CONFIRMED: Same group behind the launching & draining of both $LIBRA and $YZY
The 23M extraction story:
1/ YZY launch
I guess you bought $YZY with a price >1$?
Well, this guy bought it at 0.2$, with a big 250k size.
$1M profit in 8 minutes.
2/ Cashout
Then he sent all the 1.8M to a new wallet.
The wallet already received a lot of money from other sources.
6 months ago.
What happened 6 Month ago? $LIBRA launch
3/ Libra sniper 1
This is the first sniper that sent money to the treasury wallet
Bought libra before everyone.
Swapped a lot through LP (same as the Kanye sniper)
9M extracted
4/ Libra sniper 2
This one was even better.
From the inside information it was able to extract $11.5M
5/ A recap
This is what they extracted so far with:
• Inside info
• Big capital
Almost 23M, now sitting on Kamino or already on Binance
6/ Conclusion
This is proof is that he did not snipe any coin besides $YZY and $LIBRA, and he was prepared with huge size, and he acted in a way that only an insider could have.
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🤖🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
The 23M extraction story:
1/ YZY launch
I guess you bought $YZY with a price >1$?
Well, this guy bought it at 0.2$, with a big 250k size.
$1M profit in 8 minutes.
2/ Cashout
Then he sent all the 1.8M to a new wallet.
The wallet already received a lot of money from other sources.
6 months ago.
What happened 6 Month ago? $LIBRA launch
3/ Libra sniper 1
This is the first sniper that sent money to the treasury wallet
Bought libra before everyone.
Swapped a lot through LP (same as the Kanye sniper)
9M extracted
4/ Libra sniper 2
This one was even better.
From the inside information it was able to extract $11.5M
5/ A recap
This is what they extracted so far with:
• Inside info
• Big capital
Almost 23M, now sitting on Kamino or already on Binance
6/ Conclusion
This is proof is that he did not snipe any coin besides $YZY and $LIBRA, and he was prepared with huge size, and he acted in a way that only an insider could have.
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🤖🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
🤬4💯2
Is the Hayden Davis “we’re here to max extract” draining of memecoins true “capitalism” by any good, concrete definition?
Anonymous Quiz
10%
Yes - memecoin draining is true “capitalism”, and I have a good, concrete defintion that shows why
15%
No — and I have a good concrete defintion that shows why
25%
Idk - I can’t come up with any good concrete definition of capitalism that works here
50%
Show results
🫡2👀1
What’s happened in memecoins so far, with the arrival of drainer “sociopaths” like Hayden Davis and his celebrity accomplices,
Nothing new under the sun,
Geeks, MOPs, and sociopaths in subculture evolution
THE BIRTH OF COOL —
In the beginning there is a scene, a small group of creators who invent an exciting New Thing—a musical genre, a religious sect, a film animation technique, a political theory
The new scene draws fanatics. Fanatics don’t create, but they contribute energy (time, money, adulation, organization, analysis) to support the creators.
Creators and fanatics are both geeks. They totally love the New Thing, they’re fascinated with all its esoteric ins and outs, and they spend all available time either doing it or talking about it.
THE MOP INVASION —
Fanatics want to share their obsession, and mops initially validate it for them too. However, as mop numbers grow, they become a headache.
Mops dilute the culture. The New Thing, although attractive, is more intense and weird and complicated than mops would prefer. Their favorite songs are the ones that are least the New Thing, and more like other, popular things. Some creators oblige with less radical, friendlier, simpler creations.
Mops relate to each other in “normal” ways, like people do on TV, which the fanatics find repellent. During intermission, geeks want to talk about the New Thing, but mops blather about sportsball and celebrities.
Also, the mops also seem increasingly ennoscriptd, treating the fanatics as service workers.
Fanatics may be generous, but they signed up to support geeks, not mops. At this point, they may all quit, and the subculture collapses.
