Bond514

Recently, I've discovered something: the airdrop circle is really accelerating its reshuffling.
Many studios have disbanded, and those relying on Alpha are struggling to hold on.

But in my view, this is not the end; it's the beginning of a re-layering.

The airdrop track has not disappeared; it has only shifted from "batch interaction" to "deep participation."
In the past, you could just click casually, but now it’s truly about patience, strategy, and time management.

This year, many people have managed to profit from major players like Sign, Newton, and Sahara.
In projects without tokens, there are still potential stocks.
As long as there are people launching chains and raising funds, there will definitely be people who can make money.

Gaining tokens is always a gamble with the project parties.
Only those with a steady mindset can last long.

My own principle is very simple:
If I can do it at zero cost, I’ll go all in;
If a deposit is required, I’ll spread it out in small amounts;
With limited energy, I’ll only deeply engage with 2-3 main accounts.

If you feel like there are "no projects to engage with," then you should spend time nurturing your accounts:
Twitter, DC, wallets—these are the thresholds for all future tasks.
Currently, projects prefer "real users" and "contributing individuals," not dozens of zombie accounts.

Also, don’t be fooled into starting with hundreds of accounts or large equipment from the get-go.
For personal engagement, 3-5 accounts are sufficient;
If you really want to start a studio, that’s a different approach altogether.

Although I was also hit by Monad and Camp this year, overall, my returns still outperformed my physical store.
This is also why I continue to delve deeper.

If you want to work in this field, please think clearly first:
Boring, slow, tiring, counterproductive, and unknown are all very normal.
But those who persist are never many.

Finally, here are a few projects I’m following (DYOR):
Polymarket, Abstract, Infinex, MetaMask Points, OpenSea, Farcaster, Backpack, Lighter, Kalshi, edgeX, Zama, Brevis, Nexus, Warden…

It's true that the gains have decreased, but you can still engage; it’s just that the rhythm of the track has changed.

Since the first sister's tweet came out, the market and the comment section have clearly changed in temperature over the past two days:
The most intuitive change is——many retail investors have finally stopped reflexively following the trend, especially the kind of tactics that rely on "no content, no aesthetics, just bottom fishing + pulling people in for relay", which are starting to fail.

I've always thought that the reason memes are increasingly like a stinky ditch is not that they are inherently low-level, but because they have been thoroughly messed up by two types of people:

The first type, everyone understands:
Prepare positions at the bottom in advance, then use influence to package "consensus" as "certainty", amplify it across the internet, and finally treat liquidity as a cash machine.

The second type is even more disgusting——mechanical harvesters disguised as "smart money":
As soon as you follow in, they immediately reduce their position; the more you believe, the more they sell off.
They don't care about the project, the culture, or even who you are; they only care about making trades into a stable cash flow day after day.

So now I am more willing to shift my attention from "who shouts louder" back to a simpler, but more effective judgment:
Is there anyone in this community who is serious about doing things?

The initial attraction of memes has never been the lines and K-lines, but——
You are willing to stay inside because you like the atmosphere here;
You can feel the trust among the members accumulating;
You can see that the management is not here to make a quick buck and leave, but is using patience to create order and execution to build a foundation.

When you can see these things in a community, it does not need to rely on "shouting-style stimulation" to maintain heat.
Because consensus is not shouted out, it is built over time.
And once time builds thickness, market capitalization is just a result, not a goal.

So I prefer to treat memes as PVE:
Slowly lay the foundation, slowly nurture the community; whether the market shows respect is a short-term variable, but the quality of the community will not deceive.
A community that can go far will never make you "miss a lifetime"—the window to get on board will appear repeatedly.
#SOL上涨潜力

I have recently become increasingly annoyed by one thing:
Any market trend can be forcibly interpreted as a "bull market signal."

A slight rise is seen as the "main upward wave starting";
A drop is interpreted as "washing out to provide an opportunity to get in";
Even when altcoins reach historical lows, it can be said to be the "last drop, emotions cleared."

