Shehryar Shah g

Every crypto cycle feels like a replay with a different theme. First it was DeFi, then NFTs, then the metaverse, and now everything suddenly has AI attached to it. Honestly, after watching this industry for years, it's hard to get excited every time a new project claims it's building the future. Most don't. Many disappear long before they deliver anything meaningful.
That's why I approached Newton Protocol with a healthy amount of skepticism. The AI label immediately made me cautious because it's become one of the biggest buzzwords in crypto. Too often, projects use AI because it sounds good, not because it actually solves a problem.
But if you look past the marketing, there is a real issue worth talking about.
Crypto is becoming more automated every year. Trading bots already dominate many markets, and AI-driven strategies are becoming more common. The challenge isn't just making automation smarter. It's making it trustworthy. If software is making decisions with your money, you should probably know how much confidence you can place in it.
That seems to be the problem Newton Protocol is trying to address. Instead of chasing flashy narratives, it's focused on building infrastructure around AI-powered strategies. Let's be real, infrastructure isn't exciting. It won't generate endless hype on social media, but boring systems often end up being the foundation everything else depends on.
Still, having a good idea doesn't guarantee success.
Crypto is full of technically impressive projects that never found enough users. Adoption is usually the hardest part. Developers need a reason to build, users need a reason to stay, and both are difficult in an industry where attention shifts every few months.
The AI side also raises questions. AI tools are improving quickly, but they're far from perfect. They still make mistakes, misunderstand situations, and sometimes produce confident answers that simply aren't correct. That's the part that worries me. Trusting automated financial decisions isn't something most people will do without hesitation.
Then there's the NEWT token itself. I always wonder whether a protocol truly needs another token or if it's simply following the usual crypto playbook. Maybe it has a meaningful role, maybe it doesn't. Time usually answers that better than any roadmap.
In the end, I don't see Newton Protocol as something to blindly hype or ignore. I see a project trying to solve a genuine problem in a market that often rewards narratives more than utility. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't. After enough time in crypto, cautious curiosity feels a lot more reasonable than unquestioned optimism.
@NewtonProtocol #Newt $NEWT

Honestly, I’m getting tired of seeing one blockchain project after another claiming to solve the “AI” problem. First it was DeFi apps, then layer-2s, now it’s AI-driven trading. The latest is Newton Protocol (NEWT), billed as a “secure rollup for AI-driven strategies, automated trading systems, and a marketplace for AI developers.” Okay, sure – just what we needed, another crypto buzzword combo. After years of crypto cycles, hype, and letdowns, I can’t help but roll my eyes a bit. Every wave comes with a thousand new tokens and grand promises: faster this, smarter that, all backed by AI in the pitch. Yet after the dust settles, most of them quietly fizzle out. Let’s be real: we’ve been down this road before. Remember all those “Ethereum killers”? Or the endless parade of on-chain bots promising to make us rich?
That said, I’ll admit the pitch here does sound *somewhat* reasonable in theory. Newton isn’t bragging about some magic new AI oracle – it’s focused on *trusting* AI agents, not making them geniuses. Essentially, they say they want to act as a guardrail or compliance layer on top of automated trading. The idea is that instead of giving an AI bot your private keys to trade on your behalf, you give it *very limited permissions* enforced by a blockchain rollup. They call it a “Keystore rollup,” a special layer that holds revocable session keys and rules for what an agent can and can’t do. In practice, a user could pick an agent (think: a smart contract or strategy model), grant it narrowly scoped rights (like “trade only up to $X when conditions Y,” etc.), and submit an “intent” for the trade. The Newton network – running its own validators – would then verify the intent against those permissions and ensure the agent behaves exactly as authorized. If the agent tried to do something out of bounds, the transaction would simply be blocked.
