Understanding Fractal BTC

Source: Dao Shuo Blockchain

Recently, I came across a tweet online that expressed a participant’s feelings about the process of participating in the Bitcoin fractal network.

For the fractal network, I shared my views in a previous article: the overall view is quite average, 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, the author not only described the development of Fractal Network in recent months, but also detailed the fluctuations of SATS, PIZZA, FB, and CAT20 coins.

From the emotion of the tweet, it can be seen that the author’s concern is not so much about the development of the fractal network itself, but the impact of the fluctuations of these four coins on himself and the community.

The price of these coins has this situation, in my opinion, there are both external reasons and internal reasons.

External reasons cannot be separated from the overall oppressive environment.

In this recent round of corrections, even Bitcoin fell from nearly $75,000 to less than $60,000 at its low point. In this situation, it’s hard for me to imagine any coin (except for pure emotion-driven MEMEcoins) being able to stand out in its own market.

Especially these coins above are all coins in the BTC ecosystem, and they will be more affected by the BTC market - “Under the nest, how can there be complete eggs”?

And in my view, the internal reasons are even more crucial.

I have shared my views on this point in previous articles and online discussions last time:

Without further application innovation in the BTC ecosystem, the existing BTC extension facilities are already sufficient if only supporting the current large number of imitating Ethereum applications.

To avoid the main contradiction, we should focus on innovation in application, instead of repeatedly inventing so-called ‘new’ protocols, terms, and assets on the basis of infrastructure, and these so-called ‘new’ protocols are not fundamentally better than existing protocols.

These things are actually not innovative at all, just “reinventing the wheel”. It’s completely meaningless. In my opinion, such work is all in vain, wasting manpower, energy, and financial resources, and also consuming the enthusiasm of the community.

Such pointless efforts are not only useless but also harmful.

In the end, when many users realize that they have wasted their precious BTC and ended up with a pile of tokens that are ultimately just a pile of ‘chicken ribs’, this will only drive more users away from this ecosystem.

This development also has another consequence, which exacerbates the speculative sentiment among users in the community.

In the comments of this tweet, some users asked questions such as “will it be listed?” and “will there be price manipulation?” It can be seen that some users have already placed their final expectations on the project team.

Once we entrust the varieties we invest in to the project party, will there be a pump or any action? It is almost certain that we are treating ourselves as ‘fish meat’ and the project party as ‘chopping board’.

In this case, even if the project party really ‘goes public’ or ‘pumps’, is it saving investors? Perhaps it is a more unpredictable situation?

So far, at least, I’ve become completely aesthetically tired of this kind of so-called “innovation” that I can see through at a glance unless I come across a project that I particularly like and is particularly different.

I suggest that our readers should still pay more attention to holding BTC and Ethereum in their hands, not to buy projects that they cannot do without, or to be extremely fond of, and still be cautious in making a move.