It's wild watching people contort themselves defending the "Abundance" framing. Here's the thing though—strip away the positioning and you realize there's no real affordability story without it. Mamdani's word choice wasn't random; it's central to what they're actually pitching. Yet everyone's scrambling to rationalize why the branding even matters. The gap between what's being sold and what people are willing to admit about it? That's where things get interesting.

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
  • Reward
  • 5
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
0/400
ChainDetectivevip
· 01-04 23:35
Basically, it's a packaging issue, and the core flaw of 'afford' is covered up by the word 'abundance.' Mamdani's choice of words is really clever.
View OriginalReply0
All-InQueenvip
· 01-03 01:44
Really, this "rich" packaging is just ridiculous; upon closer inspection, it's just a numbers game.
View OriginalReply0
SpeakWithHatOnvip
· 01-03 01:42
Basically, it's a matter of rhetoric. Once you peel off the "richness" layer, there's nothing left to sell. Mamdani's word choice is definitely not random. Interestingly, everyone is fooling themselves into rationalizing this logic.
View OriginalReply0
DAOdreamervip
· 01-03 01:35
ngl, this is the common problem in Web3 marketing. Just changing a word and trying to deceive people.
View OriginalReply0
DegenWhisperervip
· 01-03 01:30
Basically, it's a self-deceptive game that must be wrapped in a "rich" coating of sugar to cover up the mess.
View OriginalReply0
  • Pin

Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate App
Community
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Tiếng Việt
  • 繁體中文
  • Español
  • Русский
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • بالعربية
  • Українська
  • Português (Brasil)