On paper, that *does* sound like a real problem worth solving. I mean, do we really want to hand over our crypto keys to some black-box agent and hope for the best? After catastrophes like FTX, blind trust in a system feels riskier than ever. People are starting to ask simple questions: *How do we know the bot is really doing what it says? Who’s in control of the funds?* Newton leans into that. As one analyst noted, they’re not trying to make a *smarter* AI, but a more *verifiable* one. They argue that it’s easier to trust a machine if there’s an on-chain record of its rules and checks. Even Binance’s commentary put it bluntly: Newton is “asking a more practical question” – not how to supercharge AI intelligence, but how to prove an agent is executing as claimed. That does hit home in the sense that trust is indeed a glaring issue with automated trading. So yes, the problem statement *feels* real: transparency and accountability in AI-driven finance.
But here’s where I start getting skeptical. Does Newton *really* solve trust, or just rebrand a bunch of moving parts? They say they’re built by Magic Labs, folks known for wallets, and that the system lives on Ethereum (it’s actually an EigenLayer AVS-based rollup). They’ve got a playbook: a network of validators (dPoS style) will rest on Ethereum’s security, and you stake NEWT tokens to become a validator or to secure an agent. Every transaction (or “intent”) costs a fee in NEWT. They even plan to slap slashing on wayward agent operators – if your AI bot misbehaves, some of your staked NEWT gets confiscated. Sound nice, but it’s a lot of moving pieces to actually trust. Validators? Who runs those? If it’s a permissioned set, is this really decentralized? Agents with slashed collateral? Who judges their behavior and how fast? It’s one thing to say “we’ll punish bad actors with slashing,” but the devil’s in the details. Plus, if things do go sideways, dishing out blame on an autonomous code is tricky.
Even more, is *anyone* actually clamoring for this system? Newton’s whitepaper and docs make it out like a missing bridge – trillions waiting to flow on-chain but no one’s authorizing it properly. They talk about compliance (KYC, sanctions checks, spend limits) and even have use cases for real-world assets, vaults, stablecoins and “agentic commerce”. The stuff about agents appears more in blog updates, but on their docs site you’ll see headlines like “AI Agent Commerce” with compliance guardrails. It seems they’re doubling as a general transaction filter (identity, limits, etc.) plus a layer for safe bots. I get that this all sounds institution-ready, like selling to Big Finance (“we handle MiCA, Travel Rule, you name it” type talk). But let’s be honest: most of that is repeat of what we’ve heard ad nauseam. *“We’ll fix compliance!”* *“We have an on-chain KYC layer!”* Meanwhile, no big bank has really adopted any of these onchain compliance tools yet. They keep it simpler: private chains or just stick to regulated venues.
And from a trader’s point of view, how many of us even *want* an on-chain compliance layer? If I want to trade, I just want good execution and maybe a KYC’d exchange if regulators demand it. I’m not knocking regulated finance, but it feels like Newton is pitching to an audience that may not exist. To be fair, some in the community do acknowledge the niche. Even an independent author on Binance Square said Newton *could* become infrastructure for automated markets if AI agents take off, but he cautioned it needs "execution, adoption, and real liquidity" first. Exactly. Without actual use-cases live and people staking and trading through it, it’s just a hypothetical trust-machine.
Now, about that NEWT token. We seasoned crypto folks know the drill: any new chain or rollup launches its own coin. Here, NEWT is the lifeblood – you stake it, pay fees in it, and use it as collateral for those agents. Total supply is 1 billion, with 215M (21.5%) in circulation initially. Sixty percent of the supply is supposedly for community incentives and rewards, 40% for insiders (team, investors). Sounds familiar, right? A nice split of “community vs core.” They even airdropped some (10%) to kick things off. A tip of the hat: they say those internal tokens have long vesting – 3 years with a 1-year cliff. Good on them if true, it means the team theoretically can’t dump everything on Day One.
