Virtu, a top market maker on Wall Street, said: The greater the wear and tear in the transaction process, the smaller the amount of funds involved in the transaction.

In fact, this sentence was not said by Virtu, but by me.

By understanding many popular or outdated projects from the perspective of a market maker, it will be easy to understand the ceiling of products and even trends.

Let’s first talk about friend·tech, which was very popular but no one cares about it now.

Anyone who has played it knows that due to its abnormal pricing model, a single transaction has a great impact on the price of the character key. In addition to the 10% nominal transaction tax, an additional 12% hidden transaction tax is levied.

The real transaction tax of friend·tech is 22%.

Under such a trading model, it is impossible for large funds to participate in market making to smooth out the price noise in the system, thereby pushing the flywheel of the entire trading market into the next stage - the rise of "warlords" and the explosive expansion of overall funds.

There must be some smart people here who will say, if there is no big money to play, then why can the official friend·tech receive tens of thousands of ETH in transaction tax?

On December 2nd, the smart contract for friend·tech’s handling fee suddenly changed. He took out 7821 ETH and deposited it into Coinbase? The move comes at a time when Blast's TVL growth has been stagnant for a while. If it wasn't "supporting friendly merchants", could it be that the bookmakers themselves sold ETH away before it rose?

Many entrepreneurs are also betting on the social track. The term for high emotional intelligence is SocialFi.

Why did they all fail?

One of the very important reasons is that this false proposition track cannot attract big funds, that is, it cannot obtain real users, and it cannot support the team.

When we look at Bitcoin Inscription, you can see the same ceiling.

Except for those that have been listed on the top CEX, the trading volume of other inscription varieties is very poor compared to any copycat token on the centralized exchange.

It is also a matter of transaction friction.

Whether it is making inscriptions or receiving goods in the secondary market, the transaction wear is too great, so "warlords" with large funds cannot enter and promote the evolution of this market from "small-scale armed fighting" to "large-scale battles."

When this problem is solved, it will be the moment when the chip distribution narrative in#BtcSpringtakes on a bigger stage. In the "large-scale battle" that comes with the turning of the gears, one general will succeed and thousands of bones will die, and there is a high probability that retail investors will not be able to succeed. "A general" can only be "one ten thousandth bone".

The strong one is angry and draws his blade against the stronger one.

The weak are angry and draw their blades at the weaker.

Finally, it enters the third stage, where the strong unite, the weak cut each other off, scams abound, and the trend ends.