How can you determine whether an AI encryption project is driven by genuine demand or just a passing fad?

A reader commented with a very good point: "The problem with Virtual is that the trend hasn't reached blockchain yet. The Molt ecosystem doesn't need blockchain." "There is a need for blockchain when there is large-scale cooperation and financial transactions between them." My understanding of this view is: For the current AI ecosystem, because it has not yet involved large-scale financial transactions, encryption technology and crypto assets are at most icing on the cake, adding fuel to the fire. In fact, the current AI ecosystem seems to be able to develop very well even without encryption technology or crypto assets at all. If we combine this with Vitalik's recent comments on the development of social applications in the crypto ecosystem, this point becomes even easier to understand. I've mentioned Vitalik's point in previous articles (the gist of which is): for social applications, many applications focus too much on economic incentives and neglect other more important aspects. Now it seems that in the AI ​​+ Crypto field, this problem is becoming increasingly apparent. Because for any Web 2 application, it's incredibly easy to issue a coin or create a coin issuance platform based on its theme. Therefore, issuing coins and creating coin issuance platforms have now become standard practice for every popular Web 2 application, not only for their high "quality" but also for their high "efficiency." But how much positive impact will these issued currencies and created platforms truly have on Web2 applications? Will these applications be unable to develop without them? These are questions that almost no one considers. The AI ​​field is no exception. From the very first day of the Molt ecosystem's creation, a large number of tokens were simultaneously spawned. In previous articles, I merely reminded our readers that these tokens, at least at this stage, can only be considered meme coins. If you simply want to indulge in some emotional entertainment, then playing around with them is fine; but if you're considering it from an investment perspective, then you need to be very cautious. However, in retrospect, I think we need to be even more cautious about these coins and platforms. For example, given the recent market downturn of various tokens issued earlier, a new inscription project has emerged: inscriptions that only Agents can create. With the birth of this inscription project, various tutorials have sprung up like mushrooms after rain. Complete tutorials have been compiled online, teaching users how to operate and create their own Agents to apply inscriptions. Seeing this project immediately reminded me of the once-popular inscription craze. I suspect many people will think this way: Since Reddit's Moltbook was so popular, can this AI Agent, which is similar to the inscription trend of the past, also become popular? But I think this kind of simplistic analogy is probably dangerous. First of all, even Moltboot is still in the experimental stage, and whether it will become popular in the future remains to be seen. The most important significance of Moltbook lies in its creation of the Agents social ecosystem, but it is too early to judge whether this ecosystem is the ultimate Agents social ecosystem. This is similar to how BBS was undoubtedly a landmark application in the early development of the internet, but it quickly faded from the scene. If the future development of the Molt ecosystem still needs further observation, then the future development of this Agent inscription is even more uncertain. Furthermore, we can still use the previous logic to judge: Can the current Molt ecosystem continue to develop without this inscription? In my opinion, the Molt ecosystem can absolutely continue to develop without this inscription. This method can not only be used to determine the current inscription item, but I think it can also be extended to determine new items that may emerge in the future. Therefore, for these items, I will only observe them more and act less, or simply not at all.