The problem isn't value-backed tokens, but air coins pretending to have value.
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
The problem isn't value-backed tokens, but air coins pretending to have value.
The crypto space can't just be about memes.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsAuthor: Dayu, Crypto KOL
Introduction
"Yesterday, an article by Jinzhou Lin, founder of IOSG, titled 'The Eastern crypto community cannot remain forever in MEME; it needs a prairie fire' sparked intense discussion. Different industry participants shared their views on the arguments raised. This article is a response from well-known KOL Dayu."
Main Text
IOSG is likely one of the most forward-thinking funds in the crypto space, focusing heavily on long-term industry development and value creation. Most of its investments are in infrastructure and foundational projects. It has initiated discussions around MEMEs versus value-driven tokens, calling for the industry to shift focus from pure memes toward endeavors with sustainable value.
From the perspective of objective developmental laws, only with a solid foundation can tall buildings rise and prosperity flourish. Therefore, investing in infrastructure and emphasizing long-term value is not only correct but also commendable—the industry's foundation must remain strong.
Although I mostly play with MEMEs myself, just a few days ago I also remarked: the crypto world cannot be just about MEMEs.
Therefore, I fully agree with @jinzhoulin’s view that crypto should not revolve solely around MEMEs—we should strive for higher, more meaningful value.
MEMEs are indeed a culture—one that is enduring and inherently attractive, destined to persist. However, once this culture becomes tokenized, no matter how sophisticated the packaging, at its core it remains a game of musical chairs, where early participants hope later ones will buy in. This holds true for every single MEME.
Still, I hold a different interpretation from Jocy’s, which I’d like to share here for open discussion.
1. MEMEs Are a Natural Market Phase That Will Lead to a Better, Not Worse, Crypto Ecosystem
Yes, MEMEs are essentially games of musical chairs—but does that mean they have no value? Not necessarily.
To some extent, these simple, high-intensity wealth games deeply resonate with human nature, making them highly effective at attracting new users—thus playing a crucial role in onboarding newcomers to crypto.
One fact must never be ignored: people enter crypto primarily chasing wealth effects—whether it was early Bitcoin, followed by ICOs, then DOGE and SHIB, and more recently inscriptions. After each wave of irrational speculation, the crypto space hasn’t deteriorated—it has actually improved, as each cycle expanded Bitcoin’s follower base and strengthened its growth.
Looking back at history, I believe everything in the past has shaped today’s Bitcoin—whether it was valuable innovations or speculative bubbles, whether it was 3M scams bringing mass attention to Bitcoin, ICOs pulling millions into the space, DOGE and SHIB creating overnight millionaires, or the nationwide inscription craze. All of it contributed to what Bitcoin is today.
Therefore, I don’t believe we need to fear that bubbles will overshadow real value, or that MEMEs will dilute Bitcoin’s idealism or erase blockchain’s foundational significance.
Markets evolve according to their own logic. We don’t need to worry—what’s good will get better, and what’s bad will eventually be eliminated.
This time, MEMEs aren’t eliminating Bitcoin or crypto—they’re eliminating those so-called “value tokens” that are actually just vaporware or “scythe coins.”
2. Value Projects ≠ Value Tokens
Not every project can legitimately claim to issue a “value token”—the opposite of a MEME isn’t necessarily a value token; it could just as easily be a “vapor token.”
Let’s first define terms. “Value token” is a very vague concept. Ideally, it refers to projects that solve real problems and contribute meaningfully to the world.
But there’s a flaw in this definition: a project may have intrinsic value, yet its token might not.
Logically, if a project addresses a genuine need, it possesses some level of value—that part is correct.
However, at the token level, things differ. Tokens can be hyped to extreme prices—this market frenzy often seems disconnected from the project team or VCs.
Yet this ignores the massive imbalance in costs: the cost difference between VCs, project teams, and retail investors can be 100x, with another 10x gap in expertise—making it akin to fighter jets battling bare-handed farmers.
In such scenarios, both VCs and retail are investors, yet their rights, responsibilities, and benefits are completely unequal.
VCs can invest at $0.0001, leveraging their status and industry connections.
Meanwhile, retail investors, through tiered sales carefully designed by the team and VCs, end up buying chips priced at $0.001 under a narrative jointly crafted by insiders. Then, with a professional market maker, the price can be pumped over days, followed by a 70% dump—a textbook-perfect listing cycle.
This is unfair!
Retail investors do buy tokens, but gain little in return. While it may seem like “buyer beware,” retail investors do have legitimate demands: token listing prices should not deviate too far from real value!
Due to lack of investment knowledge, most retail investors don’t know how to assert this right. So they rush into ICP at hundreds of billions in market cap, only to get stuck at the top.
