GuShiio.com When the “scapegoats” are eliminated, everything will remain the same, and new “scapegoats” will be quickly pushed out. Only the top level of power who has earned a lot of money will drink a glass in places you don’t know about.
Author: Ice Frog
Recently, public opinion about destroying studios seems to have begun to ferment again. Some people attribute the inability of altcoins to the studios, and believe that if the industry wants to reverse this situation, it should first destroy the studios.
It must be admitted that there are indeed many problems and chaos in the industry, but I don’t think all of these problems are caused by the studio and are worth discussing.
1. If Ban loses the studio, will the industry be better?
To answer this question, one must answer a premise logic: studios are a product of industry development, not the other way around. The importance of clarifying this logic lies in the fact that for any profit-seeking market, many things that seem to be prohibited are the result of a game of multi-party interests in the market. The same goes for the studio.
Therefore, our analysis around this interest game is very simple.
Who are the biggest vested interests and who are the ultimate rule-makers? If your knife does not cut at the biggest vested interests and the rule-makers, the reform is doomed to be ineffective.
The studio is not the biggest vested interest in this industry, and the studio is not the rule maker of this industry. If the studio wanted to have this energy, how could it be pushed into various places to defend rights?
Who is the financier? Who makes the bargaining rules? Who determines the currency on the exchange? Who sets the rules for airdrops? Who is the traffic driver? Before these fundamental questions are answered, it is difficult to simply attribute the mistakes to the studio.
However, from the perspective of interests and power, when the interest chain breaks and the capital feast ends, the studio can easily become a scapegoat for being shot. After all, in this industry chain, the studio is a relatively special existence. It is a link in traffic, but it does not have a lot of say and is often reversed. At the same time, retail investors are difficult to empathize, and project parties and capital are both Love and hate. Therefore, from this perspective, hitting the studio can easily become a politically correct choice.
Regardless of whether we can ban the studio, even if you ban it, what we want to discuss is: Will the problem be solved? Will the false prosperity of the industry completely dissipate? Is the industry getting better?
The obvious truth is that false prosperity is the result of the distorted development of the industry, but it is not the cause. The biggest problem is that many people are accustomed to treating phenomena as original sins, but turn a blind eye to the underlying structural and institutional problems.
The fundamental reason for the chaos in the industry lies in: fairness, and fairness. In an industry without a fair restraint mechanism, you can ban the destruction of studios, but not human greed and profit-seeking.
To take a step back, if the project party/capital/exchange are determined not to cooperate with the studio, you can still technically exclude the studio, and there is nothing wrong if it is eliminated like this.
The problem is that in a free market, in a market without fairness regulation, you need it and the studio gives it. You set the rules, and the studio will cooperate with you to play. How come the studio cannot forgive all evil? It’s okay if you want to crack down on the studio, but how could you change the rules yourself, anger the market, cut off the leeks, and in the end push the studio out, saying that it was all the studio’s fault?
I wonder if you are familiar with the writing of this script. As you can see in the classic movies “The Wolf of Wall Street”,”The Big Short” and “The Godfather”, among the pyramid of unequal power: the most conspicuous issues are the most easily targeted, only those with vested interests and power. The core retreated unscathed.
When the “scapegoats” are eliminated, everything will remain the same, and new “scapegoats” will be quickly pushed out. Only the top level of power who has earned a lot of money will drink a glass in places you don’t know about.
2. Is it the studio’s responsibility for retail investors to take over the offer? Who is the black hole of industry liquidity?
When the project parties and the exchange are eating a full banquet, why should they attribute the end of the feast to the studios and retail investors who are eating leftovers?
To be honest, this title makes me very ashamed as a studio. The main reason is that I am not capable of helping retail investors get rid of their traps, and I am being deceived, so I can only scold a few words and then endure it.
From the perspective of interests, no studio is willing to smash the market in its original intention. After all, back-ups, time costs, and losses are all risky. If the project party can really continue to build the project wholeheartedly and does not blindly raise the valuation, it will be a long-term plan. Who is willing to sell it at the opening of the market?
