币圈意哥

Some projects have been promoted for years without any code submission.

The profit potential for ordinary users buying Bitcoin is far lower than that of other promising altcoins. As you mentioned, investing $50,000 in Bitcoin, even if it doubles, only yields $100,000. However, if you choose other cryptocurrencies with stronger technological innovations and broader market prospects, that $50,000 could earn you $250,000 or even more.

Ordinary investors should not blindly follow mainstream cryptocurrencies; paying attention to the growth of various coins is far more important than just focusing on the increase in BTC prices.

Even if BTC drops to $50,000, ordinary users who buy will still be cut off. Who ultimately profits from BTC? There will always be someone losing money and someone winning, capital and retail investors, capital will never lose. Just like in the real world, capital controls the bulls and horses!

Even if BTC will drop in the future, ordinary users should not buy it. BTC belongs to capital, and ordinary users buying BTC will only get exploited.

btc now and in the future, always belongs to capital

Last year, BTC soared to $120,000, and ordinary users still shouldn't touch it!

Last year, Bitcoin skyrocketed, peaking at $120,000. At that time, I issued a warning on Xiaohongshu, telling everyone not to blindly chase the high BTC. I mentioned that it would take many years for Bitcoin to reach $1,000,000, and this kind of asset is more suited for institutional capital rather than ordinary investors.

At that time, many people didn't believe it and thought BTC would continue to rise. However, the reality proved—there are deeper risks hidden behind this surge. Although many altcoins also surged several times due to market enthusiasm, BTC's volatility is too high. It can not only rise very high but also fall very deep.

The investment value of Bitcoin is more based on its scarcity and storage value, suitable for capital operations, but for ordinary investors, the high volatility brings not wealth growth but greater risk.

Now take a look, BTC has started to correct again, and many small retail investors are stuck at high positions. If you don't have strong capital and the patience for long-term holding, BTC is not suitable for you.

Conclusion: BTC is a game of capital, not a stage for ordinary investors. What truly brings returns are often those projects with solid value and practical technology, rather than chasing price fluctuations for short-term profits. $BTC

Altcoin Bear Market: No More Room to Fall, Waiting for a Clean-up

This week, there’s not much to say about the market; altcoins have nearly all collapsed, falling to the point where even their own 'mothers' can hardly recognize them. Look, coins like FIL and DOT, which were once star assets, are now nearing 1 dollar, having fallen as far as they can go. The 'altcoin season' is long gone, and the rebound at the end of 2024 is merely a flash in the pan. Many people still cling to fantasies, waiting for October to see an altcoin explosion, but the facts prove—you're all wrong.

Looking back at 2021, the feast of altcoins was like a dream; after the good times, what remains is a long bear market tail. Prices fell by 50%-70%, look at your account, how much pain do you feel? Even the strongest SOL and other projects have collapsed so severely, the remaining altcoins really lack support aside from speculation and short-term trading.

What are you still waiting for?
The 'altcoin season' has already passed. Many people's speculative dreams have turned into real losses; only a few truly valuable coins can withstand the market, while the others will eventually be eliminated. The altcoins in your hands, are they good coins or bad coins? Time will tell you the answer.

In the future, the low points will not be opportunities but a clean-up:
Remember, the market has already begun to enter a phase of survival of the fittest, good coins driving out bad coins. Those seemingly low-priced altcoins are really just ones that have fallen to their limits, not potential stocks. If you want to establish a foothold in this market, you must focus on long-term investments and no longer rely on fantasies of overnight wealth.

If you still hold hope for an altcoin recovery, then I can only say—you still don’t understand the rules of the game in the market. $BTC

Overall, the community activity of Siacoin (SC) is relatively small in the cryptocurrency world, not as large-scale as BTC/ETH/XMR, but it is not completely without attention or participation:

In terms of scale:
The main community of SC on Reddit, r/siacoin, has about ~49,000 subscribers, which is considered a medium-sized community in the cryptocurrency space, not popular but larger than many obscure projects. 
The official Twitter/X account has around 120,000 to 130,000 followers, indicating a group of followers who have been following for a long time. There are also a few thousand users interacting on Discord (for example, around 8,300 users migrated from Slack, with potential for growth), and community communication is moving to more active platforms. 

In terms of activity:
Community discussions are not very dense, and the interaction on Reddit and Discord is far less vibrant than that of mainstream large coins, but there is a stable group of enthusiasts and developers maintaining the ecosystem. Developer activity also shows a part of the "loyal force": about 50 developers made contributions in the past year, indicating that there are indeed people behind the scenes working on technological iterations. 

Overall characteristics:

The SC community is not like those large coins that rely on hype and speculation; it is more like a niche circle driven by engineering and interest, focusing on technology and ecological implementation rather than price discussions. 

Such a scale means that its voice is stable and rational to some extent, but it is clearly weaker in terms of communication and user growth compared to more commercialized or hotter projects. $SC

Siacoin is a project that hardly participates in the competition of crypto narratives.

