A Comprehensive Interpretation of the Current State of the Cryptocurrency Market: Utopian Narratives and Sector Rotation

Written by: Kevin Zhou

Compiled by: TechFlow Intern

Overview

The recent two bull market cycles (2020 and 2021) are characterized by the dominance of "narratives." For a token project, the level of marketing and meme propagation is often more important than the merits of the project itself.

First, trading firms have transformed into venture capital firms. Second, anonymous influencers gained the power that used to belong to venture capitalists in 2017. We can observe the evolution of narratives—it shifted from DeFi to NFTs, then (briefly) to DAOs, L2s, then to Play-to-Earn, the metaverse, Web3, and finally back to NFTs. During this period, the L1 wars have spanned five common narratives.

The cryptocurrency space is searching for new stories to justify the deployment of new capital, satisfying investors' appetite for huge returns. Such returns were possible under early foundational conditions, but now the only viable method left is to entice less sophisticated capital into the game and then use their money as "exit liquidity" for earlier investors.

Years ago, I would have considered this a disgrace, as misallocated capital does not produce value; it only predates on those TikTok users dreaming of getting rich. Every industry has its share of self-serving speculators. Today, my thoughts are entirely different.

I believe that every bull market cycle embodies a natural lifecycle in the animal kingdom, with a food chain among humans where the greedy are consumed by their slightly smarter peers. It's ugly, but inevitable. I am now a believer in crypto-accelerationism.

For so many years, we have been unable to achieve success in this industry through logical reasoning or any form of dialectical language. We can only achieve success by witnessing the majority of doomed experiments and learning from them (though some experiments have indeed succeeded, at least for now).

Discussions about Small Block vs. Big Block, PoW vs. PoS, this PoS vs. that PoS, this L1 vs. that L1, L1 vs. L2, (3,3) vs. (-3,-3), Punks vs. Apes, DOGE vs. SHIB, CLOBs vs. AMMs, etc., cannot be resolved without observing how these things play out in reality.

The theoretical research of mechanism design, flowcharts with boxed arrows, historical stories used as analogies, and hardcore textual descriptions are insufficient to persuade a tribe to abandon their sacred cows and join another side. As an industry, before it is stamped into our era's trends and becomes part of our collective memory, we must all experience the good and bad of things with care; only then can we move forward.

The introduction of terminology is an interesting development in cryptocurrency culture. In previously protected and supply-limited fields (such as medicine and law), jargon serves two purposes. First, it saves time when both parties share a mutually understood corpus.

Second, it prevents outsiders from easily extracting value that "rightfully" belongs to insiders. The cryptocurrency field is no exception. As it becomes a wealthier industry, we will further use the jargon of this community to prevent outsiders from eating our lunch.

This may trigger more mergers and acquisitions, as cryptocurrency is a high-profit but difficult-to-penetrate industry, and non-cryptocurrency companies attempting to penetrate this industry lack the necessary expertise. I make no normative judgments about whether this is good or bad; it is simply a natural phenomenon.

Capital allocation always lags behind the emergence of novel and useful innovations. During a bull market cycle, more and more capital chases increasingly lower-quality projects. Entrepreneurs and scammers are eager to launch half-baked new ideas and create supply to meet the demand of new fiat entering the space.

Some people see through the "Emperor's New Clothes," but fear backlash from the influx of Shillers and Bag Holders, so they engage in maximal self-censorship regarding "counter-narratives."

It is in this context that narratives reach their maximum upward reflection. At the peak of frenzy, people only buy what they believe they can pump and sell to the next greater fool; valuations become increasingly absurd, and common sense is drowned out by the community's frenzied pleas for price increases.

If it weren't for changes in the macro environment, we might have reached even more ridiculous heights. The frenzy has not yet peaked. As trends shift, the "narratives" in cryptocurrency and other fields have weakened. The essence of many projects has surfaced; the better projects are scams, and the worst projects are outright frauds.

When madness becomes the norm, subtle trade-offs and cautious considerations are branded as heresy. Only after the "narrative" weakens can these ideas be expressed without being policed for thought crimes.

Currently, the market pricing of major stocks seems fair, though agents are still somewhat over-leveraged. Initially, people thought the Fed's rate hike rhetoric was not entirely credible, but now most believe it, and this is reflected in market prices. New developments regarding the Fed's further hawkish sentiment led to a slight decline, but it was quickly bought up.