But still – tokens. I’m always wary when the token’s utility hinges on the network reaching critical mass. They promise uses for everything: gas fees, staking rewards, governance votes, and even justifying why an agent developer might sell you their bot (they stake NEWT, get paid or slashed). It’s a lot of hoop-jumping. Until there are real bots performing trades and folks actively staking, NEWT is mostly an “if” play. The market reflects that skepticism: Newton hit an all-time high at launch (around $0.76 on day one) and promptly lost more than 90% of its value within months. Classic pattern: lofty “future of AI trading” talk pumps the price, then reality (or crypto bear season) sets in and it crashes back down. Now it’s sitting near like $0.06–0.07 range, not inspiring a lot of confidence.
There’s also the investor angle: they’ve pulled in big names (PayPal Ventures, Polygon, DCG, etc. are said to have backed them). And they listed on Binance’s early-launch platform, then Upbit and Bithumb. Of course that drew eyes (and the price briefly). But listing alone doesn’t mean adoption. And as one Binance Square piece noted, even having strong backers, the “lackluster performance” on a big exchange could be a challenge for Newton. In other words: maybe the hype wave is fading.
Then there’s this “marketplace for AI devs” thing. Again, on paper, cool: imagine plugging into a bazaar of smart trading bots. But let’s be brutally honest: marketplaces in crypto are dime a dozen. Most flop, or turn into ghost towns. I recall a Binance commentator warning exactly this – you can build a marketplace, but if all it fills up with is flashy demos and hype, people will try them once and never return. He said “marketplaces live and die by quality”. Newton needs devs to build *actually useful* agents and then convince users to trust them. Otherwise it’s just a directory of code no one uses. And rewarding reliability is easier said than done. My gut: even if the marketplace launches, getting it to meaningful scale is a Herculean task.
Let’s touch on the “AI” part directly. People probably assume smart contracts plus ML equals wealth, but we’ve seen how algorithms can blow up when the market goes sideways. Bots can trade faster, sure, but they also *assume* patterns. When volatility spikes or black-swan events hit, even seasoned humans get caught. Now put an AI in the mix. The Newton team argues that their system would enforce spending caps, stop me if my agent tries a crazy trade, etc. A noble aim. Yet any guardrail is only as good as the worst flaw in its logic. If your agent’s strategy is fundamentally broken or relies on a bogus oracle, does Newton catch that? Maybe not, at least not without sophisticated “policy packs.” I wonder: if a rogue agent executes a trade and things go bust, does the Newton network have time to slash the operator mid-transaction? Probably not – it seems to vet *before* execution. Once onchain, the trade probably settles. “Trust-minimized environment” sounds great, but I’m left thinking about edge cases.
So after parsing all this, where do I stand? I’m cautiously curious but lean toward “meh.” The underlying problem – trusting automated strategies – is valid. The so-called solution – a blockchain layer enforcing rules – is technically interesting. Yet, I’ve seen enough protocols proclaim they’ll “change the game” only to quietly fizzle out due to lack of users or hidden complexity. Newton has some leg up (big backers, the trendy AI angle, and a homegrown tech stack), but execution is everything. For now it’s a lot of promises. Their docs and blog talk endlessly about enforcement, policies, institutional use, etc., but how many real use cases are live? They just announced a mainnet beta on Base and Ethereum this June – fine, but beta usually means mostly developers poking around, not mass usage.
We should also question adoption: who actually needs on-chain agents? A handful of hedge funds? And what about regulators? If this “authorization layer” ever had to deal with actual government pressure or legal fiat, I wonder how adaptable it really is. Or do we end up with on-chain KYC? The road is muddy.
Looking ahead – maybe I’ll use Newton someday, maybe not. I admire that they’re focusing on trust rather than hype about “superintelligence.” One Binance writer even put it nicely: if Newton succeeds, users won’t think about the infrastructure at all – it’ll just work in the background. That’s a sound vision. But *word* is cheap. The blueprint isn’t novel – it’s the same ingredients (Ethereum finality, a validator set, a token, some smart contracts, plus a policy language) tossed together with an AI spin. Whether they knit together smoothly remains to be seen.
