Before LLM entered our lives (about five years ago, haha!), I thought that soon there would be a programming language much easier to use, allowing anyone to code anything.
At that time, graphical programming, IFTTT, and similar tools seemed to be the direction we were heading.
But it went in a different direction: now we have LLMs to code for us. So I believe that soon we will see a new programming language specifically designed for AI. It will offer performance but will likely be much harder for humans to use. Think Assembler, but AI-oriented.
The business that owns the end-users always wins.
It can build the whole vertical, when it's economically effective. @base did that.
Infrastructure always has the lowest margin, unless it is a monopoly.
Build for people, not for your imaginary partners and institutions.
Tokens without utility or revenue share are memecoins.
$W - 3-governance proposals since TGE, none matters, Mcap 380M
$JUP - many governance proposals, none matters, governance stopped without a voting (lmfao), Mcap 1.5B
Compare with $DOGE Mcap of 32B.
Simply bad memecoins.
I don't really understand why we use wallets for user identification in Web3.
- Not convenient: user can have many wallets on many chains;
- Not confidential: user exposes all the transactions on login;
- Hard for Web2 users to understand.
Wallets are for transactions.
Play-to-earn though used to be an interesting concept, and they researched it. But at the end of the day, these games still need a party that pays for everything, and none of them found the sustainable financial model.
@KyleSamani Both @pumpdotfun and @zora ignore the fundamental factor: content distribution. For the creator, the audience and attention is tied to the distribution platform. Monetization is also connected to distribution, ignoring this = failure.
Why on earth should $JUP go up?
- Circulating supply growing
- Utility = pointless votes + ASR that just prints more tokens
- Zero tie to @JupiterExchange revenue and no treasury rights
Maybeโฆ do the math?
@alphagrowl@JupiterExchange Inflation distribution via staking was always questionable for $JUP.
Inflation is basically bad, as long as we don't see utility. It's a basic economics: no organic demand, more supply = result is easy to predict. Staking rewards can never cover these losses.
@alphagrowl@JupiterExchange I really love the @JupiterExchange product. The problem is the $JUP. Now it is just the token with same name.
I believe that instead of hopium, $JUP holders need to form the demand: $JUP need to have program-based and DAO controlled connection with product revenue.