Earn While Running: Running into Web 3.0?

Source: Qianglie Forum

First, I want to encourage my friends in Shanghai. Like everyone else, we have been feeling quite down these days, the only difference being that we haven't gone hungry. By the time this episode goes live, I hope the situation has improved; but for now, all I can say is: if you don't know what to believe, then believe in time—time will heal everything.

Today, let's shift our focus and discuss a lighter topic: "Exercise + Earning Money + Web3." The phenomenon represented by today's topic is a great case of "Wei's Dissipative Theory: Meme + Structure." Xiaopao and Teacher Wang Wei (Will) will conduct a case analysis of this new phenomenon, StepN. (The content discussed in this episode is not related to any specific project and does not constitute investment advice.)

· Episode Outline ·

1. Personal Experience with StepN: The Huge Differences in Motivation Between Running Enthusiasts and Traders

2. Analyzing StepN's "Meme" and "Structure" Using "Wei's Dissipative Theory"—Is it a "Sustainable Ponzi Structure"?

3. What is "Dual Meme"? "Exercise" and "Earning Money": Which One is the Sustainable "Strong Meme"?

4. What is "Positive and Negative Feedback Balance Structure"?

5. The Necessity of "Cost Exposure" in the Web3.0 Field

6. Is StepN a Web3 Product or a Web2 Product Integrated with a Token Economy Model?

· Further Reading for This Episode ·

"The Meme Machine" by Susan Blackmore
"Strava Art": "GPS Doodle" created using exercise routes. The artist designs a route, rides it, and then uploads the exercise track to Strava—thus creating a series of "exercise performance art" pieces. (Website: https://gpsdoodles.com/)

· Transcript ·

Xiaopao (02:41): Today, I want to help everyone shift their attention and discuss a lighter topic—exercise and earning money.

The phenomenon represented by today's topic is actually an extension and case analysis of the dissipative theory we discussed in a previous episode, which uses dissipative theory—"meme" plus "structure" to analyze Ponzi structures.

First, I want to ask Teacher Will, what are your exercise habits?

Will (04:38): I do have exercise habits. I used to play various ball games, but now that I work long hours, I basically only have standard workouts in the gym, like using the treadmill and strength training. Other than that, I'm just a typical homebody.

Xiaopao (05:20): I’m someone who runs every day; I started before college and usually run about 5 to 7 kilometers daily. But I don’t like to keep records, like using apps to track steps or exercise data; I also don’t like to show off my "results" on social media. Except for "showing off shoes," because I wear out shoes quickly, about two pairs a year on average, so whenever a pair dies, I commemorate it on social media.

Recently, I learned about StepN and was curious, so I started using it with a research mindset. The more I used it, the more I felt that the phenomenon it represents cannot be summarized by just being an exercise app or a Web3.0 product; I quickly realized it is a great case of the dissipative theory we discussed, analyzing Ponzi structures through "meme" and "structure."

Have you used this app, Teacher Will?

Will (07:03): I haven't used it myself, but many young colleagues have, some of whom may have started using it before the project became popular. I haven't used it for a very simple reason—I’m currently exercising in the gym, and StepN can’t track steps indoors; it must be used outdoors, so I’m not considering it for now.

Actually, many of our colleagues are like this; even though they go to the gym, they still have to make a special effort to walk outside for a few minutes for StepN.

Xiaopao (07:50): I’ve been using it for several weeks. At first, I was quite fascinated, but then I had more thoughts.

Let me take a few minutes to introduce its game rules and some of my experiences; then I’ll ask Teacher Will to analyze whether it is a sustainable "Ponzi structure" from the perspective of "meme" plus "structure."

I estimate that many of you may not have heard of this product. It is actually an app similar to Keep, Strava, etc., that records your running routes and distances. But what makes it special is that—the amount of running you do each day can be converted into tokens, its cryptocurrency, which means you can earn money.

This model is a very popular concept in the current Web3.0 and crypto fields, also known as a business model—"x to earn," meaning "earn while doing X." For example, "play to earn" means earning while playing, and StepN is a type of "earn while running." It is considered a breakout product in the market because it attracts many people who are not originally from the crypto space, such as running enthusiasts, into the world of Web3.0.

I want to mention how I first noticed it—this point is quite important as it indicates how you were "newly attracted." I had heard the name a long time ago, but I really started paying attention when a pop-up appeared on Bloomberg's news feed one day while I was working, saying that a token called GMT (the governance token of the StepN project) had skyrocketed in price, from just over a cent to over two dollars.

