Understanding Fractal Bitcoin

I recently saw a tweet online, which was a participant's feelings about the participation process of the Bitcoin Fractal Network.

I have shared my views on the Fractal Network in previous articles: the overall view is very general, so I did not participate. So I originally had no emotions about this project. But after reading this article, I can strongly feel a sense of loss and helplessness.

In this tweet, in addition to describing the development of the Fractal Network in the past few months, the author also described in detail the ups and downs of the four coins SATS, PIZZA, FB and CAT20.

From the sentiment of the tweet, it can be seen that the author's biggest opinion is not the development of the Fractal Network itself, but the impact of the rise and fall of these four coins on himself and the community.

In my opinion, there are both external and internal reasons for the price of these coins.

The external reasons are inseparable from the suppression of the overall environment.

In the latest round of adjustments, even Bitcoin has fallen from a high of nearly $75,000 to a low of less than $60,000. Under such circumstances, it is hard for me to imagine any coin (except MEME, which is purely driven by sentiment) that can independently develop its own market.

Especially since all of the above coins are Bitcoin ecosystem coins, they will be more affected by the Bitcoin market------"When the nest is overturned, how can the eggs remain intact?"

In my opinion, the internal reasons are more critical.

I have shared my views on this point in previous articles and the last online exchange:

In the absence of further application innovation in the Bitcoin ecosystem, if it is only to support the current large number of applications that imitate Ethereum, then the existing Bitcoin expansion facilities are sufficient.

Avoiding the main contradiction of application innovation, they have repeatedly invented so-called "new" protocols, "new" terms, and "new" assets on the infrastructure, and these so-called "new" protocols are essentially not much better than existing protocols.

These things are actually not innovation at all, they are just "reinventing the wheel". It is meaningless. In my opinion, such work is useless, which not only consumes manpower, energy, and financial resources, but also consumes the enthusiasm of the community.

Such useless work is not only useless but also harmful.

In the end, when many users find that they have wasted precious Bitcoins, the pile of tokens they have obtained are ultimately just a pile of "chicken ribs", which will only drive more users away from this ecosystem.

Another consequence of this development is that it has exacerbated the speculative sentiment of users in the community.

In the follow-up to this tweet, some users asked questions such as "Will it be listed on the exchange?" and "Will it be pulled up?" It can be seen that some users have placed their final hopes on the project party.

Once we place our investment on whether the project party will pull the price or take action, it is almost certain that we regard ourselves as "fish meat" and the project party as "knife".

In this situation, even if the project party really "lists" and "pull the price", is it the project party saving investors? I am afraid it is more unfathomable situation?

At least so far, unless I encounter a project that I particularly like and is particularly alternative, I have completely become aesthetically fatigued by this kind of so-called "innovation" that can be seen through at a glance.

I suggest that our readers should pay more attention to holding the Bitcoin and Ethereum in their hands. If it is not a must-buy or very favorite project, it is better to be cautious.