It seems there will be 4-5 rate hikes this year, neither more nor less, at least that is the current expectation. From speculative allies to major coins like BTC and ETH, there have been some pullbacks, but they are not as severe as in 2018. Most of the massive third or fourth-party funds raised by cryptocurrency venture capital firms may flow into long-awaited destinations, namely new projects rather than old ones.

If the macro situation improves, new projects can still achieve 10x or 100x returns from this capital support, but old projects are unlikely to see the same growth again.

Greed and Utopianism

Based on my recent thoughts, we can categorize the various cryptocurrency situations into two dimensions: "fraud" and "utopianism" (here "fraud" is not a pejorative term, akin to Alpha). For example, on the fraud dimension, I think we all agree that OHM has a higher degree of fraud than TIME, and TIME has a higher degree of fraud than other OHM forks.

I am not setting any absolute requirements for the fraud levels of these projects; I am merely suggesting that they can be ranked relatively. On this dimension, the general rule is: forks are scarier than originals.

Similarly, on the utopianism dimension, BTC is less utopian than ETH, and ETH is less utopian than SOL/AVAX and other new L1s. On this dimension, the general rule is: new projects attempt to "solve" inherent problems in old projects, making them more utopian in nature. Understanding these dimensions allows us to discuss the investability, returns, and time studies of each quadrant one by one. The four quadrants are:

1) Low fraud, low utopian; 2) Low fraud, high utopian; 3) High fraud, low utopian; 4) High fraud, high utopian. This is the beloved 2x2 Thinkboi matrix.

The first quadrant (low fraud, low utopian) represents projects that genuinely strive to address solvable problems, where the issues faced by the project can be resolved without some fundamental technological breakthrough.

Examples in this quadrant include: (past) cryptocurrency exchanges, new cryptocurrency infrastructure games, and some cryptocurrencies that may have succeeded in their early stages (like BTC). These projects are often good long-term investments, though they may be seen as unattractive in certain short-term periods, especially during the frenzy of a bull market.

The second quadrant (low fraud, high utopian) represents projects that genuinely strive to build grand designs and take us into a dazzling new world. These designs often require at least one (or even multiple) technological breakthroughs to function.

You will often see followers of these projects criticize and condemn first quadrant projects for not meeting their expectations, using this as justification for the necessity of their projects' existence from the outset. Utopianism is only worth pursuing when there are serious flaws in the existing world.

Due to the sincere attitude of the founders and the feasibility of the projects, second quadrant projects are often good investments in their early stages. This allows founders to create a myth that can sustain until the project secures at least one or two rounds of funding. In later stages, these projects are only considered good investments if technological breakthroughs and the "realization" of utopianism occur.

It is currently unclear whether the pursuits of these utopian projects will succeed, but venture capital firms only need a few of these projects to succeed, as the profits from successful projects can offset the losses from all the failed ones.

One aspect of this practice is to make second quadrant projects appear as much like first quadrant projects as possible, as this reduces the perceived risk of the project and makes investors feel better. In this process, the truly breakthrough requirements are often artificially obscured, and the designs proposed by the projects are repeatedly asserted to be entirely feasible, demonstrating complete incentivization from the perspectives of game theory and mechanism design.

Second quadrant projects are similar to first quadrant projects but are high-risk, high-reward. The two differ in risk but not in potential returns.

The third quadrant (high fraud, low utopian) represents those poorly executed money-grabbing projects, an example being Bitconnect. Everyone in this quadrant is well aware that the project is a scam. This is precisely why Bitconnect targets an audience outside the cryptocurrency community, specifically (honestly) inexperienced individuals.

Projects in the third quadrant may seem more utopian to inexperienced investors, which is precisely their goal—to blend into the second quadrant. Ultimately, utopianism often becomes a guise for fraud, so the third quadrant is home to the worst characters in our industry, a group of self-serving speculators.

Foolish and greedy individuals will scam those who are even more foolish and greedy than themselves, and these exposed incidents ultimately become the rationale for regulators to impose stricter oversight on the entire cryptocurrency space. Can you think of any other projects in the cryptocurrency field that deliberately target individuals outside the field? They are all deliberately deceptive!

The fourth quadrant (high fraud, high utopian) represents projects in our industry that are either gimmicky or baseless (the former resembling Rube Goldberg machines, the latter resembling perpetual motion machines). Like third quadrant projects, they are scams but employ more sophisticated tactics.

