leading to credit expansion and individual prosperity, which may eventually overshoot and result in a subprime mortgage crisis and credit system collapse. This cycle repeats, spiraling upwards.

The history of the cryptocurrency circle is still short, but the economic and financial history of human nature is long. The on-chain consensus mechanism overcomes some weaknesses of human nature, yet the remaining off-chain aspects of human nature still need to be addressed. We are full of confidence in the future of cryptocurrency, but we must also face the reality of the development of the cryptocurrency cycle. Especially in a market without so-called macro-control, the cycles of overheating and depression driven by human nature operate very purely and smoothly.

Such cyclical rotations are common in traditional macroeconomics. Judging correctly and finding ways to participate can yield massive profits. For example, figures like Soros and other hedge funds are prominent examples. Especially if high-credit entities gradually take the lead in forming broad consensus, it will bring about significant wealth effects. This could again present a massive opportunity in the cyclical rotation of the early cryptocurrency industry, potentially representing a hidden big opportunity in this cycle.

Of course, the cycle rotates, while BTC moves forward. BTC cannot return to that price; Bitcoin is the trend line of the industry's cyclical upward development with significant fluctuations. In this small universe of cryptocurrency—transcending the six paths and not caught in the cycle.