2026-01-09 21:36:02

Voice-driven multi-language DeFi solutions are becoming a new trend. Imagine users completing on-chain transactions, cross-chain bridging, and even risk assessments through chat — it sounds simple, but the technical difficulty of execution is not low.

The key is, if a voice interaction platform can stably handle these operations and its monthly trading volume surpasses $300 million, then it indeed has an advantage in user experience compared to most AI crypto applications. Why? Because it lowers the operational threshold, allowing non-professional users to easily participate in on-chain interactions.

However, there is a question worth exploring: Of this $300 million trading volume, how much is driven by genuine organic user demand, and how much is inflated by incentives or marketing data? The difference can be significant.

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.

6 Likes

Reward
6
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

BrokeBeans

· 22h ago

$300 million sounds outrageous, but I bet half of it is just hype. --- Voice interaction for on-chain transactions? Sounds good, but is it really reliable? --- Lowering the barrier is definitely appealing, but can we trust the data? --- Another AI application, let's see how long it can survive. --- The key is that old saying: wash trading volume is too common. --- If this thing were truly stable, I would have used it already. --- $300 million a month? I'm more concerned about how many real users there are. --- Sounds pretty cool, but it feels a bit overhyped. --- Non-professional users can also play? Be careful of getting scammed. --- The main issue is one: how genuine is this data?

View OriginalReply0

GasFeeCrier

· 22h ago

$300 million trading volume sounds impressive, but can it really eliminate suspicions of wash trading? I'm skeptical. --- Voice interaction lowering the barrier definitely taps into demand, but I wonder how much of the data is genuine. --- It sounds impressive, but what percentage of the trading volume is driven by incentives? That’s the real key. --- It's good that non-professional users can get on board, but do they really need voice DeFi? Or are they just attracted by the hype? --- $300 million USD—looking at this number alone is meaningless; we need to see retention rates to know if it's sustainable. --- The technical difficulty is evident; being able to run stably is indeed good, but how much of the data is actually real?

View OriginalReply0

Anon32942

· 22h ago

Everyone knows how much water is in the 300 million dollars; the game of data inflation has become tired.

View OriginalReply0

BasementAlchemist

· 22h ago

Data inflation is really unavoidable; 300 million sounds impressive, but it depends on who is trading. --- Voice operation indeed lowers the threshold, but can the stability be maintained? That’s the key. --- Another incentive for farmers? Seen this trick many times. --- It's easy for non-professional users to get in, but losing money is also easy. --- The actual trading volume should be questioned; everyone in the industry understands this.

View OriginalReply0

LayerZeroJunkie

· 22h ago

3 billion dollars in trading volume sounds impressive, but its authenticity is questionable. Most of it is probably driven by incentivized farmers. --- Voice chat trading sounds good, but would you really use it? Personally, I find it complicated. --- The key issue is data inflation. Right now, all project metrics look good, but how long can they keep fooling people? --- Lowering the entry barrier is a good idea, but if it's all robot trading, who is it for? --- When I see monthly trading volume surpassing 300 million, my first reaction is—faked? --- You're right, the problem is indeed there. Organic vs. inflated data makes a huge difference. --- Multilingual DeFi sounds promising, but there's definitely some foul play with the trading volume data.

View OriginalReply0