While most chains are vying for the positions of "world computer," "financial layer," and "social protocol," SC has focused from the beginning on a very down-to-earth and practical matter: can hard drives really become a trustless infrastructure? There is no grand vision, no ideology; its problem has always been an engineering problem.

Its logic is very straightforward.
If cloud storage is essentially just "someone else helping you store data," then the risk always lies in the trust itself. Siacoin chooses to bypass trust: files are shredded, encrypted, and stored in a decentralized manner across unfamiliar nodes, with no single person owning the complete data and no single person worthy of trust. You are not renting a server; you are purchasing a structural guarantee.

The uniqueness of SC lies in the fact that it has hardly been eroded by "blockchain financialization."
No DeFi, no NFT, no governance voting, no fancy economic models. Contracts serve only one purpose: you provide space, I provide money; you lose data, I don’t pay. Default is automatic, settlement is cold, and there is no room for negotiation.

This also determines its temperament:
Not sexy, hard to tell stories about, not suitable for speculation.
The demand for storage is too slow, too long-term, and too hard to explode. It’s hard to feel that "decentralized storage has changed my life" within a month, but you can discover ten years later that the data is still there, and no one can take it away.

Siacoin's stubbornness lies in its refusal to transform.
While other storage projects start talking about Web3, ecosystems, and platforms, it continues to spend resources on: bandwidth optimization, contract stability, and node reliability. In the eyes of the market, this is almost equal to "no progress," but from an engineering perspective, this is the only real progress.

It does not attempt to become an entry point, nor does it try to control users.
It doesn’t even care whether you know its name.
You just need to know one thing: when you don’t want to hand your data over to anyone, it still exists. $SC

Decred is a currency that does not please anyone.

It is not for speed, nor for excitement, and it certainly is not to appear smart during a bull market. From the very beginning, it assumes one thing: people make mistakes, power becomes concentrated, and the market is short-sighted. Therefore, it writes 'how to correct mistakes' into the protocol itself.

The core of DCR is neither PoW nor PoS, but rather that governance rights cannot be held long-term by a single group. Miners cannot be dictators, holders cannot win without effort, and developers do not have the final say. Any changes must go through real on-chain voting, leaving a record and bearing the consequences. This is not an efficiency design; it is a design for the defense of power.

It is very slow.
Slow enough that an upgrade takes a long time to discuss, slow enough that the decision-making process is almost devoid of drama.
But this slowness comes from a deliberate refusal to cater to popular opinion. DCR would rather miss a trend than overdraw consensus with a 'let's change it first and discuss later' approach. It believes that the most dangerous time for a system is not when no one is in charge, but when it is managed too aggressively.

In a market where a currency lives on narratives, Decred is extremely restrained.
It does not rely on foundations for direction, does not depend on VCs for backing, and does not count on opinion leaders to set the tone. Financial funds are public, expenditure direction is transparent, and developers must be accountable to the community. You may disagree with its direction, but you cannot say it secretly changed the rules.

Its stubbornness is not emotional.
It is not 'I will not listen to you,' but rather 'we only listen to the process.'
While other projects ask 'what does the market want,' Decred asks: if today's decision is wrong, will we still have the power to correct it in ten years?

So DCR is destined to be unappealing.
It is not suitable for chasing trends, not suitable for short cycles, and not suitable to be told as a story to newcomers.
But it is suitable for another kind of person—those who care about how the system ages and how it can still maintain its shape under the corrosion of power. $DCR

CKB is not the 'next ETH',
it is more like the disk layer + property system of the blockchain world.

If you ask whether it is worth long-term research: it is worth it.
If you ask whether it is short-term explosive: it is not its character.

1. What is CKB doing!!

CKB is not about making a 'faster chain', but rather about creating a decentralized state hard drive.
Other chains sell 'execution', CKB sells 'long-term, secure, trustless state storage'.

2. What is the strength of the Cell model
CKB's Cell = programmable UTXO.
Compared to the account model, it has three significant advantages:
1) State is naturally isolated: each Cell is an independent state unit and will not be slowed down by the global state.
2) Verification first, execution optional: only rules are verified on-chain, complex execution can be offloaded to off-chain.
3) Strong cross-system compatibility: BTC/ETH models can all be mapped in, without forcing others to 'change beliefs'.

This makes CKB very suitable for:
The final settlement layer for cross-chain assets
Long-term existing DAO state / identity / asset certificates
States that do not require frequent interactions but cannot be lost

3. The economic model of CKB (many people do not understand)
CKB = state occupancy rights.
The more bytes of state you lock, the more CKB you need to lock for the long term.

The key points are here:
State is a scarce resource
Occupying state = locking coins
The more applications, the smaller the circulating supply

Secondary Issuance is not 'inflation', but rather:
Those who do not use state → get diluted
Those who occupy state → immune to dilution
This is a design that favors 'long-term builders'.

