Understanding Fractal Bitcoin

Coin World Report:
Source: DaoShuo Blockchain
Recently, I came across a tweet online that expressed the author’s feelings about participating in the Bitcoin fractal network.
Regarding the fractal network, I have shared my perspective in a previous article: the overall view is quite ordinary, so I did not participate. Therefore, I initially had no emotions towards this project. However, after reading this tweet, I strongly felt a sense of loss and helplessness.
In this tweet, the author not only describes the development of the fractal network over the past few months, but also provides a detailed account of the fluctuations in the prices of four coins: SATS, PIZZA, FB, and CAT20.
From the emotions conveyed in the tweet, it is evident that the author’s major concern is not the development of the fractal network itself, but rather the impact of the price fluctuations of these four coins on themselves and the community.
The reasons behind the price situation of these coins, in my opinion, are both external and internal.
Externally, it is impossible to ignore the overall market suppression.
During the recent market correction, even Bitcoin dropped from nearly $75,000 to below $60,000. In such circumstances, it is difficult for me to imagine any coin (except for purely sentiment-driven meme coins) being able to establish its own market trend.
Moreover, all of these coins are part of the Bitcoin ecosystem, which means they are even more susceptible to the influence of Bitcoin’s market conditions. As the saying goes, “If a nest falls, no egg remains intact.”
Internally, I believe the internal reasons are more crucial.
I have previously shared my viewpoint on this matter in earlier articles and online discussions:
In the absence of further innovative applications within the Bitcoin ecosystem, the existing Bitcoin infrastructure is already sufficient if the sole purpose is to support the abundance of Ethereum-like applications currently in existence.
By avoiding the primary contradiction of application innovation and repeatedly inventing so-called “new” protocols, “new” terminologies, and “new” assets on the basis of the existing infrastructure, these so-called “new” protocols are not fundamentally better than the current protocols.
These things are not actually innovative; they are just “reinventing the wheel.” They have become meaningless. In my opinion, such work is not only futile, but also detrimental as it depletes manpower, resources, and the community’s enthusiasm.
Engaging in such futility is not only useless, but also harmful.
In the end, when many users realize that they have wasted their valuable Bitcoin and ended up with a pile of tokens that are ultimately nothing more than “mediocre,” it will only drive more users away from this ecosystem.
This kind of development also has another consequence, which is the intensification of speculative sentiment among users in the community.
In the replies to this tweet, there are users asking questions like “Will it be listed?” or “Will there be a pump and dump?” It is evident that some users have placed their last hopes on the project team.
Once we place our investment expectations on whether the project team will list or take action, it is almost certain that we are treating ourselves as “fish” and the project team as “knife and chopping board.”
In such a situation, even if the project team does “list” or “pump and dump,” could it be said that the project team is saving the investors? It is probably an even more unpredictable situation, right?
At least so far, unless I come across a project that I particularly like or one that is truly unique, I am completely tired of these so-called “innovations” that can be seen through at a glance.
I recommend that our readers pay more attention to holding onto their Bitcoin and Ethereum, and be cautious when it comes to projects that are not absolutely necessary or overly exciting.