I remember a Bloomberg reporter asking on Twitter what was going on. Someone replied: because suddenly everyone on Earth wanted a pair of "metaverse running shoes." I found it very interesting, so I immediately looked at the project's white paper and thought I would experience it myself to see what this phenomenon was all about.

The factors that drew my attention to it also align with the current trends in the crypto world for "attracting new users" or gaining attention—most people notice it always starts with "price surges." Or "price surges" are always the best publicity.

So I started researching it. To facilitate comparisons among different demographics and gain objective perspectives, I invited a friend to experience it with me.

My friend and I are completely different people. I am a long-term running enthusiast; running is a part of my life, and there may be some "social factors," like wanting to maintain my figure, but more so, it is a habit.

My friend is a seasoned trader and a moderate gamer. There are two types of traders in the world: one is "directional betting," and the other is "arbitrage" (like market makers). He is an arbitrage trader, particularly fond of comparing prices across different markets, commonly known as someone who likes to "find free lunches" (take advantage), with an astonishingly sharp arbitrage instinct.

We both started experiencing it at the same time, but later our motivations and usage methods showed a huge difference.

To start this game, you first need to buy a pair of virtual running shoes. At that time, the cheapest ones were about 8 to 9 Sol (Solana tokens), meaning the entry cost was around 8,000 HKD. Each pair of shoes has a limited amount of energy (energy) each day; if you have a pair of shoes, the daily energy is only enough to run for about 10 minutes, meaning you can only earn money during those ten minutes when you have energy. Of course, you can buy more shoes to run for over an hour, which may require at least 30 pairs of shoes.

Once the energy is used up, if you want to keep running, you can only wear out the shoes without earning money; shoes need maintenance every day, which costs money; otherwise, the more they wear out, the less you earn from running. For example, if I have a pair of shoes and run for 10 minutes a day, then stop and turn off the app before continuing to run; I earn about 6 GST (the token used within the StepN app) daily, and I need to spend about half of that to repair the shoes.

There are many other game rules. For example, your shoes can produce "small shoes," can be upgraded, can open blind boxes, etc.; but all have costs—like upgrades require payment and also time to wait.

About two weeks later, my friend and I began to show interesting differences in our directions:

For me, since I run every day anyway, the act of "running" suddenly gained "value" and became something that could earn money, so running seven kilometers daily felt like a waste. I also thought, what if I lose my job and have no income? The approximately 160 HKD GST I earn from running daily could be exchanged for USDC at a cryptocurrency ATM in Causeway Bay, which might be enough for my daily meals.

So my motivation is: if I can use it for free, why not, with no pressure and no loss.

My friend, on the other hand, was completely different; StepN brought out his arbitrage nature. He spends a lot of time researching various arbitrage opportunities within StepN's rules—like the daily price fluctuations of GST (the token used in the app), GMT (the governance token), and SOL (Solana tokens), to determine the strategy that can yield the maximum value. For example, if the price of SOL drops, he will insist on running to earn more GST to exchange for USDC, then use USDC to buy SOL—essentially creating a cross-arbitrage. But if the price of GMT is higher, he will upgrade faster because the higher the level, the more GMT he can earn. He even created his own pricing model to find the intrinsic prices of GMT and GST.

So his motivation is: whether running or dancing, if it can earn money or arbitrage, it’s good exercise.

But our conclusion is the same: if one day there’s no money to be made, we might stop playing. It seems we are both running for the purpose of making money.

Will (17:44): The two types of users have spoken, and it also introduces a typical role within this ecological environment—the arbitrager, who studies how to obtain maximum value, even with a sense of challenge or "attack" on the economy, which is very interesting. I want to analyze it from my perspective.

When we previously discussed dissipative structures—the concepts of meme and structure—what we were analyzing was why DeFi projects could grow so quickly or have such high returns.

I think StepN is indeed a very typical project. Whether it’s called Web3.0 or a crypto project, it has relatively good designs on both the "meme" and "structure" levels. Let’s first talk about "meme." Projects like StepN belong to a relatively good type of meme model.