THE SOCIOPATH INVASION —
Unless sociopaths show up. A subculture at this stage is ripe for exploitation. The creators generate cultural capital, i.e. cool. The fanatics generate social capital: a network of relationships—strong ones among the geeks, and weaker but numerous ones with mops.
The mops, when properly squeezed, produce liquid capital, i.e. money. None of those groups have any clue about how to extract and manipulate any of those forms of capital.
The sociopaths quickly become best friends with selected creators.
Geeks may not be completely fooled, but they also are clueless about what the sociopaths are up to.
Mops are fooled. They don’t care so much about details, and the sociopaths look to them like creators, only better. Sociopaths become the coolest kids in the room, demoting the creators.
The sociopaths also work out how to monetize mops—which the fanatics were never good at. With better publicity materials, the addition of a light show, and new, more crowd-friendly product, admission fees go up tenfold, and mops are willing to pay. Somehow, not much of the money goes to creators.
THE DEATH OF COOL, UNLESS —
As the mops dwindle, the sociopaths loot whatever value is left, and move on to the next exploit.
They leave behind only wreckage: devastated geeks who still have no idea what happened to their wonderful New Thing and the wonderful friendships they formed around it.
(Often the geeks all end up hating each other, due first to the stress of supporting mops, and later due to sociopath divide-and-conquer manipulation tactics.)
Unless some of the creators are geniuses. If they can give the New Thing genuine mass appeal, they can ascend into superstardom. The subculture will reorganize around them, into a much more durable form.
Geeks, MOPs, and sociopaths in subculture evolution
Will memecoins transcend and evolve to overpower the drainer sociopaths, or die a clueless death?
What’s next ?
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
Nothing new under the sun,
Geeks, MOPs, and sociopaths in subculture evolution
THE BIRTH OF COOL —
In the beginning there is a scene, a small group of creators who invent an exciting New Thing—a musical genre, a religious sect, a film animation technique, a political theory
The new scene draws fanatics. Fanatics don’t create, but they contribute energy (time, money, adulation, organization, analysis) to support the creators.
Creators and fanatics are both geeks. They totally love the New Thing, they’re fascinated with all its esoteric ins and outs, and they spend all available time either doing it or talking about it.
THE MOP INVASION —
Fanatics want to share their obsession, and mops initially validate it for them too. However, as mop numbers grow, they become a headache.
Mops dilute the culture. The New Thing, although attractive, is more intense and weird and complicated than mops would prefer. Their favorite songs are the ones that are least the New Thing, and more like other, popular things. Some creators oblige with less radical, friendlier, simpler creations.
Mops relate to each other in “normal” ways, like people do on TV, which the fanatics find repellent. During intermission, geeks want to talk about the New Thing, but mops blather about sportsball and celebrities.
Also, the mops also seem increasingly ennoscriptd, treating the fanatics as service workers.
Fanatics may be generous, but they signed up to support geeks, not mops. At this point, they may all quit, and the subculture collapses.
THE SOCIOPATH INVASION —
Unless sociopaths show up. A subculture at this stage is ripe for exploitation. The creators generate cultural capital, i.e. cool. The fanatics generate social capital: a network of relationships—strong ones among the geeks, and weaker but numerous ones with mops.
The mops, when properly squeezed, produce liquid capital, i.e. money. None of those groups have any clue about how to extract and manipulate any of those forms of capital.
The sociopaths quickly become best friends with selected creators.
Geeks may not be completely fooled, but they also are clueless about what the sociopaths are up to.
Mops are fooled. They don’t care so much about details, and the sociopaths look to them like creators, only better. Sociopaths become the coolest kids in the room, demoting the creators.
The sociopaths also work out how to monetize mops—which the fanatics were never good at. With better publicity materials, the addition of a light show, and new, more crowd-friendly product, admission fees go up tenfold, and mops are willing to pay. Somehow, not much of the money goes to creators.
