Thinking about the development of Virtuals, all in high consensus core projects, taking advantage of the decline to pick up 'good garbage' Today, the new round of @ virtualis_io genesis has come to an end, and the highly anticipated @ arbusai ARBUS has been launched. Currently, it has a market value of about 12m and a new subscription income of about 50 times or more, which should be within the ideal range, second only to the new subscription income of @ AIxVC_Axelrod and @ BasisOS. However, recently we have seen some people starting to consider whether this kind of benefit can be sustained, and even wondering if there is still a need to participate in the genesis launch. The core reason may be that the market value of previous launch projects, except for a few top tier ones, is slowly declining. Including ROAST WHIM, yesterday's XLLM2 only doubled. In my opinion, this downward trend will continue because users need to participate in new product launches and earn more profits by consuming resources 🔥 Or lock it 🔒 VIRTUAL , In the case of continuous consumption of VIRTUAL, users either one ️⃣ Continue to buy VIRTUAL at the second level two ️⃣ Or replace the previously profitable projects with VIRTUAL Although the latter may reduce diamond hands points, profit taking is not a bad choice compared to VIRTUAL's unpredictable decline of $2 and other projects. Therefore, projects that have been overshadowed by short-term heat or have no active progress will inevitably decline, and then the heat will reach the top few projects. The three most popular projects currently have high official support and will play an important role in the ACP plan of virtualis in the future. Reference: https://(x.com)/virtualils_io/status/1902085466025029859 My current idea is to participate as much as possible in projects with high consensus, as my attention is limited and the returns of projects with low consensus are becoming increasingly unpredictable after launch. However, the "high consensus" projects in this part need to allocate points reasonably based on market popularity. Although there are more participants in ARBUS today, the number of over fundraising situations has decreased, and the corresponding quota has increased. The only drawback is that it did not immediately catch up with AXR at 15m, otherwise, with the same points, it would have been more profitable to allocate them reasonably to ARBUS. So, from a new perspective, in my opinion, it's better to choose the best among the best and strive to get a higher percentage of credit to make a critical hit. In addition, the recent decline in projects does not necessarily mean that they are all bad, but rather the inevitable change in market attention. In this situation, if there are projects with good fundamentals that continue to work actively and are officially selected, taking the opportunity to pick them up should also gradually be discovered for value later on.