Or they jump into ARB, which appears to have solid fundamentals and a $10 billion valuation, only to be crushed later by massive token unlocks—behind the bloody price action lies continuous dumping by investors and teams, another round of salary delivery from retail suckers sweating under the sun.
Imagine if all projects had economic models like ARB—how unbearable would retail’s suffering be?
Why do retail investors flock to MEMEs? It’s not because they reject value or lack idealism—it’s because after being burned repeatedly by so-called “value plays,” especially losing everything on that last $10 investment, they simply can’t take it anymore…
3. People Don’t Hate Value Tokens—They Hate Vapor Tokens Disguised as Value Tokens
People speculate on MEMEs hoping for a slightly better future. If there were better alternatives, retail investors wouldn’t prefer MEMEs.
What would be better options? We’ve had many in the past. There are plenty we can recall.
Take Binance’s 2017 ICO, when @heyibinance and @cz_binance raised funds and issued BNB at an extremely low price. Over time, the company grew massively, consistently prioritizing BNB holders’ interests—BNB burns have already reached tens of billions in value, and listing a project on Binance directly delivers hundreds of millions in airdrops to BNB holders. Setting aside listing controversies, from the perspective of BNB holders (I’m not one), holding BNB genuinely feels meaningful—you feel seen and valued as a holder.
But most tokens aren’t like that. Most tokens issued by so-called “value projects” aren’t value tokens at all—they’re aggressive rug-pull schemes.
They typically exhibit these characteristics:
1. Unfair Token Distribution
Early tokens are divided among VCs and the team, with minimal allocation to the community. Even during airdrops, gas-griefing and insider allocations are common—despicable tactics.
2. Malicious Token Distribution
All early holders—including the team—are focused solely on how to best dump tokens onto retail investors. They don’t craft narratives to benefit token holders; worse, they actively design traps to lure in retail investors, aiming to exit rich in one clean sweep.
A recent example that stands out is the $aevo project. They pumped $rbn, then announced a 1:1 lock-up swap from rbn to aevo, luring retail investors into staking. Once enough assets were locked, they dumped the token completely—killing the price entirely. What kind of value does such a project offer? It’s practically financial fraud.
I believe any retail investor reading this could go to the comments and share how much they lost on this project—I’m confident you’ll find widespread losses, as almost no retail investor made money, except the team itself.
Buying a MEME at the top isn’t great either, but at least when you lose, you understand why.
Moreover, most projects feature massive token unlocks—just check unlock schedules: monthly, hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars worth of tokens flood into the secondary market held by retail investors. These unlocking tokens were acquired at costs 10x, 100x lower.
To track unlocks, visit this website (also bookmarked on http://dayu.xyz for easy access):https://token.unlocks.app
3. Low Project Value, High Token Valuation
Project teams and VCs aren’t focused on delivering user benefits or driving sustainable growth—they’re obsessed with reducing circulating supply, inflating prices, and exiting cleanly. This includes rushing to launch tokens during bull markets and abandoning them when bear markets hit.
4. No Connection Between Project Value and Token
The project itself has little or no value, yet carries an extremely high valuation and a malicious release schedule—this is now the norm for 99% of projects.
As Jocy mentioned, projects like Aave and Uni do have real value—but how much does that actually benefit ordinary users?
For retail holders who rarely vote, holding the token brings no real benefits—even participation is meaningless due to small holdings. Meanwhile, retail investors still fulfill one role: absorbing VCs’ dumped tokens—like the infamous story of CRV’s founder buying a luxury mansion…
4. How to Fix This?
The mass shift toward MEMEs is temporary. Everyone prefers projects with long-term value—just like even bad people enjoy the company of honest, decent friends.
I look forward to projects that offer fairer costs, clearer value propositions, and healthier distribution.
If you want retail investors to grow alongside your project, raise funds directly from them at the same cost as your team and VCs. If you fail, it’s because you lacked vision, chose the wrong team, picked the wrong project, or overvalued it.
If you expect retail to provide liquidity and absorb your dumps, then treat them as human beings. Respect their rights as token holders—give them shareholder-like benefits, allow them to share in the project’s success: dividends, buybacks, or tangible growth. Regularly communicate with the community and share key metrics.
If you're building an oracle, tell us: what’s your revenue? Your expenses? How does your business compare to peers? What do you think your fair valuation is?
If you admit your project lacks real value and just want to launch a MEME coin, then release 100% of the supply at once—no tricks. Airdrop all tokens publicly. If the team wants tokens, let them buy on the open market. If they think it’s undervalued, buy more. If overvalued, don’t buy any. After all, truly valuable projects shouldn’t rely on token sales to survive, right?
In short, project teams must become sincere. Honestly assess your project’s real value. Ask yourself: is selling tokens your biggest source of revenue? How do you plan to reward holders? How will issuing a token help you build and empower your community for long-term growth?
It’s late—let’s pause here for now.
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
@BTCdayu
