My understanding of Dogecoin (Doge) increasingly feels less like discussing 'a coin' and more like discussing a protocol temperament: it does not pursue sacred scarcity, does not pursue elitist thresholds, and does not even pursue a perfect narrative. It resembles a simple belief in the native culture of the internet — let more people in first, let it circulate first, and let value exchange become easy.
And if we really look to the distant future: when AI and robots gradually make 'production' cheaper, and when the marginal costs of energy and computing power continue to decline, we may be approaching a new social form: moving from 'scarcity-driven' to 'abundance-driven'.
Here's the question: in a more affluent and automated world, what exactly is the 'currency' we need?
1) The core contradiction of an infinitely abundant society: it's not about production, but about distribution and coordination.
Many people envision an abundant society and think it ends with 'everyone has what they need'. But the reality is more likely to be:
• Extremely high production efficiency (AI/robots)
• Materials are easier to obtain (energy, manufacturing)
• But distribution, collaboration, incentives, and order become more important.
When the production side of a system is automated to a 'very high' degree, the distribution side is the most likely to encounter problems: resources and opportunities concentrate in a few nodes, ultimately triggering systemic instability. Historically, many disasters were not due to a lack of 'things', but rather due to 'distribution fractures'.
Thus, what society truly needs in the future may be a value system that supports broader participation, higher-frequency collaboration, and smoother circulation.
2) Why I think Doge's 'inflation' deserves to be re-understood.
In the context of traditional finance, 'inflation = bad'. But in a continuously expanding network economy with new participants/new productivity joining, inflation can also be seen as a mechanism:
• It makes the system more like 'an open city', rather than 'a closed club'.
• It encourages circulation and use, rather than hoarding and freezing.
• It is more friendly to 'latecomers': you don't have to occupy a position early on to have a voice.
If in the future AI agents, robotic labor, and global users continuously flow into the same collaborative network, then a more open and circulation-focused value carrier may be more aligned with real-world needs.
3) Harmony between humans and AI requires a 'low-friction' collaborative economy.
I believe there will be a large number of 'micro-collaboration' scenarios in the future:
• Humans propose goals and value judgments.
• AI executes, retrieves, generates, and schedules.
• Humanity re-validates, iterates, and makes final choices.
• Value is settled between contributors (human/AI services/computing power/data/tools).
This will bring a new problem: transactions will become extremely fragmented.
It's not about big transactions like 'buying a house or a car', but countless small settlements: one task, one prompt optimization, one review, one material authorization, one model invocation.
In this economic form, a value carrier that is 'easier to use, transfer, and accept' may be more critical than 'extreme scarcity narrative'.
4) About TPS: don't treat L1 as the whole system capability.
Many debates get stuck on 'Doge L1 TPS is insufficient'. This is true, but it does not automatically imply 'there is no future'.
Large-scale systems are almost always hierarchical: the experience layer circulates frequently, while the settlement layer clears infrequently. If a super app-level payment gateway emerges in the future, it is more likely to play the role of 'experience layer + aggregation', rather than requiring every transaction to be squeezed onto L1.
What is truly worth discussing is not a number, but:
What kind of threat model, what level of decentralization, what usability and compliance boundaries do we want?
5) What does 'infinitely abundant society' look like in my eyes?
I prefer to imagine it as:
• Basic living costs continue to decline.
• A large amount of labor is replaced by automation.
• Human value shifts from 'repetitive labor' to 'creation, aesthetics, care, exploration, governance'.
• The relationship between humans and AI is more like 'symbiotic collaborative partners', rather than zero-sum competition.
In such a society, the most dangerous aspect is not that machines are too strong, but that distribution and participation mechanisms fail: only a few people can access resources and opportunities, while others are marginalized.
So my expectation for Doge is not 'how much it will rise', but rather: can it become a more inclusive entry point for collaborative culture—a network value language that encourages more people to participate, circulate, and co-build?
1. Do you think the AI era needs 'scarce assets' or 'circulation assets' more? Why?
2. Where do you think the greatest risks in the future will come from: technology, compliance, governance, or distribution structure?
3. If Doge is to carry the narrative of 'the shared future of humanity + AI', what is the piece of the puzzle it lacks the most?
(Pure discussion, not investment advice)