The question is—
If any trend can prove the existence of a bull market, does the term itself still have any meaning?

The more realistic question is actually quite simple:
Whether the account has thickened is the only effective way to verify the market trend.
A verbal bull market and the profits in one's wallet have never been the same thing.

Looking back at the past few months, during that phase when "bull market expectations were highest,"
How many people were chasing highs, replenishing stocks, and leveraging?
Now looking at the account curves, the conclusion has actually been made very clear.

I do not deny that there will be real trend markets in the future,
But at least currently, what I see resembles a rebound structure tested repeatedly by liquidity,
Rather than a cycle where funds are fully entering and risk appetite is continuously expanding.

So I will actually remain vigilant towards accounts that output "the bull market is here" at fixed times every day.
They never care where you bought, or how much drawdown you can bear,
They only need someone in the market to always keep excited.

When emotions are repeatedly manufactured, and narratives are endlessly reused,
Ultimately, those who bear the volatility are never the ones shouting.

If even the question of "Is it a bull market?" cannot be tested with profits,
Then it may not be about judging the market,
But rather finding a reason to continue betting on oneself.

#美联储FOMC会议

Recently, there seems to be something clearly off in the fiat currency sector.

In the past, the only considerations when withdrawing were choosing merchants, looking at limits, and monitoring prices. Now, there's an additional layer of an unclear 'friction' feeling. Many merchants with labels like 'strict selection' and 'divine shield' start to lay the groundwork after just a couple of messages: limited access, personal inconvenience, needing to switch to someone nearby or a family member to pay.

Some are polite about it, while others become directly confrontational, acting as if 'everything is stable on my end', casually throwing in a comment: I have several tens of thousands in margin pressure on Binance.

But the problem lies exactly here.

From the perspective of risk control and responsibility chains, the inconsistency between the payer and the merchant's real-name entities is a source of risk. In the event of a dispute, the platform can trace back to the verified account, not to the person who 'helped with the payment'. No matter how much margin there is, it doesn't resolve the issue of identity misalignment.

I am increasingly inclined to a judgment:
It is no longer about 'which is cheaper', but rather who can ensure a clean payment path and clear responsibilities.

So I also want to ask you all:
During this period of fiat currency withdrawals, how do you generally choose?
Do you continue to look for familiar merchants,
or have you already started to deliberately avoid all transactions where the payment is not made by the person?

It feels like the environment in this area is indeed quietly changing.
#加密市场观察

To be honest, holding ASTER during this time has been the most emotionally twisted experience in my two months of trading.

It's not the kind of painful decline with logic collapsing, but rather the sense of powerlessness when you clearly see people propping it up, saving it, and spending real money, yet it just won't go up.

First, let's talk about market rhythm.
A few days ago, when the news about the "BlackRock ASTER ETF" came out, my first reaction was: something is off, but the price has already moved. Not long after, CZ personally came out and said the document was fake, and the sentiment instantly reversed, leading to a solid drop in the market that day. Would you call this bad news? Strictly speaking, it’s “bursting the illusion,” but the market doesn’t care about that.

What’s even stranger is the subsequent trend.
The project team hasn't been inactive — the buybacks are real, the money is genuinely being spent, and the pace isn’t slow;
The burns aren't just symbolic; the numbers are significant.
But the price response is very bizarre: every time there’s support, it seems to delay the decline rather than reverse the trend.

Now, the most sensitive position in the market is clear to everyone: 0.9 USD.
This isn't a technical level, it's a psychological level.
Because that line involves not the retail investor cost, but rather “a certain frequently mentioned long-term holding price.”

Once it falls below, the narrative will instantly change;
But as long as it holds, it will create the illusion of “is the bottom really here?”