The part that worries me? It’s the usual CRUDY crypto recipe: hype pushes token price, speculators pump it, then it crashes. Meanwhile, genuine integration and security work slow and get overlooked. Maybe Newton works, maybe it doesn’t. Maybe in five years smart contracts really *will* enforce KYC limits and agents become retail tools – maybe we’ll all chuckle about how smart we were to invest. Or maybe Newton Protocol will be another ambitious project that quietly moves onto the “seen-it-all” stack of forgotten launches.
I’m not saying it’s a scam – not at all. The team looks competent, the tech has merit, and the token is just one facet of a bigger system they want to run. But after seeing cycles come and go, I’m skeptical until there’s traction. No token is needed just to exist. No AI platform is inherently safe unless people actually build on it and test it in the real world.
Bottom line: I’ll be watching Newton, but with my guard up. It ticks some boxes – decentralized compliance, novel agent framework – but makes me ask as an investor, “Yeah, but can it deliver when it matters?” That’s the $NEWT question. Maybe in time it will earn trust through steadiness (boring and reliable, as their own cheerleaders say); maybe it’ll be another shiny layer-2 whose luster wears off. For now, I’ll sip my coffee, *maybe* try a demo wallet (even Newton’s docs suggest a 5-minute quickstart), and wait to see if real traders and devs actually flock to it or just shrug and move on. In crypto, this is how it always goes: keep an eye out, stay skeptical, and remember that hype rarely translates to success.
**Sources:** Newton’s own docs and whitepaper describe it as a decentralized on-chain authorization layer (policy engine) for transactions. The tokenomics (1B supply, 21.5% initial float, 60/40 community/internal split) and staking model (dPoS validators, gas fees, collateral, governance) are laid out in reports. Industry write-ups note that Newton aims to add a trust layer for AI agents in DeFi, but caution that execution and market liquidity are still pending. These points – plus actual launch news – are all drawn from project announcements and analysis pieces.
@NewtonProtocol #Newt $NEWT

Honestly, after spending years watching crypto go through the same emotional roller coaster over and over again, it gets harder to believe every new story. One cycle it's DeFi, then NFTs, then metaverse projects, then meme coins, and now apparently everything has AI attached to it. Every few months there's another token promising to change everything, another influencer calling something the future, and another community acting like history suddenly stopped existing. Let's be real, we've seen this movie enough times to know that most of the excitement disappears long before the product actually proves itself.
That's probably why Newton Protocol caught my attention in a strange way. Not because it looked flashy, but because it didn't. It is trying to build infrastructure around AI-driven automation and on-chain strategies, and infrastructure has never been the glamorous side of crypto. It's usually the boring stuff that people ignore until they suddenly realize they needed it all along. Whether Newton ends up becoming one of those projects is another question entirely.
The problem they're trying to address is real, though. If AI is going to handle financial decisions, execute trades, or interact with blockchains without constant human approval, there has to be some way of making those actions predictable and accountable. Blind trust has never worked well in crypto. We've already watched too many protocols fail because people assumed code, automation, or incentives would magically solve human problems. They usually don't.
The AI part is where I become cautious. Every company today seems to believe adding two letters to their pitch instantly makes them more valuable. AI is powerful, but it's also unpredictable. That's the part that worries me. Giving software more responsibility sounds exciting until it makes a decision nobody expected. Maybe the safeguards work. Maybe they don't. Until systems face real users with real money on the line, nobody truly knows how reliable they are.
Then there's the token, NEWT. I always ask the same question whenever another project launches one. Does it genuinely need a token, or is the token simply expected because that's how crypto fundraising has worked for years? Sometimes tokens have an obvious purpose. Other times they feel like an extra layer wrapped around a product that might function perfectly well without one. I don't know where NEWT will eventually fall on that spectrum, and I think it's healthy to admit that instead of pretending every token has unquestionable value.
