Many people call MEME coins knockoff coins, Ponzi schemes, or worthless tokens. Our country recognizes Bitcoin and Ethereum as assets due to their global consensus, while other cryptocurrencies are not acknowledged as such. This distinction has legal implications—if you steal someone's Bitcoin, it's treated as theft with quantifiable damages. However, stealing a lesser-known altcoin presents legal challenges, as it may not be recognized as having measurable value.

Do these coins have value? If you believe value must be officially certified, then you don't truly understand what value is. Take NFTs, for instance. I own several, including Bored Apes, CryptoPunks, and others on Ethereum and Bitcoin. Even with market fluctuations, my collection is still worth millions. When Jay Chou's Bored Ape was stolen, the news referenced one of the largest personal NFT theft cases in history—mine. Do these assets have value? For those uninterested, they may seem worthless. But for those who desire them, they hold significant worth. The key is how many people want them.

Value exists when there are enough people who want something and are willing to pay for it. Whether it's MEME coins or NFTs, they fulfill a psychological need—identity and recognition.

Are MEME coins just a game of hot potato? A scam? A Ponzi scheme? A tax on the foolish? Consider this: in the 21st century, people have diverse needs. Not everyone is struggling for basic survival. Many have transcended material needs and are willing to pay premium prices for emotional and experiential consumption—hence, luxury goods exist. You can't impose your perspective on others.

Imagine a hypothetical "Buddhist Coin," where owning one signifies being the most devout Buddhist. If only 100 exist and cannot be increased, is it worthless? No, because the wealthy will bid the price higher. The value isn't in the physical utility but in the symbolic and emotional experience. This doesn't require official certification—value emerges when enough people desire a scarce resource.

The reason 99% of MEME coins are dismissed is not because they are MEME coins but because their consensus is too weak, their user base too small, or their hype cycle too short. Value collapses when no new entrants sustain demand. The truth is, all investments operate on this principle.

You argue that stocks have real companies and business operations backing them. But what if Coca-Cola were to announce tomorrow that a groundbreaking study proves their drink causes cancer? The stock would plummet 99%. Why? Because the consensus built on their business model would collapse.

The key difference between MEME coins and traditional investments like stocks is stability. We believe Coca-Cola won’t collapse overnight, that its revenue and cash flow remain steady, making its consensus more reliable. This is the essence of a "moat"—something Warren Buffett values deeply.

The same logic applies to Bitcoin: it has an unparalleled moat as the world’s most secure decentralized peer-to-peer value transfer system. Its investment thesis is that more people will recognize and demand it over time, driving its price higher. But once universal consensus is reached and there are no new layers of value perception, Bitcoin will plateau—not because it’s bad, but because it no longer has further investment potential.

Most MEME coins fail because they lack deep moats and sustainable narratives that continuously attract new participants. However, dismissing them outright due to their category is a misunderstanding of value. Economic "experts" who make such claims simply don't grasp the fundamentals of value.

Van Gogh’s paintings were worthless when he was alive because he could always produce more. Their value surged after his death due to scarcity and continued storytelling around his artistry. The moment people stop discussing his work, his paintings lose their value. Thus, assessing an asset's investment potential isn't about official recognition but about its inherent characteristics, the strength of its initial consensus, and the ability of its story to attract more people.

In stock markets, share buybacks often drive price increases—not because buybacks alone alter fundamentals, but because they signal confidence, encouraging investors to push prices up. Conversely, when a founder sells shares, stock prices typically drop—not because their sales flood the market, but because investors rush to exit, fearing declining confidence.

The fundamental question when assessing value or investment potential isn't about official certification, physical assets, or revenue models. It’s about whether a compelling narrative can attract sustained demand.

From this perspective, MEME coins, Bitcoin, gold, stocks, real estate, and bonds should be evaluated under the same framework. Most MEME coins fail due to weak and short-lived narratives, not due to their classification as MEME coins.

In short, value is not about official recognition but about the ability to attract and sustain belief in a compelling story. If an asset has the power to continuously draw in new believers, it holds investment potential—if not, it does not.

