Lots of similarities to the Bitcoin investment thesis. Where the chain itself becomes the product and not any utility derived from it. You have to believe in a likely future where all fiat money crashes and becomes worthless, evil states confiscate other forms of wealth, like stocks and bonds but for some reason will be powerless to prevent bitcoin transfers. At the same time the hard limit of 21 million BTC will never be revoked despite continuously declining miners revenue. And only within that strict narrative does a long-term investment really make sense.

I love the ending footnote, its the perfect statement to prove his thesis. Just because you understand the problem does not mean you are immune to it. Just because you know smoking is bad for, and you understand the mechanisms of addition, does not mean you manage to quit smoking.

Does anyone else find this kind of LLM written stuff tiring to read.

Admittedly I only read the titles.

  Good products come from tight cycles: ship something, listen to users, iterate. Token economics break that cycle by introducing a competing optimization target. The team stops asking "what do our developers need?" and starts asking "what supports the token narrative?"

In other words, the team starts asking "How can we maximize the token price while delivering as little product value as possible"?

This is why 99.99% of crypto projects are a scam.

No, your token investors don't give a damn what you deliver. They only care about the price of the token. Lie if you have to. Hype up your project like it's the greatest thing in the world. Do whatever to enable security fraud.

When teams discover that lying does more for the token price than actually building, they quickly switch incentives. Now they'll just lie, sell tokens, repeat, until a final rug pull to scam the remaining bag holders.