For truly high-quality underestimated projects, the market will naturally give positive feedback. Even if your project looks high-quality, no one is willing to take over the offer under the unworthy valuation.
For an investment market, there is no problem for studios to gain short-term benefits, or for any participant other than the project party to pursue short-term benefits. Using so-called long-term value as a proxy is true to have some “value cleanliness”.
As any market participant, there is no moral position to ask others to protect the market, except the project party itself. Especially when the project party and the capital party are also shipping through various means, they have no right to ask others to do better. The most helpless thing is that too many leeks are cut in the name of so-called “value.”
If you regard studio chips sold as a black hole in industry liquidity, it conceals the real problem.
Some people say that studio FUD affects the development of the project. I would like to say that a project with high-quality fundamentals is not afraid of the market. Its user base has never come from the studio. The studio FUD threat theory really overestimates the studio’s energy, or this is just a fig leaf for garbage projects. The market is the real fire that refines real gold. What can really shake high-quality projects is never the script soldier’s keyboard, but the Trojan horse in the project party’s own armor.
We must acknowledge the existence of chaos, but resolutely oppose and be wary of using partial truths to weave a whole lie. Just as the police may collude with gangs, if complex systemic chaos is attributed to the binary opposition between the studio and the market, the so-called studio threat theory is likely to be becoming a cover for real market manipulators. After all, the studio can be blamed for all this anyway.
3. Is the studio useless and has no contribution to the industry? Whose fault is the industry chaos?
It is a basic fact that the speculative nature of this industry is greater at this stage, but when discussing the development of the industry, at least moral judgment should be avoided.
In fact, if a large number of airdrop studios had not invested money and traffic during the cold start of the project, attracted users to join the community, experienced the project and continued to export hair-raising experience, without the studio’s batch brushing, ordinary retail investors might not have been able to recover their gas.
No studio rejects long-term doctrine, but in the absence of constraints in the industry, human nature’s pursuit of interests is beyond reproach. You cannot attribute it to the fact that the studio has broken the rules. The studio does not have this ability. More importantly, why are studios required to have higher moral self-discipline when the most powerful rule makers in the industry are breaking rules at will?
You can’t. You can have a rat warehouse, but I’m not allowed to collect wool. Furthermore, from the perspective of rule violations alone, objective evaluation is whether the project party’s rat warehouse is more damaging to fairness, or the studio is more damaging to fairness? Who is eroding market credibility?
This is tantamount to asking Las Vegas gamblers not to allow card counting, and allowing the real dealer to modify the roulette probability.
Should real fairness be fairness in rules or fairness based on balance of power? Fairness in the world does not lie in the fairness of everyone’s origins, education, and background, but in the same environment and rules, each does its best to obtain the greatest benefits, which is beyond anyone’s reproach. In a market that pursues profits, people never hate that you are stronger than me. What people hate is that you are playing the same thing and you enforce different rules.
The unfairness and opacity of rule-makers are the biggest sins of this market. If the project party itself is willing to build for a long time and exaggerate the valuation without capital fueling it, the exchange can truly practice value-only. The studio is not only not a disadvantage, but a benefit. At least before the industry has moved to a larger stage, it provides some initial meager traffic, at least you have to admit that there are some studios that continue to output their feedback on better optimization and better experience of the project.
For studios, we don’t easily characterize what a fraudulent project is. In a market where wealth effect is greater than anything else, a project that allows everyone to make money is a good project.
If the market really develops to the point where it naturally clarifies the format of the studio, there is no need to oppose it. After all, it means that as people who work hard, we no longer have to grit our teeth to provide the only liquidity for the project during the bear market. After all, it means that the market has truly matured, and there is no need to blame each other for who made the market decline.
Finally, from the perspective of change, if all this does not point to the industry’s biggest established interests, perhaps studios can be banned, but human greed cannot be prohibited, or it may be just another fig leaf for harvesting.
Welcome to join the official social community of Shenchao TechFlow
Telegram subscription group: www.gushiio.com/TechFlowDaily
Official Twitter account: www.gushiio.com/TechFlowPost
Twitter英文账号：https://www.gushiio.com/DeFlow_Intern