What’s more confusing is the on-chain behavior.
You can see a portion of large funds have already cashed out, with profits that are very eye-catching;
At the same time, you can see another batch of addresses continuously moving chips from exchanges at low levels.
In the same time period, completely opposite choices.

This is the most torturous state for retail investors —
You don't know if you're just accompanying the run, or if you happen to be standing at the stage where the turnover has been completed.

But if you zoom out, ASTER is not just a project that has “only a narrative” left.
The mainnet timeline is there, fiat channels are being advanced,
And now it’s also paired with trading incentives, point bonuses, and reward pools, everything seems to be paving the way for the next stage.

But the problem lies precisely here:
The market seems unwilling to pay for “future certainty” in advance.
#美SEC推动加密创新监管

Has the act of '毛' (lu mao) really died out?

This question has been asked too many times lately, to the point where I've become too lazy to give an emotional answer.
If I had to respond in one sentence, I would say:
'Lu mao' hasn't died, but it is no longer a channel for 'ordinary people to get rich while lying down.'

What many people miss is not 'lu mao' itself, but that extremely loose period —
when projects would rush to get users, data, and stories as soon as they launched,
airdrops were given out as if they cost nothing, the rules were rough, and the selection was almost zero.

But you need to understand one thing:
that was not the norm; that was the 'money-throwing phase' in the capital cycle.

From the perspective of project parties and exchanges, airdrops have never been a benefit, but rather the lowest cost and most efficient way to acquire new users.
With a bit of tokens, you get users, wallet numbers, interaction volume, and topic relevance,
in essence, it's no different from how internet companies burn subsidies and give out coupons.

It’s just that now, this model has been recalculated.

In the early days, it was 'give out a bit more, let's get people in first';
now it has changed to 'only those who truly have value can receive that portion.'

So you'll find that the rules have started to become complex, the thresholds have started to rise,
actions have been segmented, cycles have been prolonged,
even the term 'lu mao' itself is being deliberately removed.

This is not because projects have become kinder,
but because blindly issuing tokens no longer solves problems, but instead creates trouble.

If you understand 'lu mao' as:
just clicking around, waiting for an overnight turnaround —
then it has indeed ended.

But if you see it as a way to:
use time, information disparity, and execution power to exchange for early pricing rights,
then it has never disappeared; it has simply transformed from a 'retail frenzy' into a 'game for the patient.'

What has truly been eliminated is not the act of 'lu mao',
but those who only want results but are unwilling to bear the costs of the process.
#加密市场反弹

Recently, the domestic regulatory actions regarding the cryptocurrency sector have begun to tighten again.
To be honest, this matter itself is not surprising, but what truly causes unease is the background behind it.

Many people are still stuck at the superficial judgments of 'regulatory sentiment' and 'policy attitude', but the underlying logic is only one: local finances have been pushed to the limit.

What governments are doing now is no longer 'optimizing structure', but rather a naked sprint to pay off debts.
Many localities have given clear directions to state-owned enterprises:
Increase leverage, promote listings, and financialize resource assets.
This is not to improve efficiency, but to forcibly package assets that originally could not generate stable cash flow into targets that can be taken over by the market.

Why is it necessary to go public?
Because only by entering the secondary market can debts be 'transferred'.
The accounts may be clean, but the risks have not disappeared; they have merely changed hands.

You will find that this logic appears repeatedly in different markets.
Some places choose to attract emerging markets to bring in funds for support;
Others choose to tighten and crack down, allowing risks to clear in panic.
Different methods, the same result—ultimately, the burden is always borne by where the liquidity is located.

The cryptocurrency sector is just one of the repeatedly utilized buffers.
When the market is good, it is 'supporting innovation';
When pressure mounts, it becomes a 'key target for rectification'.

So what is truly worth being vigilant about is not a specific crackdown,
but whether you still naively believe that you are not a buffer layer in this system.

Those who could escape have long since run away;
Those still in the market can only learn one thing:
Don't treat structural issues as short-term emotions.
#美联储降息