I heard an interesting topic today. Should we choose to focus on teams that prioritize technology or teams that focus on tokens? The former might have truly outstanding technology and their own revenue streams (completely unrelated to the token), but the token is useless. The latter might also have technology, but we don't know the specifics, but they'll manage the token well because they genuinely need it to make money. The token might be useless, but they'll operate it effectively.

The adage "bad money drives out good money" suggests that bad money must have some redeeming qualities.

Even among bad money, there are worse options. When good money is driven out by bad, the less bad ones become the new good money. That's why the market shifts towards comparing the worst, rather than the best. The worst, in a sense, are good money for a small group of people... What do you think of my summary, OP?

Haha, that's true, the so-called suboptimal solution principle. But what I want to discuss is the specific question of where the bad money actually has its advantages. In the past, whenever I heard of a scheme closing down and losing money, I would do a post-mortem analysis.

There's no such thing as "good money" anymore. We can only choose from bad money, bad money, rotten money, stinking money, and animal money—one that's not so bad. 🤣

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. I still prefer the beastly coin 😭