I summarized a concept called "Dual Meme Mechanism." Last time when we discussed memes, we didn’t specifically say what "meme" actually is. When discussing the Turkish example, we talked about how Erdogan relied on "doubling deposits" as a "pure structural" adjustment to stabilize the lira's value, which was meaningless; we joked that there should at least be a call for "the great revival of the Turkish nation"—that would be a reasonable meme to attract everyone to stay in the Turkish ecosystem.

In fact, a "meme" is a kind of "idea" that people can recognize. In reality, there are many memes, such as a nation's citizens, the "great revival of the nation" is a meme; "Chinese stomach" is also a kind of meme, which determines that you actually want to live on Chinese soil and are unwilling to go abroad. Such cognition is essentially a meme.

To create a project, it certainly needs at least one meme; that’s normal. If you have no memes, others cannot "recognize" your project.

However, a single meme might not be enough. Previous DeFi projects, like Olympus DAO that we discussed last time, have a typical characteristic: their memes are relatively "simple." What we can see is "can make money," and Olympus DAO even introduced Nash equilibrium to tell you that "not selling" earns more; if you sell, everyone is doomed. But it always revolves around "making money" or "losing money"—of course, making and losing money is undoubtedly a powerful meme.

So the vast majority of DeFi projects and crypto projects probably only revolve around this money-making meme. But that’s a bit too simplistic, and it can easily fall into the situation of "fast growth and fast collapse." When growth happens, it’s quick because of the money-making effect, but once that effect disappears, the collapse is also very fast—because there are no other memes to support it.

The ideal situation is, of course, to have a rich variety of memes; if you have 168 memes, even Sun Wukong can’t escape your grasp. But a person can usually only recognize three things at the same time—beyond that number, it becomes difficult to understand.

So I think a good project may need 2 or 3 memes; that might be the best state. One is too few, four is too many. Projects like StepN have at least two memes: the first, and most importantly, is still making money. I think at least in any project's initial stage, it is important.

As we discussed last time, if you create a running platform, initially it’s also about subsidies, being cheap, or being able to earn money; but you will soon find it hard to sustain, and you must come up with "another thing." What is this "another thing"? I think it should be a typical human psychology, which is "an extension of something that already exists."

You just mentioned this psychology: since I have to run every day anyway, I’m not putting in more effort to use it. I can earn some money while using it. People tend to think this way—if I have to do something and I’m not putting in extra effort, I will feel at ease and be willing to participate, reducing my resistance to participating in this matter.

This leads us to another concept we discussed—I call it "sense of security." "Sense of security" is actually a very powerful meme; it makes you feel that entering a certain matter will not cause harm or damage.

I think most StepN users think this way—since I have to run anyway, I’m not spending extra time on this. If I had to spend more time or waste energy on it, I would feel insecure because everyone knows that time and energy are precious. StepN does a good job of grasping an important point of the meme, allowing you to have no "extra cost."

Are there many things with this meme?

Actually, during the "ICO era" in 2018, many projects were also on this path. The stories they told often involved bringing blockchain into a certain industry, whether it was the restaurant industry or the clothing industry; almost every industry could be called "blockchain+" or "+blockchain."

In fact, "using blockchain to improve a certain industry"—this meme is relatively weak. But if you convert it to: in this industry or daily field, without needing to put in extra effort, I can give you an added possibility of earning money, these two memes can effectively connect.

The design of this meme is actually inherent in most Web3.0 or crypto projects; it’s just that people may not have actively designed it from the perspective of "meme stacking," resulting in poor effects.

StepN is clearly a project that has managed to combine these two concepts well after several iterations. Of course, this is also because it saw the direction of "exercise"—because "exercise" naturally aligns with the cognition of "no extra effort." Therefore, achieving "meme stacking" or "dual meme"—I believe this is very important for a project.

Xiaopao (26:24): After hearing Teacher Will's explanation, my impression of science students has changed a bit. I used to think that "creating new concepts" was a strong suit of liberal arts students, but now I feel that science students not only have strong conceptual creation abilities but also have great logic.

Teacher Will's "dual meme" and "meme stacking" concepts perfectly explain some of my long-held feelings: I have always felt that everyone calls everything a "meme," but are they really the same concept? Sometimes it represents something enduring, like culture or habits; but there are also some fleeting things, like cat memes, dog memes, and meme images circulating on social networks, which are also called memes. It feels like they are definitely not the same thing. Because the latter disappears quickly, while the former can last for thousands of years.