THE DEATH OF COOL, UNLESS —
As the mops dwindle, the sociopaths loot whatever value is left, and move on to the next exploit.
They leave behind only wreckage: devastated geeks who still have no idea what happened to their wonderful New Thing and the wonderful friendships they formed around it.
(Often the geeks all end up hating each other, due first to the stress of supporting mops, and later due to sociopath divide-and-conquer manipulation tactics.)
Unless some of the creators are geniuses. If they can give the New Thing genuine mass appeal, they can ascend into superstardom. The subculture will reorganize around them, into a much more durable form.
Geeks, MOPs, and sociopaths in subculture evolution
Will memecoins transcend and evolve to overpower the drainer sociopaths, or die a clueless death?
What’s next ?
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
💯3👀1
What defines “good” bets or moves, e.g. in a particular game of blackjack?
Assess just financially, not in terms of e.g. fun or clout. (For simplicity here, assuming just one single bet or game ever, in isolation, not considering repeated games.)
Assess just financially, not in terms of e.g. fun or clout. (For simplicity here, assuming just one single bet or game ever, in isolation, not considering repeated games.)
Final Results
33%
Winnings — the more net money yo end up with, the more “good” the bet / moves were, in retrospect
33%
Something else
33%
Show results
If someone offered you $100 to cross a deadly interstate highway blindfolded,
Or to play Russian Roulette for one round
— And then you did it,
— and then you successfully won the $100
= outcome +$100 for you
Then was that a “good bet”, for you because the outcome was 100% good?
How to properly judge “goodness” of bets? By outcome in retrospect or by something else?
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
Or to play Russian Roulette for one round
— And then you did it,
— and then you successfully won the $100
= outcome +$100 for you
Then was that a “good bet”, for you because the outcome was 100% good?
How to properly judge “goodness” of bets? By outcome in retrospect or by something else?
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
👀1
If it costs you $100 to make a bet,
and you have a 1% chance of winning that bet,
and then you make that bet,
and you LOSE that bet
— was it a “good bet”, given that outcome?
Assume nothing but what is stated here
(Assume no externalities, of any kind, not fun or clout or anything, no externalities neither positive nor negative, and assume you are rich)
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
and you have a 1% chance of winning that bet,
and then you make that bet,
and you LOSE that bet
— was it a “good bet”, given that outcome?
Assume nothing but what is stated here
(Assume no externalities, of any kind, not fun or clout or anything, no externalities neither positive nor negative, and assume you are rich)
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
👀1
DoomPosting
If it costs you $100 to make a bet, and you have a 1% chance of winning that bet, and then you make that bet, and you LOSE that bet — was it a “good bet”, given that outcome? Assume nothing but what is stated here (Assume no externalities, of any kind…
If you bet $100 on a bet for which you knew you truly had 1% chance or winning, and then you lost, was that a good bet?
Final Results
32%
Yes, that bet you lost $100 on, as predictable from the 1% odds, was a bad bet
20%
No, wasn’t a bad bet
24%
Something else
24%
Show results
👀1
How to NUMERICALLY measure whether something is a good bet
— at least for these very simplest artificial toy examples shown above?
What are the numeric factors that are input when calculating the goodness of a bet, for these toy examples?
What is the criteria with which you determine the output, of whether the bet was a good bet?
Outcome > $0?
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
— at least for these very simplest artificial toy examples shown above?
What are the numeric factors that are input when calculating the goodness of a bet, for these toy examples?
What is the criteria with which you determine the output, of whether the bet was a good bet?
Outcome > $0?
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
❤🔥2🔥2👀1
DoomPosting
If you bet $100 on a bet for which you knew you truly had 1% chance or winning, and then you lost, was that a good bet?
Remember counterfactual reasoning?
Remember how a HUGE portion of the people cannot comprehend counterfactuals at all?
— “How would you feel if you did not have breakfast this morning?”
“But I did have breakfast this morning?”
