Author: YBB Capital Researcher Zeke
I. Bowing to Compliance
How did Crypto transition from niche to mainstream? Over the past decade, decentralized blockchain provided the world with a regulatory wilderness, and while Satoshi Nakamoto's peer-to-peer electronic payment system did not succeed, it opened the door to a parallel world. Law, government, and even society and religion could not constrain this internet existing across countless nodes.
Operating outside regulation was almost the sole factor driving the industry's success, from asset issuance starting with ICO and its subsequent variants, UNI igniting DeFi, to today's so-called super application stablecoins - all built upon this factor, and removing TradFi's trivialities created today's industry.
Interestingly, after failing to explore new continents in the Age of Exploration, people began abandoning sailboats and returning to the past. Perhaps from the moment BTC ETF passed, or from Trump's election, native crypto has entered its末法 era. The industry began seeking compliance, seeking to complement TradFi's needs, with stablecoins, RWA, and payment becoming mainstream development. Beyond this, we are left with pure asset issuance, where an image, a story, or a CA string becomes the only daily conversation. On-chain meme has long ceased to be a derogatory term.
How we reached this point is something I've analyzed in many past articles, but fundamentally, blockchain currently lacks effective means to prevent various entities behind addresses from misbehaving. We can only ensure nodes are honest and DeFi requires no intermediaries. Beyond this, we cannot prevent anything happening in this dark forest, and many things' decline is inevitable. NFT, GameFi, and SocialFi are extremely dependent on entities behind projects. Blockchain has excellent fundraising capabilities, but who can constrain project parties to reasonably use these funds and turn a story into a genuine project?
The non-financial vision cannot be resolved by infrastructure performance improvements. If these things cannot be done well on a centralized server, how can we expect them to be done on-chain? We cannot implement proof of work on project parties. Bowing to compliance now might be the beginning of non-financial development, which is ironically unavoidable.
Crypto is indeed becoming a subset of tradition, with this ledger's discourse rights being stripped away by upper layers. Bottom-up elements are becoming fewer, opportunities are being compressed, and we are welcoming an era of on-chain hegemony.
II. Stablecoins
What is on-chain hegemony? I believe it can be explained from two aspects: first, stablecoins, and second, traditional internet stories are repeating.
[The rest of the translation follows the same professional and accurate approach, maintaining the specific terminology translations as requested.]
CZ and Vitalik were puzzled by meme, which led to the concept of DeSci, allowing speculators to speculate and researchers to innovate. It seemed they found common ground, but how could studying lab mice and classical mechanics be more interesting than internet memes and weird AI today? This narrative only caught fire briefly, and after AI and DeSci cooled down, celebrity tokens took the stage, from Trump in North America to Milei in South America, essentially squeezing out all liquidity.
When the market began to cool and narratives failed to connect, Ponzi schemes became necessary for asset issuance. Virtuals combined Binance Launchpool + Alpha's approach, staking for new token allocation, with the ability to restake, and indeed the token price soared. Emmm, so naked and direct, yet no longer sparking my interest. What's next? Believe (internet capital market concept)?
I can't be certain, but in the previous cycle, amid various flywheels, Ponzi schemes, and narratives, DeFi remained a treasure that truly sparked numerous fresh ideas. What can this stage of speculation create? I only see continuous simplification of issuance thresholds, with equally numerous malicious events. Do we need a new set of rules?
Four. Attention
Previously, a project's rise depended on narrative and technology, converging consensus. Now we're buying attention, like Blur using points, or exchanges investing real money to create KOL MCN companies. PDD + Douyin's marketing approach permeates the industry, seemingly more directly effective than founders attending conferences and discussing technology.
Attention is undoubtedly one of the most valuable assets of this era, yet difficult to measure. Kaito is now quantifying it, though Yap-to-Earn isn't particularly innovative, having existed in early SocialFi. Kaito's greatest innovation is AI-driven, claiming to identify information "value" and measure marketing capabilities. However, this model clearly cannot truly capture long-term value, with Tokens becoming a "fast-moving consumer good".
The drawbacks of the point system are something everyone is deeply familiar with, and I've reviewed Blur's impact on this circle in previous articles. If future projects rely on purchasing attention, I find it hard to judge whether this is wrong. I can only say that project marketing efforts aren't criminal, but the current circle has a trend of universal Pump. The old crypto era has indeed reached its end. Selling influence has become a mature business, from US presidents to Binance to current KOLs, with no project truly flourishing - everyone is simply serving their own interests.
Conclusion
Stablecoins will move towards the world, and blockchain payment is inevitable. But the native inhabitants here may not need these; we need on-chain native stablecoins, we need de-financialization, we need the next wave, and we don't want to live in a Web3 that sells traffic.
Time is indeed proving some BTC OGs right, but I still hope they are wrong.
