The return of common sense in the crypto ecosystem: A cold reflection behind the meme coin craze

In a recent article, I quoted a tech blogger who commented on cryptocurrency ecosystem investors, suggesting that he believes most players in the crypto ecosystem lack even basic common sense and are purely gamblers.

The common sense emphasized by this blogger refers to some fundamental elements that must be considered in business investment, such as the necessity for a project to have a business model, in other words, it must be able to provide value, generate continuous profits, and create earnings.

Applying this understanding to the crypto ecosystem means that, aside from assets considered similar to Bitcoin, other projects should also consider their business models.

When I first heard this statement, I felt a bit resistant.

Because over the past few years, at least for myself, I haven't paid much attention to the "business models" of the projects I participated in. What I mainly focused on was the so-called "grand narrative."

Using this approach, I still managed to make money over the years. Why?

Looking back now, I think it was mostly luck.

Duan Yongping once commented on a case.

In that case, a player was flamboyantly making things work, spouting various glamorous terms. Duan Yongping said that this player must have made quite a bit of money using this method in the past.

After reading this comment, I felt a chill run down my back.

To continue participating in the investment market, it's impossible to rely on flashy tactics and jargon for the long term; one must return to the common sense of investing and the essence of investment.

Duan Yongping provided a very intuitive description of Buffett's investments and venture capital:

Buffett's capital is very large, so his targets are all large companies. For smaller companies, even if he finds them, he often cannot invest because these companies cannot accommodate the amount of capital he wishes to invest heavily.

For small investors, however, they can seek opportunities in more small companies in the market, which will yield returns far better than those of large companies; this is venture capital.

Although these two investment methods are different, the companies they seek are essentially the same; they both look for companies that can continuously generate value, with good business models, good corporate cultures, and good prices.

Coincidentally, in the past few days, I watched an interview with Zhu Xiaohu, where he particularly emphasized that the companies he invests in must be commercializable and that commercialization must be sustainable.

These are all the essence of business.

In his interview, he mentioned a very hot "little dragon" that he believes is likely to go public on the Sci-Tech Innovation Board and perform very well in the current environment.

However, he still prefers companies with good fundamentals.

In the crypto ecosystem, there are countless "little dragons" like this. They have grand narratives, align well with the current trends people are chasing, and fit the buzzwords being discussed. We know that once they are listed, their token prices will experience a wave of excitement. We understand that whoever can grab the tokens first can make money from this wave of enthusiasm.

Surrounding this idea, guessing market sentiment, analyzing on-chain data, exploring insider information, and going long or short naturally became a series of subsequent operations.

However, their business models and whether they can be sustained are hardly discussed, let alone explored in depth.

Grand narratives can be imagined, and great stories can be told, but narratives and stories ultimately depend on whether they can be transformed into feasible business models. Otherwise, relying solely on storytelling is destined to be unsustainable, inevitably leading to a scene of chaos after the excitement.