Even insiders find it challenging to explain and analyze their complex structures; even if they have doubts, they can only conclude, "It might not work, but it might work because I can't pinpoint the problem." Like the mythical Gordian Knot, people cannot see if there are any loose ends or whether it can be untied.

Projects in the fourth quadrant will try their best to pretend to be second quadrant projects. If they achieve short-term success after a while, they are likely to turn the ruse into a genuine enterprise and enter the second quadrant. For example, what is the difference between WeWork and Theranos? The former is a fourth quadrant scam that transformed into a second quadrant real project, while the latter was a scam from the start.

Overall, fourth quadrant projects are often good short-term investments for many participants in that quadrant. This is sad but true, partly because token projects can achieve liquidity in a shorter time than traditional private companies; token projects can effectively conduct initial public offerings.

Once a project "goes public," all the incentives for public companies, namely the short-term orientation for the upcoming quarters, come into play. Founders can "retire" early without waiting for the product to prove its effectiveness or to have genuine, unsubsidized product-market fit—this phenomenon is particularly evident in projects where access rights can be purchased with tokens.

Most seemingly successful cryptocurrency projects belong to the fourth quadrant because the temptation of rapidly doubling cash is simply irresistible.

The fraud of fourth quadrant projects benefits founders, employees, investors, traders, exchanges, market makers, OTC desks, SAFT salespeople, lawyers, and other third-party service providers; the only ones who do not benefit are the final holders—they "love" these projects, sold a utopian dream by those who are smarter but worse than them, and they cling to it desperately.

I find that the explanation based on the dimensions of fraud and utopianism is very beneficial for the phenomena we see in the cryptocurrency space through one cycle after another. In summary, the first quadrant is good in the long term but unattractive in the short term. The second quadrant pretends to be the first quadrant; if they solve a problem that may not have a solution, they can transition to the first quadrant.

The second quadrant is profitable in the short term but carries higher risks and higher returns in the long term. The third quadrant loves to pretend to be the second quadrant but only scams novice players, so it is best to avoid them entirely. The fourth quadrant also loves to pretend to be the second quadrant; if they want to avoid bad outcomes later, they will transition to the second quadrant after achieving some initial success.

If you only care about money, fourth quadrant projects are by far the best short-term investments, and venture capital firms benefit the most from arbitrage in the fourth quadrant. The second and fourth quadrants are where accelerationism is most needed.

NFTs

We have largely steered clear of trading NFTs and NFT-related tokens. We believe we do not have a sufficient competitive advantage in playing this game. Aesthetically, we lack refined taste. In terms of imitation, we do not have enough Twitter followers. There are many other markets to trade in, just as there are many fish in the sea.

First, let’s look at the categories of art and pfp NFTs. Since they symbolize status/signaling, Veblen/luxury goods, and heirloom/prestigious items, we can assume that some of them will retain value over the long term. Just as there are two or a dozen top fashion companies in the real world, we can see a similar number of NFT collections with sufficient brand value to retain worth.

That said, just as there will not be 1000 top fashion companies in reality, most NFT collections in the crypto space are unlikely to have high value. Therefore, at best, it will create a power-law distribution of value, commonly referred to as "winner takes all."

We can also say that an item only fulfills its symbolic status when shown to others—just like how wearing clothes from a fashion brand in a similar crowd showcases status in the real world. For NFTs, the venues for showcasing status are limited to social media platforms like Twitter and Discord.

It is still difficult to say which showcasing space is broader, although there is a reasonable argument: the virtual world is far broader than the physical world—Twitter and Instagram are actively integrating NFT features, and people are spending more and more time online, making the vastness of the virtual world particularly evident under these premises.

Moreover, it is not surprising that pfp NFTs outperform general art NFTs, as they serve better as avatars for online identities. However, investing in NFTs requires caution; among the many recent events, this field has the most severe corruption. The gaming community and streaming community have largely developed a hatred for NFTs, which I personally attribute to Ice Poseidon.

Secondly, I do believe that vampire attacks like LOOKS have the potential to gain market share. They can directly target the right audience, focusing on their platform's perfect users. In other words, LOOKS' price and market cap have recently been cut down, with most of its trading volume being wash trading, and the founders are continuously cashing out.

