Transcript (en)

Do you think that FOMO has had a part of that? I think so. I don't know if it's because the market has matured, but I think it's more so that we're shedding light on the people who are doing it, right? I think if a coin launches, and there's a lot of nuance with PVP, right? If it's, you know, a coin takes off, there's an older version, or there's a version with the, you know, the original team or CTO, like, there's nuance here. And I think it's hard to determine, you know, what is the right token to buy then? But there's clear PVP that is nefarious, which is token launches, it gets some traction, somebody else decides i don't have entry so i'm going to go launch another token and that is just objectively bad behavior right because unless there's some x like some very big reason for why you did that which is maybe okay you know it's 99 bundle they're gonna dump on you whatever shy of that it's just nefarious to go launch something else just because you don't have entry and i think people have started to do it less and less because fomo shows you who is that person who's trying to be malicious who is that person that's going to start that coin and say this is the real coin just just because they didn't get entry. And I think that this social behavior is actually something that is net good because you want people to stop doing these things. If there's a narrative, let it run. If you don't have entry, look for entry, right? Do things that are within your control that don't actually kind of jeopardize the entire narrative or the entire momentum of the coin. And I think that that's something that the public can definitely agree is net bad if you do. So I think we just shed more accountability into who's doing right, who's doing wrong. And at the end of the day, your reputation is something that goes a long way.