In fact, the entire crypto industry, from its inception to its current market performance, also aligns with the logic of "meme stacking." After so many cycles, halving cycles, the boom represented by ICOs, DeFi Summer, etc., each wave seems to be seen as a "meme."

But these memes are still relatively shallow. If you stretch the entire development curve of the crypto industry, it remains an upward line. What supports this line? I thought about it and felt that there is a strong "meme" or ideology that has not changed from the beginning—such as the yearning for freedom, autonomy, and the spirit of grassroots geeks. Every round may have new spokespersons, and these new spokespersons share such commonalities in their personalities and images.

Will (29:34): I agree with this point. Systems like Bitcoin and Ethereum, to some extent, do embody this "dual meme" model.

On one hand, the increase in coin prices brings about a wealth effect; on the other hand, they have their own ideologies. For example, Bitcoin's "assets are inviolable, asset freedom, or immunity from currency over-issuance"; Ethereum is "the computer of the virtual world, the infrastructure of computational finance"—this dual meme is a perfect combination.

From this perspective, they far surpass projects like StepN. The memes of StepN are a combination of "wealth effect" and "sense of security," while the dual memes of Bitcoin and Ethereum have even merged into one—your "wealth freedom, avoiding the impact of currency over-issuance" and "the increase in coin prices" are integrated; in fact, they are two sides of the same coin. Ethereum's characteristics—your "gas fee consumption" and "the cost of using computational infrastructure"—are also integrated.

Truly enduring or even great projects will definitely exhibit such characteristics. As for whether they are designed or spontaneous, we cannot say. But they will certainly reflect the characteristics of "multiple memes" perfectly stacked.

Xiaopao (31:37): Teacher Will referred to the foundational layer of "dual memes" as "sense of security." We also mentioned it in the episode on "Metaverse Sexual Harassment." "Sense of security" is a great description, but are there other angles to this type of meme?

For example, a "commonality" of humanity, an already existing "habit," "culture," or "belief"—or the result of a long accumulation of meme culture by humanity.

For instance, the human nature of "valuing freedom" may have started as a short-term, meme-like idea. But like the "selfish gene," it has developed selfishly (this "selfishness" carries no emotional connotation) over time without any design or manipulation, ultimately becoming the idea of valuing freedom.

Memes and genes are similar; certain behaviors or ideas gradually solidify over a long period, forming a "default" way of doing things. Running is also similar; the idea that "running is good for health" may have started as a "meme," a solidified thought. If we were to dissect it, whether running can actually make you healthier might still be uncertain. But it has already become a concept.

Will (33:22): Exactly. From the perspective of comparing it to genes, let me add one more point.

The human genome is vast. Humans have hands and legs, eyes and noses, all determined by different gene segments; the complexity of the human body is a typical dissipative structure.

From the perspective of a project, an economy, or social activities, there are indeed many memes, but it is difficult to achieve the same level of complexity as genes, which are determined by millions or billions of segments—because human cognition is hard to reach that scale. We cannot design something to have 5 million memes and expect everyone to recognize each one—this is where memes and genes differ significantly.

A good project, a good economy, or a social body should have 1 to 3 strong, easily recognizable memes. The rest of the work will probably have to be left to "structure."

Xiaopao (34:44): I recommend everyone to read Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" and Susan Blackmore's "The Meme Machine"—they essentially convey the same message: whether it’s genes or memes, they are both "selfish." But I think memes might be even more "selfish"—the so-called selfishness is not subject to anyone's will, cannot be designed, and is passed down in a natural way.

If we think from the perspective of memes, human thoughts are not created by ourselves, nor are they meant to serve us; we are rather the hosts of memes, which parasitize on us, and we are possessed by memes. So what kind of memes can be passed down cannot be designed by people.

Now that we’ve discussed the role of memes, can you analyze StepN from the perspective of "structure," Teacher Will?

Will (35:55): We have previously discussed that the complex structure of a dissipative body is an essential feature that reinforces positive feedback mechanisms. If there is no complex structure, it is indeed difficult to establish a positive feedback mechanism. But in reality, this statement only tells half the story; there should be another half.

If you want to avoid a dissipative structure from collapsing rapidly, you should have a "corresponding structure." It should actually be a kind of "negative feedback mechanism," which is somewhat opposite to the "positive feedback mechanism." Or the concept of "friction."