Given that the team is anonymous and the token price has reached extremely high levels in a short time, it would not be surprising if it were confirmed as a complete scam one day. Nevertheless, due to high fees and competitive space, the idea of multiple competing platforms for NFT trading makes a lot of sense.

Additionally, there is no liquidity network effect similar to order books, so challengers find it easier to compete with incumbents. The liquidity network effect of NFT exchanges is weaker than that of delta one exchanges, which in turn is weaker than that of options exchanges.

Finally, the design space for non-artistic non-pfp NFTs is largely still to be developed, and I think this exploration is worthwhile. Like all innovations, most content may be nonsense, but I optimistically believe that people will find some excellent and useful things within it.

L1s

Since the technical advantages are entirely unimportant until they eventually emerge (at some uncertain time in the future), we should not waste time on this issue.

I just want to say that it makes complete sense for different people to support different L1s. HFT prop shops in Chicago like SOL; Koreans like LUNA; graduate students like AVAX (after all, it is the only professor coin and performs well); Andre's followers like FTM; and Silicon Valley venture capital firms like everything.

Because if you buy right once, the entire fund can achieve good returns; sometimes they prefer smaller L1s like NEAR, as NEAR can still have tens of billions of larger growth if you don't already have a market cap of several million. In resisting attacks from all sides regarding "new things," ETH's maximalists are now in the same camp as the old BTC maximalists.

In general, their defenses are unsuccessful; people are fickle. With something new, you have the potential to realize the grandest hopes and dreams, while for things that have already launched and are steadily progressing, you can only see the harsh reality of the situation.

Behind utopianism lies the barbarism of the real world and the ugliness of human nature. Humans have a nature that desires a perfect world while also exploiting others' desires for a perfect world. Ultimately, true believers become disappointed traitors, needing a Girardian scapegoat to satiate their anger and dissatisfaction.

At such times, who could be more suitable as a scapegoat than those prophets who promise a future that can never be realized? This is not to say that these L1s won't succeed; it is just to say that the founders are very aware of the Damocles' sword hanging over their heads. Their best bet is to win.

Next is the continuous trade-offs made on the principle of decentralization—because decentralization is not important until it is achieved, and who knows if it can be achieved, and if so, when? Perhaps we fear the evil spirits, or perhaps we do not.

As we reshape the financial and monetary systems, we begin to sympathize with past Federal Reserve chairs. No Federal Reserve chair wants an economic collapse to occur under their watch, so why do they all want to push the problem onto the next person, like kicking the can down the road?

Given that all incentives for participants are useful, I hope the best L1s can win in any case. That is what I want to say. Not everyone enters the space for the technology. In fact, not many people enter for the technology.

At this point, I have been waiting for over seven years, and I don't even dare to ask whether we will really get Ethereum's PoS this year. Which will come first, the arrival of ETH 2.0 or the revival of Hal Finney's frozen body? Haha, who knows the answer now? I'm just joking; don't roast me.

As for cross-chain bridges, the main difficulty they face is ensuring that synthetic assets on one chain are not artificially inflated without proper backing and ensuring the security of the transportation process. We recently witnessed the Wormhole vulnerability between SOL and ETH, which was caused by issues with SOL.

I am not particularly concerned about this vulnerability, as it is merely a fixable error. Although the SOL Wormhole vulnerability was rescued by Jump, it is likely they had to dig into their own pockets. If a cross-chain bridge fails, their SOL wallets would lose significant value, and I believe they would also have to pay a pound of flesh in the rescue architecture.

However, this is not overly concerning. What worries me is that even if the code is well-written, cross-chain bridges will have fundamental issues, which remains to be seen. Additionally, even if today's bridges have considerable centralization, as long as there is a way to decentralize without compromising security, it should improve. People will wait and see, and I will hold a skeptical view on it.

DeFi

DeFi 2.0 is similar to DeFi 1.0, but 2 is greater than 1; the bigger the number, the better. DeFi 2.0 features the idea of protocols controlling or owning assets, sometimes referred to as PCV (Protocol Controlled Value) or POL (Protocol Owned Liquidity). The idea is the same: to have a DeFi protocol while simultaneously running a hedge fund.

Whether this is a good idea or a bad idea is left for the reader to answer. Currently, some protocols hold tokens of other protocols and participate in each other's governance votes, leading us into an era of systemic risk. It is easier to reason that this relatively small TIME-MIM-LUNA slice will be used for a larger composite product network or for CDO squares calculated from structured products before the 2008 financial crisis? Quite frightening.