— “Bro do you realize playing Russian Roulette to win $100 was a horribly bad bet?”
“But I did win $100?”
— “Bro a rich dude betting $100 to win $1M at 1% odds was a great bet”
“But he lost $100”
= All failure to be able to comprehend counterfactuals,
i.e. reasoning about returns over possibly-infinite parallel worlds, in a sufficiently-accurate world model
If your answer was “outcome” as being what makes a “good bet” in these toy questions
— Then sorry you are the niqqa here
“But I did have breakfast this morning?” <- You rn
Counterfactual thinking — what separates the primitive from the advanced, yet a seemingly totally insurmountable obstacle to 95%+ of people
This, even if we do show all the math in the world, most will never really get this, and still refuse to believe
Incomprehensible parallel worlds of counterfactualism
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
Remember how a HUGE portion of the people cannot comprehend counterfactuals at all?
— “How would you feel if you did not have breakfast this morning?”
“But I did have breakfast this morning?”
— “Bro do you realize playing Russian Roulette to win $100 was a horribly bad bet?”
“But I did win $100?”
— “Bro a rich dude betting $100 to win $1M at 1% odds was a great bet”
“But he lost $100”
= All failure to be able to comprehend counterfactuals,
i.e. reasoning about returns over possibly-infinite parallel worlds, in a sufficiently-accurate world model
If your answer was “outcome” as being what makes a “good bet” in these toy questions
— Then sorry you are the niqqa here
“But I did have breakfast this morning?” <- You rn
Counterfactual thinking — what separates the primitive from the advanced, yet a seemingly totally insurmountable obstacle to 95%+ of people
This, even if we do show all the math in the world, most will never really get this, and still refuse to believe
Incomprehensible parallel worlds of counterfactualism
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
🔥4💯3❤🔥2
DoomPosting
If you bet $100 on a bet for which you knew you truly had 1% chance or winning, and then you lost, was that a good bet?
In short,
(1) Yes, spending $100 for a true 1% chance to win $1M, and losing — was a GOOD bet, regardless of whether you won or lost
(2) Yes, winning $100 for playing a round of Russian Roulette — likely BAD bet, regardless of whether you won or lost
Toy example math, with the strong assumptions of these toy examples, works out to roughly the probability-weighted average of the gains minus the costs, i.e.
(1) ($1M * 1% + $0 * 99%) / 1 - $100 = $100k - $100 = buying a bet worth $99,900 for $100 = positive net value = a GREAT deal
(2) ($100 * 7/8 + $0 * 1/8) / 1 - value your life = hugely negative, if your life is worth more than $100 = positive net value = a TERRIBLE deal
What about outcome?
Notice how realized OUTCOME of bets is NOT EVEN IN these equations for determining whether a bet is a good bet,
Outcome is irrelevant — at least for the question of whether the bet was a good bet, under these toy assumptions
What about probabilities?
Probabilities are NEVER what you ultimately use to decide if something is a good bet — VALUE is, with probability just being one of many possible discounting factors on the ultimate value.
Ofc this should be obvious from the English itself
“good bet” = question of “goodness” = all questions of goodness are ALWAYS questions of VALUE, (not truth, or probability, or anything else other than value)
= “good bet” was always a “value” question, literally, expressed in some units of value
Now ofc there are other considerations when going beyond these toy models — and for these the math quickly becomes far less accessible than simple arithmetic
E.g.