Adoption is another thing people often gloss over. Building technology is difficult, but convincing developers, businesses, and users to change their habits is even harder. Crypto has produced plenty of technically impressive projects that barely anyone uses. That's a reality this industry rarely likes talking about because adoption doesn't happen through hype alone.
Maybe that's why I find Newton Protocol interesting without feeling excited about it. It isn't selling a fantasy about replacing the financial system overnight. It's trying to solve a practical problem that could become increasingly important if AI continues becoming part of crypto infrastructure. That doesn't guarantee success, and honestly, nothing in this industry does.
I've been around long enough to know that good ideas can fail just as easily as bad ones somehow become billion-dollar narratives. Maybe Newton Protocol works, maybe it doesn't. For now, it simply feels like one of those projects worth watching from a distance rather than celebrating too early, and after everything crypto has taught me over the years, that feels like the most reasonable position to take.
@NewtonProtocol #Newt $NEWT

I've been around crypto long enough to know that every cycle comes with a new story everyone suddenly believes in. A few years ago it was DeFi, then NFTs, then metaverse projects, then real-world assets, and now it's AI. Every week another token claims it's building the future, and every influencer somehow sounds completely certain that this one is different. Honestly, it gets exhausting after a while. The marketing changes, the logos get cleaner, the buzzwords become more complicated, but the pattern rarely does. Most projects promise far more than they ever deliver, and the people shouting the loudest usually disappear when the excitement fades.
That mindset is exactly why I looked at Newton Protocol with a healthy amount of skepticism. The moment I saw AI mentioned alongside crypto infrastructure, my first reaction wasn't excitement. It was another quiet sigh. AI has become the easiest label to attach to almost anything because people immediately pay attention. Sometimes the technology deserves it, but other times it feels like nothing more than a fresh coat of paint on an old idea.
Still, after looking beyond the marketing language, I think Newton Protocol is at least pointing toward a problem that actually exists. As more people talk about AI agents making trading decisions or managing digital assets, the obvious question becomes who or what can actually be trusted. AI is impressive, but it also makes mistakes. It misunderstands context, produces confident answers that can be completely wrong, and doesn't always know when it should stop. Letting software move money automatically without proper safeguards feels like asking for trouble.
That's where Newton Protocol becomes more interesting than it first appears. Instead of focusing only on smarter AI, it seems more concerned with making automated actions safer. That isn't the most exciting thing to build, but infrastructure rarely is. Nobody gets excited about guardrails until they realize why they needed them. Crypto has spent years chasing speed and automation while security often became an afterthought. Maybe slowing down to build better foundations isn't such a bad idea.
At the same time, let's be real. Good ideas are everywhere in crypto. Successful adoption is much harder. Building technology is one challenge, convincing developers, traders, and businesses to actually rely on it is something completely different. History is full of technically impressive projects that never found enough users to justify their existence. That's the part that worries me more than the technology itself.
Then there's the token. Every crypto project eventually reaches the point where people ask the uncomfortable question: does this really need its own token? Sometimes the answer is obvious. Other times it feels like the token exists because that's simply how crypto projects raise attention and funding. I don't know yet where NEWT fits. Maybe it becomes an important part of the ecosystem, or maybe it ends up being just another asset that people trade without ever using the network behind it.
Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't. That's honestly where I land. Newton Protocol isn't solving an imaginary problem, and I appreciate that. Trusting AI with financial decisions is going to require better infrastructure, whether people like talking about infrastructure or not. But crypto has taught me to separate interesting ideas from real adoption. The gap between those two things is much bigger than people like to admit. For now, Newton Protocol feels less like something to celebrate and more like something quietly worth watching. That's enough for me, at least until the hype fades and the real work begins.
