Author: Haotian

Just because of one comment from Sister Mu, Bn's old grievances were dredged up again, and a group of Western KOLs were practically hurling insults at it. But looking at the public opinion in the Chinese-speaking world, you might be surprised: why does Bn always claim to be a "sucker," yet it's being viewed with such outrage as an "industry cancer"?

The logic is actually hidden in three words: "discourse power", "internalization", and "positive externalities".

The absolute monopoly of "discourse power" and the "blind spot"

Previously, no company in the Crypto industry had been able to gain such a large "voice".

The ICO boom of 2017 was mainly about various token issuances and huge profits, but at that time the market was still too small and the margin for error was high. That was the dividend of the early days.

The wave in 2021 was a Cambrian explosion of technological narrative dividends brought about by internal innovation in DeFi and the external incremental introduction of NFTs;

The wave in 2024 was a period of heavy technical debt. The market lacked the ability to generate revenue through original technical narratives. A large number of institutions were waiting to exit, and a large number of token issuance projects without PMF (Productivity, Fundamentals, and Optimization) were waiting to exit. As the CEX with the most abundant liquidity and the largest user base, Bn suddenly realized that it had become the last link in the chain to have its liquidity harvested. Many on-chain projects that went from third-tier and second-tier exchanges to Bn were basically doomed.

Therefore, Bn made a seemingly "defensive" but actually "monopolistic" decision: tightening the gates and redefining the listing logic.

This was originally intended to protect liquidity from being drained by worthless projects, but it has resulted in a terrible form of "discourse bullying." When an exchange can define what constitutes a valuable project through its launchpad, or even easily determine the life or death of an entire sector, the industry inevitably falls into a state of "blind spot."

Builders no longer think about how to serve users well, but try every means to cater to the review of the coin listing group. VCs no longer cultivate value alpha from a technical perspective, but instead try to win the "coin listing ticket" by accumulating resources. Over time, this monopolistic discourse power has finally selected a bunch of exquisitely self-interested "customized" projects.

Therefore, amidst a bear market sentiment characterized by a lack of innovation and a continued market decline, users are no longer solely criticizing the project team, but also targeting Bn, the entity with the final say. Bn has no reason to complain; this is the inevitable price of the backlash from the monopoly of discourse power.

The ultimate "internalization": from casinos to slaughterhouses

Everyone knows that the future of the industry lies in Mass Adoption, but looking back, this cycle led by Bn has fallen into an unprecedented predicament of "internalization".

Look at the projects listed on Launchpad by Bn: high FDV, low liquidity, and an unavoidable supply of BNB holders have become standard features. This is essentially a meticulously designed "internal pump." Think about it: in this model, project teams and market makers use extremely low-cost tokens to distribute them at high prices by taking advantage of Bn's liquidity premium, while retail investors are forced to pay for these huge bubbles in the secondary market.

Later, Bn Alpha and Meme Rush, BNBChain ecosystem support, MEME tracking and hype, and a series of other attention-grabbing tricks, the internal distribution model went even further.

As for BNBChain, it is understandable that Bn would provide it with important resources to support it as part of its own ecosystem. However, given that it has a better exit channel, BNBChain should have become a model for the development and innovation of other on-chain applications. Unfortunately, BNBChain has not been able to enjoy this inherent channel advantage. Instead, it has gradually become a breeding ground for Ponzi schemes, Ponzi scheme projects, and hackers' cash-out machines.

The disastrous consequence of this kind of gameplay is that, perhaps due to prejudice or simply because it's unworkable, new funds from outside the market are unwilling to enter, while existing funds within the market are repeatedly purged. The market has transformed from a "casino" where there are winners and losers into a "slaughterhouse" where almost no one survives except the house.

Bn's internal trading strategy, seemingly building a massive, isolated ecosystem, has inadvertently siphoned off most of the industry's liquidity. Crucially, it has failed to convert traffic into a beneficial force for the industry; instead, it has consumed users' trust and capital through constant PVP battles and meme frenzy.

