Recently, the project is undergoing a brand/mainnet upgrade and token swap, so we have been in contact with various exchanges. We have built from 2017 to today, and these standard processes are quite clear. Aside from the corresponding compliance procedures and code audits, what remains is the market budget, how many new users/traffic it can bring, and how to allow existing users to benefit, etc. The project team needs liquidity and new trading venues; exchanges need users and trading volume, which is a mutually beneficial situation.

The interesting part is that after simple business communication, it moves to the research department for evaluation. They raised several points that could lead to rejecting our listing or require an increased budget due to certain conditions not being met. I’ll highlight a few interesting ones.

First, they said our data and popularity are insufficient, specifically pointing out our lack of social media data and on-chain data, and they provided several examples of similar projects in the same field. I was puzzled; you are the research department, studying projects every day, can’t you tell the authenticity and truthfulness of the data? Come on, an account with hundreds of thousands of Twitter followers has tweets with only a few thousand views and fewer than 10 comments, and you tell me that’s real? Then on-chain data consists of multiple transaction records within a single transaction hash; are all the retail investors in your project experts? Can everyone just do their own RPC interface for packaged transactions? This is clearly unreasonable, right? Especially since professional AI data labeling itself has a threshold; it’s unlikely that a large number of labelers would appear to label the same set of data, especially since the subsequent data verification and cleaning costs are higher than the labeling itself, making it even less likely unless you don’t care about costs or your purpose is not for the data itself.

Second, the endorsement from investment institutions. Most projects listed now (except for memes) require backing from major VCs. But as an older project, from FunctionX in 2019 to today’s PundiAI, we have been building for over six years using our own money and have never taken a penny from outside. From the perspective of us “old-timers,” isn’t this a good thing? Purely community-driven, no VC control, and emotionally, it’s a very “sentimental” thing, right? Yet in the eyes of the research department, this has become synonymous with lacking formal institutional endorsement, being “not legit,” and having no popularity. I don’t even know how to respond to this…

Third, the token circulation and valuation. From 2019 to now, all tokens have been unlocked, our market cap = fully diluted valuation, with nearly 70% of tokens locked in validator nodes. Then the big shots in the research department said there’s a lot of selling pressure. I was puzzled; first, not to mention that most of the tokens are in validator nodes, we are purely community-driven, who would sell? Secondly, our old tokens have been listed on major exchanges before; after six years of ups and downs, would we still need to sell on your platform? Furthermore, the selling pressure is proportional to the market fully diluted valuation; our market cap and fully diluted valuation are less than 100 million. An AI data layer with business, products, customers, and revenue is only 100 million; why don’t you look at those projects that have just been listed with a fully diluted valuation of 1 billion? Their selling pressure needs more attention, right? No, their later selling pressure needs more attention, right?!

There are many more points to complain about, but I won’t go into detail. I can understand that the research big shots see many projects every day and have their own opinions and data dimensions, and this involves a lot of professional knowledge, but at the very least, the basic truths and falsehoods should be distinguished, right?

I don’t know when it started, but traffic bribery, data bribery/fraud, project skin-swapping (I’ve even heard of founder skin-swapping?), airdrops to studios, and then handing them over to market makers for selling, have surprisingly become basic operations for projects to get listed.

Sometimes I feel that getting listed, especially for some early coins, is very similar to venture capital; it’s about investing in the people/team’s fundamental qualities. If getting listed relies on these tactics to exchanges and VCs, then the future development of these projects is truly concerning.

We have been in this circle for so long, and we are somewhat aware of these tricks and tactics. It’s not that we can’t do it, but we are unwilling to do so. Because in the end, these things will only benefit studios, gray industries, and manipulators, at the cost of new retail investors’ money, the focus of builders’ work shifting, and the overall industry’s stagnation. (P.S.: To say something shameless, the current airdrop tricks are just what we had left over from back in the day.)

We have seen bulls and bears and storms, so we know that maintaining our original intention is really not easy. Sometimes I really miss the friends I met during the ICO boom in 2017/2018 (many of the bosses I met back then have retired). Back then, the community was poor, but every topic we discussed was about how to improve efficiency/safety, how to push to market, and how to support each other in case of hacks, etc., to win and develop together. Back then, introducing a VC or an exchange listing opportunity was all done for free (a thousand words omitted here), but now it’s all about various kickbacks/referral fees/management fees.

I really miss the pure us from that time.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。