Many people call MEME coins knockoff coins, Ponzi schemes, or worthless tokens. Our country recognizes Bitcoin and Ethereum as assets due to their global consensus, while other cryptocurrencies are not acknowledged as such. This distinction has legal implications—if you steal someone's Bitcoin, it's treated as theft with quantifiable damages. However, stealing a lesser-known altcoin presents legal challenges, as it may not be recognized as having measurable value.

Do these coins have value? If you believe value must be officially certified, then you don't truly understand what value is. Take NFTs, for instance. I own several, including Bored Apes, CryptoPunks, and others on Ethereum and Bitcoin. Even with market fluctuations, my collection is still worth millions. When Jay Chou's Bored Ape was stolen, the news referenced one of the largest personal NFT theft cases in history—mine. Do these assets have value? For those uninterested, they may seem worthless. But for those who desire them, they hold significant worth. The key is how many people want them.

Value exists when there are enough people who want something and are willing to pay for it. Whether it's MEME coins or NFTs, they fulfill a psychological need—identity and recognition.

Are MEME coins just a game of hot potato? A scam? A Ponzi scheme? A tax on the foolish? Consider this: in the 21st century, people have diverse needs. Not everyone is struggling for basic survival. Many have transcended material needs and are willing to pay premium prices for emotional and experiential consumption—hence, luxury goods exist. You can't impose your perspective on others.

Imagine a hypothetical "Buddhist Coin," where owning one signifies being the most devout Buddhist. If only 100 exist and cannot be increased, is it worthless? No, because the wealthy will bid the price higher. The value isn't in the physical utility but in the symbolic and emotional experience. This doesn't require official certification—value emerges when enough people desire a scarce resource.

The reason 99% of MEME coins are dismissed is not because they are MEME coins but because their consensus is too weak, their user base too small, or their hype cycle too short. Value collapses when no new entrants sustain demand. The truth is, all investments operate on this principle.

You argue that stocks have real companies and business operations backing them. But what if Coca-Cola were to announce tomorrow that a groundbreaking study proves their drink causes cancer? The stock would plummet 99%. Why? Because the consensus built on their business model would collapse.

The key difference between MEME coins and traditional investments like stocks is stability. We believe Coca-Cola won’t collapse overnight, that its revenue and cash flow remain steady, making its consensus more reliable. This is the essence of a "moat"—something Warren Buffett values deeply.

The same logic applies to Bitcoin: it has an unparalleled moat as the world’s most secure decentralized peer-to-peer value transfer system. Its investment thesis is that more people will recognize and demand it over time, driving its price higher. But once universal consensus is reached and there are no new layers of value perception, Bitcoin will plateau—not because it’s bad, but because it no longer has further investment potential.

Most MEME coins fail because they lack deep moats and sustainable narratives that continuously attract new participants. However, dismissing them outright due to their category is a misunderstanding of value. Economic "experts" who make such claims simply don't grasp the fundamentals of value.

Van Gogh’s paintings were worthless when he was alive because he could always produce more. Their value surged after his death due to scarcity and continued storytelling around his artistry. The moment people stop discussing his work, his paintings lose their value. Thus, assessing an asset's investment potential isn't about official recognition but about its inherent characteristics, the strength of its initial consensus, and the ability of its story to attract more people.

In stock markets, share buybacks often drive price increases—not because buybacks alone alter fundamentals, but because they signal confidence, encouraging investors to push prices up. Conversely, when a founder sells shares, stock prices typically drop—not because their sales flood the market, but because investors rush to exit, fearing declining confidence.

The fundamental question when assessing value or investment potential isn't about official certification, physical assets, or revenue models. It’s about whether a compelling narrative can attract sustained demand.

From this perspective, MEME coins, Bitcoin, gold, stocks, real estate, and bonds should be evaluated under the same framework. Most MEME coins fail due to weak and short-lived narratives, not due to their classification as MEME coins.

In short, value is not about official recognition but about the ability to attract and sustain belief in a compelling story. If an asset has the power to continuously draw in new believers, it holds investment potential—if not, it does not.