— Non-infinite budget means bet sizing should be based on your current budget, and payoff odds, among other things, e.g. via kelly discounting or something better
— “Probabilities”, that are not actually probabilities but rather things under the control of the counterparty typically must be be assessed at the worst-case value, instead of anything like the average case
— Limited or imperfect observations about the true odds or true world model means you’ll be taking a lower bound at some alpha percentile, to account for exploration vs exploitation tradeoff of needing to take on some non-zero risk to make non-vacuous actions in light of imperfect information
— False discovery rate mitigation, again for cases where odds you’re observing are not true odds, and needing to counterfactually control for this as best possible
— And typically you want to elimiate the need for reasoning about probabilities entirely, or as much as possible, via proofs & hedging liabilities, establishing trustworthiness while eliminating the element of chance
— And you may be creating estimated world models on-the-fly, based on observed outcomes… yet that does not change whether something truely is a good bet, since true goodness of a bet is based on true counterfactual worlds, not based on your faulty estimates of what results in those parallel scenarios would be
Tbh, the rabit hole of handling the non-toy scenarios and eliminating false assumptions can go super-deep
BUT,
The top-level principles remain the same
= Whether something is a “good bet” is ultimately a question of value, a question of discounted returns over parallel counterfactual worlds, not ultimately a question of what happened in this reality, not ultimately a question of probability — and it is a simple question that 95% are totally incapable of ever understanding, but nonetheless, this is the reality
Eppur si muove
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
(1) Yes, spending $100 for a true 1% chance to win $1M, and losing — was a GOOD bet, regardless of whether you won or lost
(2) Yes, winning $100 for playing a round of Russian Roulette — likely BAD bet, regardless of whether you won or lost
Toy example math, with the strong assumptions of these toy examples, works out to roughly the probability-weighted average of the gains minus the costs, i.e.
(1) ($1M * 1% + $0 * 99%) / 1 - $100 = $100k - $100 = buying a bet worth $99,900 for $100 = positive net value = a GREAT deal
(2) ($100 * 7/8 + $0 * 1/8) / 1 - value your life = hugely negative, if your life is worth more than $100 = positive net value = a TERRIBLE deal
What about outcome?
Notice how realized OUTCOME of bets is NOT EVEN IN these equations for determining whether a bet is a good bet,
Outcome is irrelevant — at least for the question of whether the bet was a good bet, under these toy assumptions
What about probabilities?
Probabilities are NEVER what you ultimately use to decide if something is a good bet — VALUE is, with probability just being one of many possible discounting factors on the ultimate value.
Ofc this should be obvious from the English itself
“good bet” = question of “goodness” = all questions of goodness are ALWAYS questions of VALUE, (not truth, or probability, or anything else other than value)
= “good bet” was always a “value” question, literally, expressed in some units of value
Now ofc there are other considerations when going beyond these toy models — and for these the math quickly becomes far less accessible than simple arithmetic
E.g.
— Non-infinite budget means bet sizing should be based on your current budget, and payoff odds, among other things, e.g. via kelly discounting or something better
— “Probabilities”, that are not actually probabilities but rather things under the control of the counterparty typically must be be assessed at the worst-case value, instead of anything like the average case
— Limited or imperfect observations about the true odds or true world model means you’ll be taking a lower bound at some alpha percentile, to account for exploration vs exploitation tradeoff of needing to take on some non-zero risk to make non-vacuous actions in light of imperfect information
— False discovery rate mitigation, again for cases where odds you’re observing are not true odds, and needing to counterfactually control for this as best possible
— And typically you want to elimiate the need for reasoning about probabilities entirely, or as much as possible, via proofs & hedging liabilities, establishing trustworthiness while eliminating the element of chance
— And you may be creating estimated world models on-the-fly, based on observed outcomes… yet that does not change whether something truely is a good bet, since true goodness of a bet is based on true counterfactual worlds, not based on your faulty estimates of what results in those parallel scenarios would be
Tbh, the rabit hole of handling the non-toy scenarios and eliminating false assumptions can go super-deep
BUT,
The top-level principles remain the same
= Whether something is a “good bet” is ultimately a question of value, a question of discounted returns over parallel counterfactual worlds, not ultimately a question of what happened in this reality, not ultimately a question of probability — and it is a simple question that 95% are totally incapable of ever understanding, but nonetheless, this is the reality
Eppur si muove
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
🔥2💯2
DoomPosting
Is the Hayden Davis “we’re here to max extract” draining of memecoins true “capitalism” by any good, concrete definition?