If the "positive feedback mechanism" is too strong, for example, if the money invested in StepN can be earned back in three days, I can run continuously for 24 hours; such a positive feedback mechanism is certainly strong. I could even optimize it further, for example, giving more money for the first hour of running, and even more for the second and third hours—if designed this way, the positive feedback mechanism would be even stronger.

But in reality, if you design it this way, the collapse will certainly happen in an instant—because everyone will rush to accumulate and then sell everything at once. The more people can obtain it, the greater the selling pressure, and it will become less valuable, leading to a faster collapse.

Thus, we see something interesting: many system designs, such as Bitcoin's four-year halving cycle and StepN's daily energy for each pair of shoes only being enough for 10 minutes of running—you will find that the logic of these mechanisms is reversed—you spend more time and effort, but you actually get less. This is clearly a "negative feedback mechanism."

This raises an interesting question: is our theory of dissipative structures flawed? Should complex structures have positive feedback mechanisms or negative feedback mechanisms?

In fact, I think it’s quite normal. What is the inherent characteristic of a dissipative structure? It must involve the exchange of matter and energy with the outside. So, when entering, "positive feedback" is certainly good, but when exiting, if it’s still "positive feedback," wouldn’t that be worse? In fact, every designer of a dissipative body (assuming structures can be designed) will definitely design such a structure—easy to enter, hard to exit.

Therefore, this complex structure must simultaneously reflect these two aspects: when entering, it is a "reinforcement" of the positive feedback mechanism; when exiting, it is a "weakening" of the positive feedback mechanism. This means there is an absolute rigid rule that allows one direction to move quickly while slowing down the other direction.

It sounds easy to understand, but it is very difficult to achieve in practice. Why?

A purely linear thing moves at one speed in one direction and must move at the same speed in the other direction. However, complex structures have different dimensions; some dimensions are used to enhance the speed of entry, while others are used to weaken the speed of exit.

If I simply want to make it "fast to enter, slow to exit"—it cannot be achieved with a rigid mathematical logic. The only thing I can do is to compromise. Let the "speed of entry" not be so fast. Otherwise, if a person can freely enter whenever they want, they can accumulate a large amount of energy within you over time.

If you allow it to exit in an instant, the system will collapse too quickly. In fact, the strategies we see that can be executed are all about balancing these two aspects. This is a very standard routine in the gaming industry, which we generally call "balance."

Just like the design of StepN, where you can only run for ten minutes a day, and then the energy is gone. In a day of 24 hours, you need to use various tricks to earn a large amount of GST—this design is a typical balance design that imposes limitations. This is the first point of our structural analysis.

But here comes the problem: if you don’t let it enter too quickly, that’s fine; after 10 minutes, I won’t consume anymore because I won’t earn anything, and I don’t want to incur costs, right? But if you don’t shut it down, your shoes will wear out. This logic is clearly unreasonable for consumers—why can’t I earn anything and still have wear and tear?

This is quite simple. Because the operation of this system structure has costs. Running requires GPS signals to come in, and you need to log your running data, which consumes backend computing power. If all the computing power is recorded on the blockchain, like on Ethereum, then every transaction requires gas fees, so recording also incurs costs.

Not recording on the blockchain but in a data center is the same; machines need to operate every day. For example, Tencent offers WeChat for free because it has other revenue sources; otherwise, it cannot hide the fact of "cost."

So, design cannot be viewed purely from the outside; everything has costs—this is a very important direction for future system development.

The Web2.0 and internet model of "the wool comes from the pig" actually conceals the "cost" of system operation—everyone thinks there are other revenue sources to subsidize their costs. However, models like the Ethereum blockchain rationalize "cost"—every operation has a cost, and you can see this cost; this is a more rational model. In fact, the development of Web3.0 should also move in this direction; every operation must have a cost, and you should know what the cost is, allowing you to decide whether to pay or not.

Returning to StepN, if you don’t want to incur costs anymore, that’s fine; you can turn it off; but turning it off means that the software will no longer take on functions like recording, etc. This is very important in the application structure of Web3.0 and cannot be ignored. If you make it a standard Web2.0 form and hide the costs, it will lead to an unsustainable system.

To summarize, a good "structure" will have these two major characteristics: first, it has both positive feedback mechanisms and negative feedback mechanisms. It cannot accelerate too quickly because it may lead to a rapid collapse. Second, the friction or costs of the system's internal operation must be made explicit so that all participants are aware of them.

