I recently saw a tweet online about a participant’s feelings about the process of participating in the Bitcoin fractal network.
Regarding Fractal Network, I have shared my views in previous articles: the overall view is very general, so I did not participate. So I originally had no emotions about this project. But after reading this article, I can strongly feel a sense of loss and helplessness.
In this tweet, in addition to describing the development of the fractal network over the past few months, the author also described in detail the ups and downs of the four currencies SATS, PIZZA, FB and CAT20.
From the sentiment of the tweet, it can be seen that the author’s biggest concern is not the development of the Fractal Network itself, but the impact of the rise and fall of these four coins on himself and the community.
In my opinion, there are both external and internal reasons for the current price situation of these coins.
The external reasons are inseparable from the suppression of the overall environment.
In the latest round of adjustments, even Bitcoin fell from a high of nearly $75,000 to a low of less than $60,000. Under such circumstances, it is hard for me to imagine that any coin (except MEME, which is purely driven by sentiment) can stand out on its own.
Especially since all of the above coins are in the Bitcoin ecosystem, they will be more affected by the Bitcoin market - "When the nest is destroyed, how can the eggs remain intact?"
In my opinion, internal reasons are more critical.
I have shared my views on this point in previous articles and in the last online exchange:
In the absence of further application innovation in the Bitcoin ecosystem, the existing Bitcoin expansion facilities are sufficient if the only purpose is to support the current large number of applications that imitate Ethereum.
Instead of avoiding the main contradiction of application innovation, they keep inventing so-called "new" protocols, "new" terms, and "new" assets on the infrastructure. Moreover, these so-called "new" protocols are essentially not much better than existing protocols.
These things are not innovation at all, they are just "reinventing the wheel". It is meaningless. In my opinion, such work is useless, wasting manpower, energy, financial resources, and community enthusiasm.
Such useless work is not only useless but also harmful.
In the end, when many users find that they have wasted their precious Bitcoins and the tokens they have obtained are ultimately just a bunch of “useless” things, this will only drive more users away from this ecosystem.
Another consequence of this development is that it has exacerbated the speculative sentiment of users in the community.
In the follow-up comments to this tweet, some users asked questions such as "Will it be listed on the exchange?" and "Will the price be raised?" It can be seen that some users have placed their final hopes on the project party.
Once we pin our investment hopes on whether the project owner will pull up the price or take any action, it is almost certain that we are treating ourselves as the “fish” and the project owner as the “knife”.
In this situation, even if the project owner really "lists" and "pushes up the price", is it the project owner trying to save investors? I'm afraid there are more unfathomable situations, right?
At least so far, unless I come across a project that I particularly like or is particularly alternative, I have become completely aesthetically fatigued by this kind of so-called "innovation" that can be seen through at a glance.
I suggest that our readers pay more attention to holding on to the Bitcoin and Ethereum in their hands. If it is not a must-buy or a project that you like very much, you should be cautious when making a move.