Now, to the question we started all of this to answer,
— Is the Hayden Davis’ “we’re here to max extract” draining of memecoins true “capitalism” by any good, concrete definition?
For this, I’d cite one of the most classic central rules of so-called capitalism:
“The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit”
I.e.
“No exchange takes place unless its truly a good bet for both sides, given all information both sides have”
— Notice we’re using the “good bet” definition, which does NOT mean whether that particular bet went well in reality, but rather whether the net discounted value of that bet over arbitrary counterfactual hypothetical realities was good
And so, to finally answer:
— No, buying and holding Hayden Davis’ coins was NOT a “good bet” for both sides, because Hayden had covertly and unilaterally imposed a situation where the other side was essentially ~100% guaranteed to lose over all possible counterfactual worlds. In his own words, he was intentionally “max extracting”, intentionally preventing both sides from benefitting. And even when you leave room for accidental success in spite of that destruction, there’s virtually no room for that here.
And any situation where, for whatever reason, both sides cannot reasonably assess whether they stand to benefit, whether through fraud or the other side just refusing to share information which they could, and that includes defrauding people by breaking conventional expectations of an industry between buyers and sellers — cannot be a good bet
= Both sides did NOT stand to benefit, it truly was NOT a good bet for both sides
= Violation of perhaps the most fundamental central rule of so-called “capitalism”
= What Hayden Davis did was not “capitalism” at all
And anyone who says “capitalism” is whenever someone ends up with more money, no matter what fraud or theft they use to do it, is an absolute idiot, or lying commie
Not “capitalism”, obviously — but to understand why, you have to understand what a “good bet” is, and to understand what a “good bet” is, you have to understand counterfactual reasoning, and 95% cannot do that
= Clearly not “capitalism”, but if you don’t understand that then that’s your fault, for being too retarded or deceptive to understand counterfactual thinking
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
— Is the Hayden Davis’ “we’re here to max extract” draining of memecoins true “capitalism” by any good, concrete definition?
For this, I’d cite one of the most classic central rules of so-called capitalism:
“The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit”
I.e.
“No exchange takes place unless its truly a good bet for both sides, given all information both sides have”
— Notice we’re using the “good bet” definition, which does NOT mean whether that particular bet went well in reality, but rather whether the net discounted value of that bet over arbitrary counterfactual hypothetical realities was good
And so, to finally answer:
— No, buying and holding Hayden Davis’ coins was NOT a “good bet” for both sides, because Hayden had covertly and unilaterally imposed a situation where the other side was essentially ~100% guaranteed to lose over all possible counterfactual worlds. In his own words, he was intentionally “max extracting”, intentionally preventing both sides from benefitting. And even when you leave room for accidental success in spite of that destruction, there’s virtually no room for that here.
And any situation where, for whatever reason, both sides cannot reasonably assess whether they stand to benefit, whether through fraud or the other side just refusing to share information which they could, and that includes defrauding people by breaking conventional expectations of an industry between buyers and sellers — cannot be a good bet
= Both sides did NOT stand to benefit, it truly was NOT a good bet for both sides
= Violation of perhaps the most fundamental central rule of so-called “capitalism”
= What Hayden Davis did was not “capitalism” at all
And anyone who says “capitalism” is whenever someone ends up with more money, no matter what fraud or theft they use to do it, is an absolute idiot, or lying commie
Not “capitalism”, obviously — but to understand why, you have to understand what a “good bet” is, and to understand what a “good bet” is, you have to understand counterfactual reasoning, and 95% cannot do that
= Clearly not “capitalism”, but if you don’t understand that then that’s your fault, for being too retarded or deceptive to understand counterfactual thinking
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
💯5😁1🫡1
DoomPosting
Now, to the question we started all of this to answer, — Is the Hayden Davis’ “we’re here to max extract” draining of memecoins true “capitalism” by any good, concrete definition? For this, I’d cite one of the most classic central rules of so-called capitalism:…
And no, memecoin bets as a whole never were automatically “bad bets”
e.g. pure memecoins like $BOME and $PNUT and others still an incredible ~70x+ above presale price or where we originally bought them, to this day, even after gigantic crashes of the market as a whole
Hayden Davis’ coins were covertly bad bets because he intentionally planned to quickly destroy them, with a plan that definitely would quickly destroy them — something absolutely not universal to memecoins as a whole
Hayden Davis was a clear extractive destructive “sociopath”, as the Mops article points out
Want to hear about another, from the 2014 memecoin wave?