@NewtonProtocol $NEWT #Newt

正直、もう疲れました。数カ月おきに、新しいバズワードが出てきて、あらゆる問題を解決できると謳うんです。最初はDeFi、次はNFT、そして今は**AI駆動のDeFi**——同じ話で、包装が新しくなっただけ。Newton Protocol（$NEWT ）は最新の目玉商品です。AIトレーディングボットとオンチェーンのポリシー執行のための「セキュアなロールアップ」であり、「すべての暗号取引のための認可レイヤー」だとされています。マーケティングは洗練されています。TEEs、ZKプルーフ、コンプライアンス、機関向けのガードレール、さらにMagic Labsを通じた数百万ウォレットとの連携まで。ですが、率直に言うと、*これだけ*「次の大きなもの」を繰り返された後では、私のシニカルなアンテナが立ちっぱなしなんです。

Honestly, I don't know how many more crypto narratives I'm supposed to get excited about. After being around for a few market cycles, everything starts looking familiar. Every year there's a new trend that suddenly becomes the answer to every problem. First it was DeFi. Then NFTs. Then metaverse projects that promised digital worlds most people never visited twice. Now it's AI. Apparently every project has AI now, every founder is talking about autonomous agents, and every influencer somehow knew it was the future before everyone else. I've watched this movie enough times that it's hard to react with anything other than a tired shrug.
That's probably the biggest problem for projects launching today. Even if someone is building something genuinely useful, they're entering a market where trust has already been burned too many times. Crypto isn't short on ideas. It's short on patience. People have been promised financial revolutions, internet revolutions, gaming revolutions, and social revolutions. Some ideas worked. Most didn't. The hype always arrived much earlier than the actual product.
That's why Newton Protocol caught my attention, although probably not for the reasons its supporters would like. I wasn't looking for another AI token. I was actually wondering whether anyone was trying to solve one of the quieter problems that has been sitting in crypto for years. Automation sounds great until it controls your wallet. AI sounds impressive until it makes decisions involving your money. Then suddenly trust becomes a much bigger issue than intelligence.
From what I understand, Newton Protocol is trying to build infrastructure that allows AI-driven strategies and automated actions to happen under predefined rules instead of giving unlimited authority to software. On paper, that sounds reasonable. Maybe even necessary. If crypto keeps moving toward automation, then someone eventually has to figure out how people stay in control without manually approving every single action. That isn't the most exciting problem in crypto, but sometimes the boring problems are the ones worth solving.
Still, let's be real. Good ideas don't automatically become successful projects. Crypto history is full of technically smart teams that disappeared because nobody actually used what they built. That's the part people forget. Building infrastructure is rarely glamorous. Nobody tweets about secure authorization systems with the same excitement they reserve for meme coins doing ten times overnight. Infrastructure usually matters only after something breaks.
The AI part is where I become much more cautious. Maybe I'm just getting older in crypto years, but I've stopped believing that adding AI automatically makes something better. AI can process information quickly, but that doesn't mean I want it making financial decisions without extremely clear boundaries. Markets are unpredictable enough when humans are involved. Adding AI doesn't magically remove risk. In some cases it simply creates new kinds of risk that nobody fully understands yet.
That's the part that worries me. Everyone keeps talking about autonomous agents as if trust is already solved. It isn't. If an AI strategy loses money because markets move unexpectedly, that's unfortunate. If it loses money because permissions weren't designed properly or because someone exploited the system, that's a completely different conversation. Security usually doesn't become exciting until after the first disaster.
Then there's the token itself. Every crypto project eventually introduces a token, and every token somehow manages to have governance, utility, staking, incentives, and ecosystem participation all wrapped into one package. I've heard those explanations more times than I can count. The real question isn't whether a token has listed utilities. The real question is whether people would still want to use the protocol if the token didn't exist. That's a much harder question, and one that often doesn't get answered until years later.
I'm also curious about adoption because that's where reality usually interrupts the story. Developers might appreciate better infrastructure. Traders might like safer automation. AI builders might enjoy having a dedicated marketplace. But wanting something in theory and using it every day are completely different things. Crypto users are incredibly demanding. If something feels complicated, they'll ignore it. If something feels risky, they'll avoid it. If something doesn't immediately offer an obvious benefit, they'll move on to the next shiny trend.