Composability is great; it enables things that were previously impossible. But systemic risk accumulates over time, and entangled protocols become increasingly difficult to untangle, so we need to remain cautious; otherwise, it will ultimately turn into a larger mess.

Play-to-Earn

You work to make money, and then you spend the money you earn on playing. That's how it's always been, right? Work is essentially something you do not want to do; you are willing to work because it is rewarding. Games are essentially things you want to do because you enjoy them, and you might even be willing to pay for them.

So, what the hell is P2E? If you are a farmer in rural China, relying on earning game gold in WoW to make a living, that is work. If you play WoW and enjoy it, you might buy WoW gold on RMT sites, and the gold from RMT sites comes from those rural areas in China; that is gaming.

In P2E, people have once again used too many terms to make it sound like a cool buzzword, making you feel like P2E is "having your cake and eating it too." In most ordinary games, some people earn money through work, while others play by paying, with almost no overlap between the two groups.

In most "P2E" games, while some still earn money through work, those who pay to play have almost been replaced by a new group—this new group pays for the work of the workers and ultimately sells it to other paying groups.

In other words, the difference between most ordinary games and P2E games is that the former has workers and players, while the latter has workers and speculators. It is evident that almost no one genuinely wants to play P2E games.

If the P2E industry one day launches a truly interesting game, it will become an ordinary game with workers and players; it only differs from ordinary games in a subtle way: it provides on-chain anonymous assets for virtual game assets, allowing for an active secondary market outside the game developer's platform, but game developers can still easily tax it.

The general consensus among game developers is that secondary markets are detrimental to their revenue because they do not easily take a cut from every transaction in the secondary market, and it will cannibalize the primary market. Now, with cryptocurrency, although the cannibalization issue of the primary market has not been resolved, they can easily impose taxes.

In my view, this is still a good thing because the highest-quality games in the past did indeed have active secondary markets, and now there is at least a greater incentive for game developers to return to the good old days before the anti-secondary market trend. Players can get what they want, and developers can get half of what they want. Thus, there can be some powerful synergies between cryptocurrency and gaming, but the current P2E games do not have them.

Metaverse

If the term Metaverse refers to virtual reality (VR), then we already have it, and it is a growing industry. If the Metaverse means more than just VR, then we must define it precisely to avoid the inflation of ordinary vocabulary due to excessive abstraction—think about it.

When people say artificial intelligence, they mean machine learning; when people say machine learning, they mean statistical methods; when people say statistical methods, they mean linear regression. Money has already inflated enough; we should not let vocabulary inflate as well. If the Metaverse refers to virtual communities, then we already have Telegram chat rooms, Discord communities, and even the company formerly known as Facebook.

If the Metaverse merely describes a trend where people generally spend more time in the virtual world and less time in the real world, then it is a trend that is already happening; Japan's hikikomori are our future. When banks print too much money, it leads to half of humanity having no sex life, turning into recluses and basement dwellers.

Moreover, ordinary people become giant "companies" of zombie corporate workers, ultimately succumbing to "karoshi" (death from overwork). Believe me; this is true, but the evidence cannot fit into the blank spaces of this article.

However, from a practical perspective, when we talk about investing in the Metaverse, regardless of its actual meaning, it typically takes two forms: investing in a virtual world or parcel, or investing in specific virtual land/assets within a parcel. For the former, cryptocurrency brings two innovations that were previously impossible—first, you can allow your users to gain ownership of a "parcel" through something akin to Web3-style yield farming.

Provided you have some anti-Sybil mechanisms; second, you can organize your user base to engage in commercial activities with each other without relying on centralized payment rails. In other words, you can log into places like Decentraland, have your avatar walk into a virtual art gallery, find a punk you like, and then click it to link directly to the auction on OpenSea.

With another click, your Metamask wallet opens, and you can purchase it from the gallery. Once bought, you can either leave it on display in the gallery or take it down to showcase in your virtual house, or display it in both places. This is certainly cool.

However, using VRChat as an example, their parcels are centralized, and they can directly integrate this functionality. Does Decentraland have unique advantages and disadvantages compared to VRChat? It is hard to say now, but perhaps the next topic will provide us with some insights.