— Look up Ryan Kennedy, a “sociopath” that was incredibly successful at being extractive and destructive to the Dogecoin community, so much so that he literally acquired and instantly drained the #1 altcoin exchange of the time, Mintpal
Nothing new under the sun
— When you pretend these extreme “sociopath” drainers are just normal guys doing normal business, you’re being exactly the kind of clueless idiot the mops article talks about, totally clueless about the real reason and means by which the movement actually got destroyed
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
e.g. pure memecoins like $BOME and $PNUT and others still an incredible ~70x+ above presale price or where we originally bought them, to this day, even after gigantic crashes of the market as a whole
Hayden Davis’ coins were covertly bad bets because he intentionally planned to quickly destroy them, with a plan that definitely would quickly destroy them — something absolutely not universal to memecoins as a whole
Hayden Davis was a clear extractive destructive “sociopath”, as the Mops article points out
Want to hear about another, from the 2014 memecoin wave?
— Look up Ryan Kennedy, a “sociopath” that was incredibly successful at being extractive and destructive to the Dogecoin community, so much so that he literally acquired and instantly drained the #1 altcoin exchange of the time, Mintpal
Nothing new under the sun
— When you pretend these extreme “sociopath” drainers are just normal guys doing normal business, you’re being exactly the kind of clueless idiot the mops article talks about, totally clueless about the real reason and means by which the movement actually got destroyed
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
💯2👀1
DoomPosting
And no, memecoin bets as a whole never were automatically “bad bets” e.g. pure memecoins like $BOME and $PNUT and others still an incredible ~70x+ above presale price or where we originally bought them, to this day, even after gigantic crashes of the market…
“The sociopaths loot whatever value is left, and move on to the next exploit. They leave behind only wreckage:”
“Devastated geeks who still have no idea what happened”
= If you call what sociopath guys like Hayden Davis or Ryan Kennedy do “just capitalism”, or similar
— Then you’re being exactly the kind of clueless moron the Mops article warned about
Nothing about what the “sociopath” dudes do is just “capitalism” as “normal” in any way
What’s more, it’s NOT actually inevitable, movements can overcome and survive the sociopaths, as the same article points out
The sociopath types are a tiny extremely distructive minority, who must be called out for what they truly are, instead of painted as just normal and acceptable. Many movements have done this successfully, and sometimes it also requires new tech or tools
— though it’s not easy
Alright back to news
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
“Devastated geeks who still have no idea what happened”
= If you call what sociopath guys like Hayden Davis or Ryan Kennedy do “just capitalism”, or similar
— Then you’re being exactly the kind of clueless moron the Mops article warned about
Nothing about what the “sociopath” dudes do is just “capitalism” as “normal” in any way
What’s more, it’s NOT actually inevitable, movements can overcome and survive the sociopaths, as the same article points out
The sociopath types are a tiny extremely distructive minority, who must be called out for what they truly are, instead of painted as just normal and acceptable. Many movements have done this successfully, and sometimes it also requires new tech or tools
— though it’s not easy
Alright back to news
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
🔥2🙏1💯1
Apparently some other celebrity just launched a pumpfun coin — though seems they’ve now deleted their account
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
👀2