Peter Kim
@peter
I’m not anon, but I’m pretty sure people were upset about how the token launch was communicated (vague, then another token launched right after similar to Trump -> Melania liquidity fracture) rather than the chart going down which happens all the time trading Big official accounts shilling something have a lot of weight in the trenches I’m not saying it’s right of people to think that way, but that’s just reality on CT. When people get upset and lose money they will get angry and post all sorts of crazy shit especially if it could’ve been somewhat prevented will be hard to rewire their way of thinking FYI, I missed the token entirely and never traded it so trying to give an honest objective opinion of someone that both trades actively and is building in the space
3 replies
0 recast
9 reactions
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
> rather than the chart going down which happens all the time trading if the chart had gone to $1B market cap, no one would have complained
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
Peter Kim
@peter
but it would’ve never gone to $1B market cap as a content coin unless it somehow became an official base token which is the speculation that pumped it in the first place? That speculation should’ve been killed on the launch post if it was truly just a content coin
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
> it would’ve never gone to $1B market cap as a content coin 1. You can't run the counterfactual 2. People were claiming with certainty that the coin was a rug / dead yesterday. That is now, empirically, incorrect. 3. The point isn't whether this was likely to go to $1B. The point is people are quite confident in their model for how crypto works and then the market does something completely different. People should be more open-minded and less confident.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
