2026-01-03 02:11:57

Researcher Hish recently had a point worth pondering—are content tokens really viable? Frankly, the issue isn't with the token itself. What truly determines its fate is how it's used.

Think about it—what if content tokens could generate real income streams? For example, advertising revenue sharing, music subscription fees, paid long-form content—distributing actual cash to holders. That would be a truly substantial asset. Conversely, if it's just hype without income support, it's merely a rebranding—nothing fundamentally different from traditional air tokens.

So, when it comes to whether content tokens are reliable, the key is how much real cash flow they can generate behind them.

View Original

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.

8 Likes

Reward
8
4
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

MetaNeighbor

· 17h ago

Exactly right, cash flow is king --- Once again, it's just a pump-and-dump with a different label, speechless --- Hish, I agree with this view, real income is the hard currency --- Content tokens should be judged by their actual monetization ability, everything else is nonsense --- Repetitive as always, if there's no cash flow, don't boast --- The key is that most projects simply can't do it, they're just drawing pie charts --- I agree, but the question is who will supervise the real cash flow --- Doesn't this mean that content tokens are essentially financial products? --- The reasoning is rough but not wrong, finally someone dares to say it directly --- But the problem is, how to prove that those income streams truly exist

View OriginalReply0

ResearchChadButBroke

· 17h ago

To be honest, cash flow is king. Without it, everything else is pointless. Content coins either need real skills or get lost. It's that simple. Another bunch of meme coins disguised as content, it's hilarious. Coins without proper cash flow, I really look down on them. Hish, this perspective isn't bad. Finally, someone hit the nail on the head. Just bragging is useless; you need to actually make money. It seems new, but it's actually the same old trick of harvesting retail investors.

View OriginalReply0

AllInDaddy

· 17h ago

The core is one sentence: tokens without cash flow are all nonsense. --- To be honest, Hish hit the nail on the head. Content tokens must have real money flowing in. --- In the end, it all depends on who can truly turn traffic into money; everything else is pointless. --- Isn't this just saying that most projects are just air? Just be straightforward. --- Interesting, finally someone clarified: only with real cash flow is it an asset. --- The problem is that most can't do this; they're just raising money with stories. --- The core logic is correct, but I'm afraid someone will package a new explanation to continue the scam. --- Cash flow is king; everything else is虚的 (虚 means虚假, false). There's nothing wrong with that.

View OriginalReply0

RunWithRugs

· 17h ago

The core is cash flow; without cash flow, no matter how fancy, it's just a facade of a scam coin. That's right, but the reality is that most projects simply can't generate real income. If a content coin can truly distribute dividends, then it's definitely worth watching. The question is, who can do it? There are too many just shouting slogans; truly implemented projects are extremely rare. The current crypto space loves packaging concepts; essentially, it's about who can tell the better story. I agree with hish's logic, but can this system be sustained? It depends on whether the founding team has the execution capability; otherwise, it's all talk.

View OriginalReply0