Maybe that's unfair, but that's the market we've built. Attention moves faster than products. Narratives spread faster than adoption. Sometimes it feels like people invest more in headlines than in technology. That's why I don't immediately celebrate projects simply because they're connected to AI. We've already seen enough buzzwords come and go to know that marketing can only carry a project so far.
What I do appreciate about Newton Protocol is that it's trying to address a problem that actually exists instead of inventing one just to justify a token. Secure automation is a real challenge. Giving software limited authority instead of unlimited authority makes sense. If AI is going to become part of crypto infrastructure, then permission systems probably deserve much more attention than flashy demos or promotional videos.
But none of that guarantees success. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't. Crypto has a habit of making the obvious look difficult and the impossible look easy until reality catches up. Plenty of sensible ideas have failed because they couldn't attract users. Plenty of questionable ideas have succeeded simply because they captured attention at the right moment. That's one of the strange things about this industry. Merit and market performance don't always travel together.
After spending enough years watching this space, I've become much less interested in promises and much more interested in behavior. I want to see whether people actually trust these systems with real money. I want to see whether developers build on them after the initial excitement disappears. I want to see whether the project still feels relevant once the AI narrative inevitably cools down and crypto starts chasing the next big thing.
So I don't look at Newton Protocol with excitement, and I don't look at it with complete dismissal either. I look at it with cautious curiosity. The problem it's trying to solve feels genuine, which already puts it ahead of plenty of projects I've seen over the years. Whether it becomes important depends less on the quality of its story and more on whether it quietly earns trust over time.
Crypto has taught me that the loudest projects aren't always the ones that matter, and the most useful infrastructure often gets ignored until people suddenly realize they needed it all along. Maybe Newton Protocol ends up being one of those quiet success stories. Maybe it fades into the long list of ambitious experiments that never found enough users. Right now, I honestly don't know, and after everything this industry has put investors through, I'm perfectly comfortable admitting that.
@NewtonProtocol #Newt $NEWT

十分な年数を暗号資産に費やすと、新しいプロジェクトを見るたびに自分の見方が変わる地点がやって来ます。最初のうちは、すべてが画期的に感じられます。どのホワイトペーパーも新しい金融システムを約束し、どのインフルエンサーも「隠れた名品」を口にして、どのトークンも未来を築いていると言い張ります。ですが、いくつかの相場の急落、取引所の障害、放棄されたロードマップ、そして気づけばコミュニティが一夜にして消えてしまうような出来事を経験すると、その高揚感はゆっくりと慎重さへと変わっていきます。正直なところ、最近ではどんな新しい暗号資産プロジェクトに対しても、私の最初の反応は好奇心ではありません。懐疑心です。

正直、あとどれくらい暗号資産の「物語」に期待すればいいのか分からない。
数カ月おきに業界は新しい流行り言葉を見つけて、それをトークンに包んで「これが未来だ」と皆に伝えているように感じる。最初はICOだった。次はDeFi。次はNFT。次はメタバース。そして今はすべてがAI。どうやら、どのプロジェクトにもAIレイヤー、AIエージェント、AIインフラ、AI自動化、AIなんとかかんとかがあるらしい。いつの間にか、純粋なアイデアと創作的なマーケティングを区別するのが難しくなってしまった。

暗号資産で歳を取ってきたのが自分だけなのかは分からないけど、いつの間にか、新しいトークンが登場するたびに毎回わくわくすることがなくなってしまった。かつては、どのローンチも何か巨大なものの始まりに感じられた時期があった。どのホワイトペーパーも、金融革命を約束していた。どのインフルエンサーも、なぜか週に3回「次の大物」を見つけ出すことに成功していた。どのロードマップも、これまで一度もプロダクトを出したことがない人が書いたSFみたいに見えた。
しかし、市場のサイクルを十分に経験すると、そのわくわくもだんだん薄れていく。