4. PoW but not a copy of BTC
CKB uses PoW for:
Not relying on validator governance
Maintaining extreme conservatism at the protocol layer
Allowing states to exist long-term without being destroyed by 'governance upgrades'

It does not pursue a hash power war but aims for sustainable security, intended for 'storing states for ten years'.

5. The real strengths of CKB (but not sexy)
Very suitable for being a multi-chain anchor
Very suitable for cold assets / cold identities / cold contracts
Upgrades are very slow, but once they exist, they are not easily overturned

This is the nature of infrastructure, not an application chain.

6. Real risks (must be made clear)
1) Demand starts slowly: state storage is not a narrative of immediate necessity
2) Prices are highly insensitive to narratives: easy to be overlooked in a bull market
3) Need external ecology to prove value: it is difficult to take off relying solely on itself
4) The market does not reward 'correct but slow' things $CKB

The problem with Ethereum has never been that it is 'not advanced enough', but rather that it is 'too advanced'. It resembles a city with continuously added floors; the original streets were once walkable, but are now wrapped in elevated roads, tunnels, and interchanges. The designers still look up to the future, while the people on the ground have already begun to get lost.

Gas fees are the most immediate pain. It is not a technical term but an emotion: hesitation, calculation, abandonment. A simple interaction requires one to ask whether it is worth it; a transfer may cost more than the amount itself. When the ideal of 'decentralization' comes at a high cost, it quietly blocks ordinary users at the door.

To alleviate congestion, Ethereum has chosen layered scaling. Thus, the world has been divided into countless L2s: Rollup, ZK, Optimistic, with names like academic papers and experiences like experiments. Assets move back and forth on bridges, security assumptions stack upon each other, and the cost of understanding keeps getting passed on to users. The system is indeed more efficient, but its overall intuitiveness has diminished.

Developers here are both strong and burdened. Ethereum grants them the greatest freedom while imposing the most complexity. Protocol updates, EIPs, compatibility, audits—every step demands a high degree of professionalism. Innovation is still occurring, but the pace is slow and the costs high, like moving through deep snow, leaving deep tracks with every step.

The deeper issue is temperament. Ethereum is gradually shifting from a 'globally usable value network' to a 'platform for elite engineer collaboration'. It remains correct, rigorous, and decentralized, but has lost a bit of lightness. When a system needs to be repeatedly explained to be used, it has already strayed from intuition.

Therefore, Ethereum's biggest problem does not come from competitors, but from its own weight. It carries too many ideals, histories, and responsibilities; it moves steadily but struggles to do so quickly. It may still be the cornerstone of future finance, but the road to the future is no longer smooth.

The biggest advantage of SOL is actually also its biggest risk.

Many people see SOL and only notice two words: fast, cheap.
But the real issue has never been performance, but rather —
Is speed really the most scarce thing in blockchain?

SOL's path is very clear:
Single high-performance main chain
Extreme throughput
Very low fees
Leaving complexity to the underlying layer

This allows it to almost crush most public chains in terms of user experience.
NFTs, memes, on-chain transactions, SOL is naturally compatible with them.

But what is the cost?
$SOL is highly dependent on hardware + a stronger tendency towards centralization.

SOL chooses to:
Exchange engineering efficiency for decentralized flexibility.

This is not a mistake, but a trade-off.
The problem lies in —
When a chain becomes the "easiest to use chain," can it still bear the title of "the safest ledger"?

You will notice an interesting phenomenon:
Retail investors like SOL
Application parties like SOL
But assets that truly lock in value for the long term still lean more towards ETH / BTC

The reason is simple:
SOL is more like a consumption-based chain,
Rather than a value-preserving chain.

Many people are now writing about ETH, in fact, they are avoiding judgment.

When it rises, they say the ecosystem is strong,
when it falls, they say the fundamentals haven't changed.
It all sounds correct, but none of it is useful.

If we remove the emotions, the only real question ETH is facing now is:
Is it still the "only chain that must exist"?

In the past, ETH's moat was very clear:
The most developers
The most complete DeFi
The strongest network effects

But the problem now is👇
These advantages are being "split."

Execution speed has been taken by L2,
User experience has been taken by application chains,
Low fee demand has been taken by Solana,
And ETH itself is increasingly resembling a **"settlement layer + value anchor"**.

This is not a bad thing, but it means:
ETH's value no longer comes from being "easy to use," but from being "necessary to use."

Here comes the problem——
In an era of multi-chain coexistence,
how many applications truly cannot do without ETH?

Looking at the price level.
ETH does not lack long-term believers, what it lacks is the consensus speed of new narratives.
It won't surge like a meme based on misunderstandings,
it's also hard to expand like a new chain based on imagination.

So what does ETH currently resemble?
It resembles a financial fundamental asset rather than a growth-oriented target. $ETH