Xiaopao (44:45): Very insightful. I feel that many of the questions below don’t need to be asked anymore.

We cannot control the development of "memes," but the structure can be designed more reasonably and intricately.

Positive feedback is actually an "acceleration." Positive feedback can be divided into "positive positive feedback" and "negative positive feedback"; positive positive feedback means getting faster and faster, while negative positive feedback means getting slower and slower. However, negative feedback should be a negatively correlated concept, a "pulling back" concept.

This makes me think that the logic of this structure also applies to the financial industry. For example, the "negative positive feedback" during a market crash; and the "balance" between business departments, risk control departments, and operational departments within banks. The risk control department acts as a "negative feedback" mechanism, pulling everything "backward," especially in good market conditions, where more friction should be applied to highly developed businesses. (Of course, the current financial system has significant flaws, and the negative feedback effect has become very small. This may also relate to human psychology—when the market is good, the party that should play a negative feedback role is often influenced by the business side and instead becomes a positive feedback booster.)

The best structure in the financial industry is still the balance of efficiency, cost, and risk—forming a stable triangle.

The same reasoning applies to the current predicament of the internet and Web2.0; perhaps the triangle is missing the "cost visibility" angle, leading to imbalances and unsustainable situations.

Will (47:53): These two characteristics are actually an "overall" characteristic. Projects like StepN have many intricate aspects in their structural design.

In fact, whether it’s crypto, Web3.0, or traditional financial markets or Web2.0 projects, they will gradually begin to merge because each has areas where they are not doing well.

For example, the early Web3.0 or crypto industry overly emphasized positive feedback mechanisms, resulting in countless myths of "10,000 times in a year" or even "100,000 times," while also leading to various collapses, causing traditional industry people to always be very skeptical about whether you are a scam. Projects like StepN, which likely have good intentions and want to keep playing, will actively design very clear negative feedback mechanisms, similar to risk control mechanisms—this is actually learning from traditional industries.

Traditional industries also take detours and wrong paths; they overly emphasize concealing costs. Not only in the internet sector but also in the financial industry. A simple example is that Chinese banks almost do not charge fees for transfers; only very large transfers might incur a small fee—this is actually a sign of not learning well. Operations require costs, and hiding the cost of transaction fees still uses superficial means to cover another purpose. I think this is not good; it should return to the balance of cost, risk, and return, which is the correct direction for development.

The current financial industry should reverse course and stop learning the internet's "the wool comes from the pig" tricks. The two worlds should converge for better development.

Xiaopao (51:13): A few days ago, a classmate in the group asked: Is this "earn while doing X" model really a Web3.0 product? Or is it still Web2.0, just trying to ride on the Web3.0 concept? Or is it attempting to change its financing method using the Web3.0 tokenomics model?

Will (53:21): This is a topic that can be continuously discussed. The main issue right now is that the definitions of Web2.0 and Web3.0 are not very precise. It is indeed impossible to accurately say whether a certain project belongs to Web2.0 or Web3.0.

Projects like "X to earn" or StepN not only include tokens in Web2.0. To put it bluntly, the point of contention is this—are you a new model, or are you just a project with tokens that can be financed and traded? I think to some extent, StepN is slightly different from other Web3.0 projects; its "token" factor is a bit larger.

There have actually been many projects like StepN in the past, but most have failed or disappeared. Some even did better, like a real pair of shoes with a chip implanted inside, connecting to a phone via Bluetooth, etc. Of course, that might also be a gimmick, or they only made prototype products without truly promoting them on a large scale. But from the perspective of "technological innovation," implanting chips in shoes sounds more technologically innovative compared to StepN's simple GPS step-counting capability.

I think without a precise definition of Web3.0, it can be summarized as a "degree" issue—what exactly qualifies as Web3.0? Is it about being more technically innovative in terms of technology, model, or underlying processes? Or is it more closely integrated with blockchain? Or does it make fuller use of some characteristics of smart contracts? Considering these angles may be more objective.

Xiaopao (56:42): I personally feel it might be a "gateway," an entry point into Web3.0. I think so far, it is just a means, not an end; or it is a door, window, or bridge to a new world, allowing me to enter this world. But what greater role it might have afterward, or whether its entire world is only about running, I think that’s still uncertain in my understanding.

This leads us to another huge "basket" we are preparing to discuss—the bridge to parallel worlds. Let's stop here for today and find an opportunity to discuss it next time.