#BNB #Aster The BNB at that time was quite similar in certain strategies to the one starting now #Aster . After looking at the整理 by AI below, do you really think #Aster it is impossible to reach 200 dollars?

## Core Response

When BNB was still around 5 dollars, many people thought it was 'impossible' to reach 200 dollars, roughly for these reasons:

1. Think that a 40 times increase is too exaggerated, ignoring the extreme fluctuations of the bull market and the cryptocurrency space.

2. At that time, BNB was only seen as a 'exchange discount voucher', underestimating the future chain, ecosystem, and burning mechanism.

3. Uncertainty about Binance itself: competition, regulation, risk of being shut down, hacking, etc.

4. Using traditional market cap thinking, feeling that "why should a token of an exchange be worth so much?"

5. Human bias: Most people only see current emotions and do not believe in long-term compounding and network effects.

Below, I will elaborate on the common logic of that time, and where it makes sense and where it easily underestimates the potential for price increases.

---

## Common reasons and underlying logic

### 1. The intuitive rejection of "40 times is too exaggerated"

From $5 to $200 is about a 40 times increase.

For most people with traditional investment backgrounds, it is already very exaggerated for stocks to rise 3 times, let alone 40 times.

Many people's mindset at that time was:

1. "The crypto market has already risen a lot; it's unreasonable to expect another increase of 40 times."

2. "To rise another 40 times, there must be a massive influx of new capital; how is that possible?"

3. "I used to get stuck when I chased the highs; this time, I simply don't believe it."

The issue is that in a bull market, the crypto market often sees price movements of 10–100 times, and since funding is global, when liquidity concentrates on a few targets, the price increases can be very concentrated.

---

### 2. Only viewing BNB as "exchange discount coupons"

In the early days of BNB, many people only saw:

1. It is Binance's trading fee discount token.

2. The function seems very singular, lacking narratives like "public chains" and "DeFi ecosystems."

3. Believing that this type of "membership points" token has a ceiling.

So, common opposing voices are:

1. "At most, it's a loyalty program; how can it possibly be worth so much?"

2. "If Binance changes the discount rules in the future, BNB will lose value."

3. "It's just a platform token; during a bear market, this is the first to be cut."

The fact later was that Binance continuously elevated the role of BNB:

1. Develop Binance Chain/BNB Chain and turn it into the Gas for the entire public chain ecosystem.

2. Various activities like Launchpad, Launchpool, DeFi, GameFi, NFT, etc., are all tied to BNB.

3. Continuous burning (destroying) mechanisms lead to a relative contraction in supply.

In other words, what was underestimated early on was that "future uses will continuously be created."

---

### 3. Doubts about the survival of Binance as a company

BNB is highly tied to the fate of Binance. At that time, many were concerned:

1. Competition among new exchanges is fierce, and Binance may not survive a few years later.

2. Regulatory risks, such as changes in attitudes toward exchanges in China and Europe and the US.

3. Centralized exchanges have a history of being hacked; there is fear of events similar to Mt.Gox.

4. The founder and team's "human risk"—if something goes wrong, the price may drop to zero.

These concerns logically make sense, so many people conclude that:

1. "Such a highly centralized thing is not worth holding long-term."

2. "Instead of buying BNB, it's better to directly invest money in mainstream coins or Bitcoin."

Later, Binance continuously expanded in trading volume, market share, and product lines, which instead strengthened the narrative of BNB.

But at that time, not believing that Binance could sustain itself to that point was also a reasonable human choice.

---

### 4. Using traditional valuation frameworks to feel "unreasonable"

Many skeptics would calculate like this:

1. The market cap of $5 at that time was already considerable; how much would it need to increase to reach a market cap of $200?

2. "A token of an exchange valued at hundreds of billions of dollars sounds unreasonable."

3. Using stock valuation logic, it's hard to find a comparable target.

The problem is that the valuation framework for crypto assets is different from that of traditional stock markets:

1. Tokens simultaneously embody "equity feeling," "utility rights," "governance rights," and "narrative rights."

2. The entire industry is in an expansion phase, the total pie keeps getting larger, and the market cap ceiling is dynamic.

3. In a bull market, narratives accumulate, and the market is willing to give a high premium rather than a calm DCF.

So, those who thought it was "unreasonable" at that time were actually using a valuation framework that had not yet adapted to the extreme volatility and narrative-driven nature of the crypto space.

---

### 5. Psychological bias: People generally underestimate long-term compounding and network effects

There are also a few key "human factors":

1. Cognitive bias

People only look at the market conditions, FUD, regulatory news of the past month or two, and find it hard to imagine the situation in 2–4 years.

2. Hindsight bias

Only after prices rise will some people look back and say, "If I had known early on."

At present, most people can only see risks and cannot see the complete growth path.

3. The compounding of network effects

When a centralized exchange starts to snowball in terms of liquidity, listing speed, brand, and incubation ability, the initial growth may seem "ordinary," but later it can suddenly become very exaggerated.

Most people lack intuition about the latter half of this S-curve.

Simply put, when BNB was at $5, those who doubted it were not necessarily "stupid"; they just found it hard to believe a series of good things and expansions that later occurred based on the information and frameworks available at the time.

---

## Insights for you

If you are now looking at other relatively cheap coins, you can derive a few thinking points from this case:

1. Ask yourself: "Am I only seeing the current use, completely leaving no room for future possibilities?"

2. Are we assessing the "growth potential of the platform/ecosystem" or just fixating on short-term price fluctuations?

3. Imagine extreme scenarios in a bull market: "Has there ever been a situation in this industry where everything goes smoothly and the market cap inflates several times?"

Of course, being able to rise from $5 to $200 is indeed rare; most coins will drop to zero or fail, so this kind of thinking is more suitable for "filtering opportunities to become a minority" rather than random speculation.

---

Confidence: Medium, because the issues are biased towards historical emotions and behavioral psychology; we can only generalize from the common viewpoints and general market logic at the time rather than precise statistics.