Title: A Critical Analysis of Friendtech V2: Challenges and Unresolved Issues
Author: Crypto Veda, Crypto KOL
Source: X, @thecryptoskanda
In this article, I express my disagreement with the views presented by C. I firmly believe that Friendtech V2 is poised for a downward trend and that the current V2 is merely a cover-up for Paladin’s retreat, akin to the Dunkirk evacuation, into a three-tier framework. Friendtech (FT) combines the concepts of a mutual assistance pool for siphoning funds, a dividend pool for control, and a split pool for growth. In my previous analysis of the three-tier framework, I identified the following drawbacks of FT:
1. Stagnation in splits: Split pools based on the influence of KOLs have a limit to the number of splits that can be made. Once it nears the maximum CT population limit, it will stagnate.
2. Market beta change: New split pools offer higher returns, such as those for inscriptions, dogecoin, or pumping.
3. Leakage of existing capital: There is a lack of effective mechanisms to lock the selling pressure of keys through capital lock-up or sunk costs.
4. Expected collapse: This does not require further elaboration.
So, does the new version of FT address these issues? Not really!
1. Stagnation in splits: They have abandoned the use of keys and introduced Clubs, which bears some resemblance to Ubank’s transition to Nebulas. However, unlike Pump, which is based on memes, Club still relies on the influence of KOLs. The downfall of Club key due to the RugCoin community’s backlash is equivalent to the situation with keys. Hence, the speed of splits is likely to repeat the same mistakes.
2. Market beta: The situation has worsened as there are more split pools in the market than at the end of last year.
3. Leakage of existing capital: The problem is supposedly addressed by the introduction of a dual pool after the token launch. We all know what happened during the DeFi summer; I have previously mentioned in the mutual assistance pool that this does not solve the issue of orderly exits. Once the token price and Club trading volume decline, it will lead to a triple kill. The sunk costs and reinvestment costs that dividend pools should have will not be present.
4. Expectations: This is the only aspect that has temporarily improved. It can be said that being trapped for a long time breeds deep sentiment, and a solid community stems from the depths of being trapped.
In conclusion, the emergence of PumpFun and its underlying logic framework is a disaster of generational significance for FT. What FT is currently doing is essentially a subset of what Pump has already achieved. Pump solves the problem of FT assets being washed out after reaching a certain FDV with no subsequent liquidity support, by bridging the gap between pools, low liquidity AMM markets, and CEX trading liquidity. The downfall of FT in the future will certainly not be related to Farcaster but will undoubtedly have reasons associated with Pump.