When data fraud and traffic bribery become the basic operations of the Shanghai Stock Exchange, what is left in the crypto industry?

Recently, the project is undergoing brand/main network upgrade + coin exchange, so it has contact with major exchanges. From 2017 to today, these standard processes are relatively clear. In addition to the corresponding compliance procedures and code audits, the rest is nothing more than the market budget, how many new users/traffic can be brought, how to enable existing users to gain dividends, etc. The project party needs liquidity and new trading venues; the exchange needs users and trading volume, and it is understandable that each of them needs.

What’s interesting is that after simple business communication, it is time to judge the research department. They proposed several points that rejected us at the Institute, or that some conditions were not met and that they needed to increase their budget. I'll choose a few interesting ones.

The first is that our data and popularity are not enough, which is reflected in our insufficient social media data and insufficient on-chain data. Then we gave us several examples of the same track project. I wondered, you are all research departments and research projects every day. Can’t you still see the authenticity and authenticity of the data? Come on, an account with hundreds of k Twitter fans, only a few thousand views below, and less than 10 messages left. Do you tell me if this is true? Then the data on the chain are all a trading hash that contains n transaction records. Are all retail investors in your project experts? Can anyone actually do their own RPC interface to do package transactions? Is this obviously unreasonable? Especially professional Ai data data annotation itself is a threshold, and it is unlikely that a large number of annotators will label the same set of data at the same time. In particular, the cost of subsequent data verification and cleaning is higher than that of the annotation itself, so it is even more impossible, unless you don’t care at all or your purpose is not for the data itself.

The second is endorsement of investment institutions. Most of the projects nowadays (except meme) require the support of major VPNs. But as an old project, it has been more than 6 years since functionx in 2019 to PundiAI. We have been building it with our own money and have never received a penny from the outside. From the perspective of "old people" like us, do we think this is not a good thing? Pure community-driven, no vc control, and emotionally speaking, this is a very "feeling" thing? As a result, in the eyes of the research department, this has become a synonym for no endorsement of orthodox institutions, no legit, and no popularity. I don't know how to say this...

The third is token circulation and valuation. From 2019 to now, all coins have been unlocked. Our mc = fdv, and nearly 70% of the tokens are locked on the validator node. Then the big guys in the research department said that the pressure of smashing the market is very high, and I wondered. Not to mention that most of the coins are in the verification node, we are all in the pure community market, who will smash the market? Secondly, we are so old coins, but we have not been to big offices. After 6 years of going around, are you going to smash the market? Again, the pressure of the market crash is proportional to the market FDV. Our market value and FDV are less than 100m. An AI data layer with business, products, customers and income is only 100m. Why don’t you look at those FDV 1b projects that have not been online? Their market crash needs more attention, right? No, they need more attention to their later market smash, right? !

There are still many points to complain about, so I won’t describe them one by one. I can understand that all the research masters have to look at many projects every day, with their own opinions and data dimensions, and this involves a lot of professional knowledge, but the minimum truth or falsehood must be distinguished between good and evil?

I don’t know when it started, traffic bribery, data bribery/falsification, project skin replacement (I have heard of the founder’s skin replacement?), airdropping to the studio, and then handing it over to the mm for shipping, etc., has actually become the basic operation of the project to be charged.

Sometimes I think that listing coins, especially some early coins, is very similar to venture capital, and investing in people/teams. If the listing companies rely on these to exchanges and to vc methods and operations, then the later development of these projects is really worrying.

We have been in this circle for so long, and we have heard of these tricks and methods. It’s not that we can’t do it, but that we are unwilling to do it. ) Because these things will only be cheaper in the end, studios, gray industries, dealers, etc., the price is the money of new retail investors, the shift in the focus of the builder's work, and the sluggishness of the entire industry. (p/s: To be ashamed, these airdrop tricks are the rest we played back then)

We have seen bulls, bears and storms, so we know that it is really not easy to maintain our original intentions. Sometimes I really miss the friends I met in 2017/18 (many of the bosses I met at that time were retired). Although the community at that time was poor, the topics I talked about were about how to improve efficiency/safety, how to push to market, hack support from all sides, etc., to develop together for win-win results. At that time, the opportunity to list currency on a VC and an exchange was free of charge (10,000 sentences are omitted here), but now there are various rebates/introduction fees/referrals/management fees at all times.

I really miss the purest of us at that time.