The studio became a scapegoat for Web3 chaos? In-depth analysis of the real "top-level interest chain" behind the industry's chronic diseases

Author:Ice Frog

Recently, public opinion about destroying studios seems to have begun to ferment again. Some people attribute the inability to lift altcoins to the studio, believing that if the industry wants to reverse this situation, it should first destroy the studio.

It should be admitted that there are indeed many problems and chaos in the industry, but I think these problems are not all caused by the studio and are worth discussing.

1. Will the industry be better if you lose the studio?

To answer this question, one premise logic must be answered: studios are the product of industry development, not the other way around. The importance of clarifying this logic lies in: we must clearly know that for any profit-seeking market, many things that seem to be prohibited are the result of multi-party interest games in the market. The same is true for the studio.

Therefore, our analysis is very simple around this game of interest.

Who is the greatest vested interest and who is the final rulemaker? If your knife does not cut to the greatest vested interest and does not target the rulemaker, the reform is destined to be ineffective.

Studios are not the biggest vested interests in this industry, and studios are not the rulemakers in this industry. If the studio wants to have this energy, why would they be beaten around to protect their rights?

Who is the funding party? Who decides the chip rules? Who sets the currency on the exchange? Who decides the airdrop rules? Who is the traffic driver? Before these fundamental questions are answered, it is really hard to convince simply to attribute the mistakes to the studio.

However, from the perspective of interests and power, when the chain of interests breaks and the capital feast ends, the studio can easily become a scapegoat for being shot. After all, in this industry chain, studios are a relatively special existence. They are a link of traffic, but they do not have much say and are often beaten. At the same time, retail investors find it difficult to empathize, and the project party and capital are Love and hate. Therefore, from this perspective, it is easy to become a politically correct choice.

Regardless of whether the studio can be banned or not, even if you ban it, what we want to discuss is: Is the problem solved? Will the false prosperity of the industry completely disappear? Is the industry getting better?

The simple truth is: false prosperity is the result of distorted development of the industry, but not the cause. The biggest problem is that many people are accustomed to treating phenomena as original sins, but turn a blind eye to structural and institutional problems hidden behind them.

The fundamental chaos in the industry lies in: fairness, but fairness. An industry without fairness constraint mechanisms, you can't stop the studio, and you can't stop human greed and profit-seeking.

To take a step back, if the project party/capital/exchange is determined not to cooperate with the studio, you can still technically exclude the studio, and it is understandable if it is eliminated like this.

The problem is, in a free market, there is no fair regulation in the market, you need, the studio gives. The rules you set, and the studio will cooperate with you to play. Why is the studio unforgivable? It's okay to crack down on the studio, but why do you modify the rules yourself, anger the market, cut the leeks, and finally launch the studio, saying that it's all the studio's fault.

I wonder if you are familiar with this kind of script. It is seen in the classic movies "Wolf of Wall Street", "Big Short" and "The Godfather" that among the pyramids of unequal power: the most conspicuous problems are most likely to be taken out as targets, only those vested interests and the core of power Get out of here without any hesitation.

When the "scapegoat" is eliminated, everything is still the same. The new "scapegoat" will be quickly launched, and only the top level of power that makes a fortune will raise your glasses and celebrate where you don't know.

2. Is retail investors taking over the market? Who is the industry

liquidity black hole?

When the project party and the exchange eat the Manhan banquet, why should the end of the feast be attributed to the studios and retail investors who eat leftovers?

To be honest, this title makes me ashamed of the studio. The main reason is that I have no ability to help retail investors get rid of the condom, and I am also fucked by myself. I can only curse a few words and then endure it.

From the perspective of interests, no studio is willing to smash the market from its original intention. After all, counter-trading, time cost, and loss are all risky. If the project party can really focus on continuing to build the project and not blindly raise the valuation, it will With long-term plans, who would like to sell it at the opening?

For truly high-quality undervalued projects, the market will naturally give positive feedback. Even if your project looks high-quality, no one is willing to take over under the valuation of morality and unequal position.

For an investment market, there is no problem for studios to gain short-term benefits, or any participant except the project party to pursue short-term benefits. Using so-called long-term value to conquer is a real "value cleanliness".

As any market participant, there is no moral stance to ask others to protect the market, except for the project party itself. Especially when the project party and capital party are shipped through various means, they have no right to ask others to do better. The most helpless thing is that there are too many people who cut leeks under the name of so-called "value".

If studio chips sold are regarded as industry liquidity black holes, the real problem will be covered up.

Some people say that studio FUD has affected the development of the project. I want to say that a project with high-quality fundamentals is not afraid of the market. Its user base has never come from the studio. Studio FUD threat theory is really high-profile. The energy, or it is just a fig leaf for garbage projects, the market is the real fire to refine real gold. What can really shake high-quality projects is never the keyboard of the script soldier, but the Trojan program in the project party’s own armor.

We must acknowledge the existence of chaos, but firmly oppose and be wary of lies that weave a whole with partial truth. Just as the police may also conspire with the gangster, if all the complex systemic chaos is attributed to the binary opposition between the studio and the market, That so-called studio threat theory is likely to be a cover for real market operators. After all, all this can be blamed on the studio anyway.

3. Is the studio useless and has no contribution to the industry? Who is

responsible for the chaos in the industry?

This industry has greater speculative attributes at this stage, which is a basic fact, but when discussing the development of the industry, at least moral judgments should be avoided.

In fact, if it were not for a large number of airdrop studios to invest money, traffic, attract users to join the community during the cold start of the project, experience the project and continuously output hair picking experience, without the studio's batch brushing, ordinary retail investors might not be able to recover.

No studio rejects long-termism, but in the absence of constraints in the industry, human nature’s pursuit of interests is understandable and blameless. You cannot attribute it to the studio breaking the rules, and the studio does not have this ability. More importantly, when the most powerful rule makers in the industry break the rules at will, why do studios require higher moral self-discipline?

No, you can do it in a rat, but I don’t allow it to take advantage of it. Going further, from the perspective of rule damage alone, objective evaluation, is it that the project party’s rat trading has more damage to fairness, or is the studio having more harm to fairness? Who is eroding market credibility?

This is tantamount to asking Las Vegas gamblers not to allow cards to be counted, and acquiesced to the real dealer modifying the roulette probability.

Should true fairness be fair rules or fairness of balance of power? Fairness in the world does not exist in the fairness of everyone's origin, education, or background, but in the same environment and rules, everyone should do their best to obtain the best interests, which no one can blame. In a market that pursues interests, people never hate you. What people hate is that you play the same thing and the rules you enforce are different.

The unfairness and opacity of the rule-making person is the biggest original sin in this market. If the project party is willing to build for a long time and capital does not fuel the fuel, the exchange can truly practice value-oriented theory. The studio is not only not a disadvantage, but a benefit. At least when the industry has not yet reached a bigger stage, it provides With the initial little traffic, at least you have to admit that there are some studios that can optimize the project better and experience the better, and continuously output their own feedback.

For studios, we do not easily identify what fraud projects are. In a market where wealth effect is greater than anything else, the project that allows everyone to make money is a good project.

If the market really develops to a natural clearance of the studio business, there is no need to oppose it. After all, it means that as hair fucking, we no longer have to grit our teeth to provide the project with the only liquidity during the bear market. After all, it means that the market is truly maturing, and there is no need to blame each other for who has caused the market to decline.

Finally, from the perspective of change, if all this does not point to the biggest established interests in the industry, the studio may be banned, but the greed of human nature cannot be banned, or it may be just another fig leaf for harvest.