|
|
If René Girard were alive today, he would likely smile affectionately at cryptocurrency. Not because of our technological advancements or our mission to provide banking services for the unbanked and liberate the internet from the grip of big corporations but because the participants in this great online game are proving Girard's theory. Girard coined the term "mimetic desire," and this desire, like a virus, spreads within the cryptocurrency industry.
Narrative consistency troubles cryptocurrency.
Brands and social media followers are built by telling people what they want to hear. A simple tweet like "ETH to 10,000" or LIWIFHAT will garner more attention from the Ethereum community than any new EIP. "DAO is the future of work," "Music NFTs are the record companies' terminator," "debanking" – it's not that we don't believe in what we say; it's that stating is easier than critically thinking about the meaning and flaws of what's stated. Once people hear new narratives like "consumer cryptocurrency," "Web3 social," "on-chain media," intentionality disappears.
This is largely due to the nature of social media, but it's not the only factor, and not the most crucial one. Competition validates the theory, but in a public, 24/7 operating ecosystem, debate propels us forward.
I believe the antidote to narrative consistency and the key to breakthrough innovation lies not only in competition but also in debate.
Cryptocurrency needs more debate.
The difference between competition and debate lies not only in the fight but in the public nature of the fight, which is often driven by community emotional conflicts. Debate isn't necessarily malicious, but it must be loud. Debate means conflicting interests in the game, whether social or financial. The probability of conviction is high; you may be publicly proven wrong, and people will spare no effort to do so.
Throughout history, cryptocurrency legends have been full of debates: BTC vs BCH, ETH vs ETC, Punks vs Apes, Uniswap vs Sushiswap... The examples are countless.
Let's take UNI/SUSHI as an example. Sushiswap was initially a fork of Uniswap, launching a vampire attack against Uniswap by incentivizing LPs with SUSHI tokens (remember the unique fair launch?). Sushiswap's daily trading volume even surpassed Uniswap at one point. Ultimately, Uniswap released UNI airdrop, helping Uniswap quickly regain its position as the top DEX and driving significant innovation in DEX. Vampire attacks led to intense public battles between and within communities (such as Sushiswap founder's token dump), but in hindsight, the ecosystem became more useful and mature.
Therefore, it can be said that the "secret of cryptocurrency debate" includes:
Progressive community action
Timing
Key players
Strong narratives and counter-narratives
Financial incentives
Recently, Solana's rebirth sparked intense conflict between the Ethereum and SOL communities. Obviously, different L1s will naturally compete, but the debate only arose when Solana started "winning" in various metrics. Ansem became a key figure in this debate, leading to some Ethereum influencers breaking away. However, this debate caused Ethereum builders and users to seriously reconsider their priorities, driving improvements in user experience at the chain and application levels.
More examples:
OpenSea and Blur are another good example. Blur introduced a token incentive mechanism encouraging placing orders and trading on the platform, combined with an excellent user experience, causing OpenSea's dominance in NFT trading on Ethereum to gradually decline. This battle also sparked widespread discussions on the importance and feasibility of NFT royalties. While Blur wasn't the first company to stop paying royalties to creators, they were undoubtedly the loudest and most successful, triggering extensive debate and community action.
Also, the Nouns vs. Nouns Fork sparked a debate, forcing the community to reassess how they should spend treasury funds and what the broader purpose of Nouns is. As a result, the community became stronger, not without intense public debates about the nature of "diffusion," and a significant amount of ETH left the DAO treasury.
A true debate doesn't exist without both sides and public struggles. For example, after the browser wallet was launched, Rainbow started using points as a way to attract and retain Metamask users, but the Metamask community remained indifferent.
I eagerly look forward to the unfolding of certain debated narratives and topics in the cryptocurrency field:
Narratives around on-chain economies, especially L2 economies.
The development of social feeds in Web3.
The process of attracting users through wallets.
Integration and evolution of music sources in Web3.
The dynamics of Web3 publications.
Cryptocurrency is a public domain, and although we are indeed "still early" in some aspects, it's not early enough to avoid competition and debate. The public domain can be a space for the toxic imitation desire or a space for beneficial debate, and we should choose the latter.
"We will all succeed" doesn't mean "we all must agree." If we choose the best path forward, we can succeed. May the best meme win. |
|
Post time 23-2-2024 04:24:48