What happens when we turn land ownership into anonymous tickets? What if we turn virtual land ownership into anonymous tickets? This indeed is a core distinction between Decentraland and Second Life, as it creates a certain degree of scarcity for virtual land and provides unforgeable, unchangeable land ownership.

However, there remains a question of how much value the land near transportation hubs has compared to land further away. The value of virtual land also benefits from surrounding foot traffic, just like land in the real world, but in virtual reality, people can teleport and fly. If a project restricts users' teleportation or flying, its competitors will not impose such restrictions.

Since gravity does not need to be a law in the virtual world, I imagine that land there can also be stacked vertically. Therefore, I do not believe that the price of virtual land will present the same price differential ratio as urban versus rural land in the real world, but certain virtual lands may still be more valuable than others, depending on how much attention they can attract locally.

Finally, how much unpredictability is there in the ownership of virtual land? What if someone posts something very vulgar or illegal (like bloody pornographic content) on their Decentraland plot? Can Decentraland take it down? True anonymous land ownership means that Decentraland has no authority to act in such cases.

Web3

We are different from Gabe Newell's Valve; we have truly managed to count to three. To avoid the inflation of concepts and terms, we adopt Chris Dixon's definition of Web3 here: Web1 is read; Web2 is read/write; Web3 is read/write/own.

Thus, FCoin essentially invented reverse-fee mining, which was subsequently popularized in DeFi as yield farming. So, is Web3 yield farming? Just kidding; its paradigm shift is not yet qualified.

Web3 is a universal yield farming tool similar to stocks, and securities regulators will find it difficult to take enforcement action against it. This could be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on whether you are a regulator.

Imagine if Uber (if you are Chris Dixon, then imagine Lyft) issued small amounts of Uber/Lyft stock to passengers and drivers based on each ride recorded on their platform, with no paperwork or intermediary costs, and no expenses arising from regulatory actions.

This could actually bring many benefits; it is a good way to establish two-sided or multi-sided markets, solve the "which came first, the chicken or the egg" problem, acquire customers, and turn them into evangelists. Well, let's see what the situation is. When ambitious entrepreneurs mention Web3 in their speeches, just like the past trends of "artificial intelligence" and "sharing economy," you need to be extra cautious.

Conclusion

In summary, the conclusion is that everything in the cryptocurrency field is fine. Long-term, as always, I remain optimistic about the cryptocurrency space. In the short term, there is some work to be done, and some things need to be cleaned up. I know some people will say my post is silly, but I will not comment on them.

So, don’t feel tempted to try that method just because a college friend of yours made a few times returns on NFTs. Aside from those successes that can never be achieved, we can ultimately succeed. Life goes on, cryptocurrency goes on, keep building, keep hodling, and try to do some good for the world, but make sure that the good you do doesn’t drag us all into hell; at least get out for a walk every once in a while…

We really need to clean up our space; otherwise, at some point, there will be a systemic explosion, and everyone will cry out for regulation, just like the history of mature markets will repeat itself. I really can’t believe Gerko banned me on Twitter for speaking the truth, you idiot.

You know, when people say they mean no offense, the next thing they say always ends up being offensive. Sorry, not sorry; no matter what happened with artforz, I can’t believe they came up with such a clever scam.

I want to say that there is usually a problem with carpet pulls: once scammers start dumping and prices drop, their community members will get furious and call for blood. But what if they can discreetly dump without causing prices to drop, even making prices rise while monetizing?

What I want to say is that they have indeed found such a group of geniuses! If you ask me about the next phase of monetization in DeFi 3.0, I want to say that this gimmicky machine is really complicated, even complicated enough to make big shots like Daniel Larimer feel outmatched.

Readers who have made it this far must be very curious people; thumbs up to you! Francis Bacon's Solomon said there is nothing new under the sun, just as Plato imagined, all knowledge is memory. So Solomon said all novelties will be forgotten; Barry can gain from closed-end funds as a compromise, but if people only want to buy more cryptocurrency from it, I think all the selling pressure might be bad.

Nietzsche once said that those who sit and think are nihilists; fortunately, I am a walker. Mev is like the Olympics of intellectual sports; I don’t understand sports. What I mean is that there are only a few ways to put the ball in the hole, while StarCraft, WC3, and DOTA are more strategically meaningful competitions that also look more interesting. Readers who have made it this far might be perfectionists, achieving true meticulousness.