Recently, I came across a tweet online which expressed the participant’s feelings about the process of participating in the Bitcoin fractal network. Regarding the fractal network, I have previously shared my opinion in an article, and it was a rather neutral view, so I did not participate. Therefore, I initially had no emotional attachment to this project. However, after reading this article, I strongly felt a sense of disappointment and helplessness.
In this tweet, the author not only described the development of the fractal network over the past few months but also provided detailed descriptions of the fluctuations in the prices of four currencies: SATS, PIZZA, FB, and CAT20. Based on the emotional tone of the tweet, it is evident that the author’s main concern is not the development of the fractal network itself, but rather the impact of the price fluctuations of these four currencies on themselves and the community.
The reasons behind the price fluctuations of these currencies, in my opinion, can be attributed to both external and internal factors. The external factors are closely related to the overall market sentiment. In the recent market correction, even Bitcoin dropped from nearly $75,000 to below $60,000. In such a situation, it is difficult for me to imagine any currency (except for purely sentiment-driven meme coins) being able to establish an independent market trend.
Moreover, all of these currencies are part of the Bitcoin ecosystem, making them even more susceptible to the influence of Bitcoin’s market performance. As the saying goes, “When the nest is overturned, no egg remains intact.”
The internal factors, in my view, are more crucial. I have previously shared my viewpoint on this in earlier articles and online discussions: Without further innovative applications in the Bitcoin ecosystem, the existing Bitcoin infrastructure is already sufficient if the goal is simply to support a large number of Ethereum-like applications. By diverting attention from the main contradiction of application innovation and repeatedly inventing so-called “new” protocols, “new” terminologies, and “new” assets on the basis of the existing infrastructure, these efforts do not bring much improvement compared to the existing protocols. In fact, they are simply “reinventing the wheel” and are essentially meaningless. In my opinion, such work is not only useless but also harmful. Ultimately, when many users realize that they have wasted precious Bitcoin on a pile of tokens that turn out to be nothing more than “mediocre,” it will only drive more users away from this ecosystem.
This kind of development also has another consequence, which is the exacerbation of speculative sentiment among users in the community. In the comments section of this tweet, some users asked questions like “Will it be listed?” or “Will there be a price pump?” This indicates that some users have placed their last hope in the project team. When we rely on the project team to determine whether our investments will succeed or if there will be any actions taken, we are essentially treating ourselves as “sacrificial lambs” and the project team as the “butcher’s knife.” In such a situation, even if the project team does indeed “list” or create a price pump, it is doubtful whether they are truly rescuing investors or if there are deeper, unforeseeable circumstances at play.
At least so far, unless I come across a project that I particularly like or one that is truly unique, I am completely fatigued by these so-called “innovations” that can be seen through at a glance. I would advise our readers to pay more attention to holding onto their Bitcoin and Ethereum, and exercise caution when it comes to projects that are not essential and ones that they are overly enthusiastic about.