Therefore, from the perspective of Bn's business entity, everything seems to be a market behavior, and it is indeed unreasonable to place all the resentment for the industry's poor development on it. However, as the largest liquidity pool in the Crypto industry, its failure to expand the pie through fund or application innovation is itself a kind of original sin.

The lack of "positive externalities": Why are old issues always being brought up?

Why did Sister Mu's seemingly casual criticism resonate so strongly, even drawing criticism from Western KOLs? Aside from the fact that the truth about who instigated 1011 has never been revealed, the main reason lies in "positive externalities."

A true industry leader must possess the ability to continuously generate positive externalities while growing stronger.

Let's make a comparison:

• Although Coinbase has been criticized for its poor trading experience and slow listing of coins, it has built a compliance bridge connecting traditional finance and made great contributions to the approval of ETFs. This is a positive externality of compliance.
• Although the Ethereum Foundation is inefficient, it has consistently pushed the boundaries of technology, from smart contracts to Layer 2, which is a positive externality of technology.
• Even FTX, which is now history, provided Wall Street funds and venture capitalists with ample reasons to flock to it through sponsoring teams and making political donations, which can be considered a kind of "positive externality".
• OKX @star_okx's Wallet and Dex Infra, which have been operating for many years, have earned a good reputation because they have brought a positive externality of mature industry infrastructure through their "product strength".
• In contrast, Bn , through its rapid expansion over the past few years, has created the industry's largest user base and popularized the concept of crypto trading, which can be considered remarkable progress. However, when a platform grows large enough to "represent" the industry, its positive externalities begin to be diluted by the "burden" that comes with its scale. What is this burden? It refers to the various aspects where the market expected it to perform well, but it went against that expectation.

For example, the market thought that Bn should increase its rigorous selection process and leverage its listing effect to lead value and technological innovation when it was not making innovations in the technological narrative. However, it chose the MEME track instead, which further exacerbated the disillusionment of the long-term uselessness of technology at the cost of short-term excitement.

For example, the market thought that Bn would leverage its APP and super portal status to become a truly comprehensive cross-chain transaction infrastructure by opening up standardized protocols, connecting other fragmented application layers. However, it has built a closed-loop ecosystem like a complete set of tools, which seems to maintain the moat of the commercial empire, but has also become a pump that prevents liquidity from overflowing into the real ecosystem on the chain.

Bn may certainly disregard these facts, but "with great power comes great responsibility." As a super giant in the industry, its every move is deeply intertwined with Crypto's fate.

If the giant that once rose to prominence based on the image of a "rough and ready hero" and still holds a dominant position today cannot sever ties with its "past" in time, it will naturally become the biggest obstacle to the establishment of a new order in the industry.

Even if it weren't Bn, any company that occupies top resources but lacks responsibility towards the industry would still face prolonged criticism and FUD.

above.

Ultimately, the public opinion dilemma that Bn is currently facing is not a simple matter of FUD ( Facts, Uncertainty, and Doubt), but rather a situation where a giant that has fully benefited from the industry's boom is behaving like a businessman who only wants to protect his family fortune when it comes to responsibility and accountability. This mismatch between virtue and position has led to a public outcry from the industry!

When "liquidity" becomes a tool for monopolizing discourse power, it leads to the stifling of innovation and the "blind spot" of its own making.

When "ecological expansion" degenerates into extreme internal market harvesting, it leads to the depletion of liquidity and mutual killing of existing assets.

When "industry growth" loses its positive externalities, it leads to obstacles to compliance and mainstream biases.

The once dragon-slaying youth now faces the ultimate challenge of how to avoid becoming a dragon himself.

The solution lies not in a public relations counterattack, nor in releasing more Meme tokens to divert attention, but in whether Bn can transcend its "I am the only one" traffic-driven mindset, truly return the discourse power to the vast Crypto community, return liquidity to genuine on-chain technological innovation, and create large-scale positive externalities to compensate the industry.