Analysis of projects such as Pendle and Polymarket

- This drop didn't stir much in my heart.

This is a comment from a reader after the article "Epic Drop is Just Noise in the River of Time" on October 13.

I think it's very right to have this feeling.

One important point in all my articles about dollar-cost averaging in the crypto ecosystem and using value investment methods to judge projects is:

If we genuinely believe in these methods and really use them to evaluate an asset, then in our thought process before taking action, we will naturally consider the possibility of a drop and have methods and strategies to cope with it.

Since drops are an issue we must consider and we have methods to deal with them, they should not affect us at all, let alone influence our mindset.

We should continue to do what we normally do.

- Bitcoin and gold are assets that do not generate cash flow. Do ETH and SOL staking rewards count as cash flow?

ETH and SOL staking rewards do count as cash flow.

The cash flow generated by a bunch of DAT companies targeting ETH for acquisition refers to the cash flow generated from their staking.

- What do you think of the Pendle project?

I really appreciate this project; I believe the innovation capability of the project team is not inferior and even in some ways exceeds that of AAVE and Uniswap. In the entire crypto ecosystem, it can basically be considered a project standing alongside AAVE and Uni.

But when it comes to its tokens, I think they are quite average. A simple analogy can be made: compare it with Bitcoin and Ethereum. Unless one believes that its risks are smaller than or at least comparable to Bitcoin and Ethereum but the returns can be significantly higher than the two, then it is worth participating. Otherwise, buying it is really not as good as just buying Bitcoin and Ethereum.

At this stage, I am not even buying Bitcoin or Ethereum, so I certainly won't consider it.

- How about the Polymarket project?

This project has always been quite good; I often play various predictions on it, but that's about it, and my interest in it is quite average.

Recently, an interesting article online resonated with me. The article analyzed how to operate Yes and No perfectly for arbitrage, and then classically stated: this project is no longer a place where small retail investors can make substantial profits; it has become a tool for large players/institutions to arbitrage.

This is the core reason why my interest in it is quite average: for retail investors, its appeal is very limited—aside from possibly receiving some airdrops later, its gameplay does not bring much profit for retail investors with very limited funds.

In fact, this is not just a problem with Polymarket; it is a common issue faced by many projects in the current crypto ecosystem: they are increasingly becoming tools for large players/institutions, leaving little profit and space for retail investors.

Currently, many project teams only symbolically and stingily release a little bit of tokens, warming up the expectations for airdrops, and then lure retail investors to link various social accounts, complete tasks daily, and scramble for points. Even so, retail investors worry about being judged as witches and about safety. In the end, after finally getting a little airdrop, they are still concerned about when to sell quickly and when to buy back.

This feels no different from giving alms to beggars.

I am really tired of these projects and these tactics.

However, this may also be a trend that the crypto ecosystem has to face: projects are becoming more institutionalized, and the activity space for retail investors is shrinking.

So now I prefer to wait, waiting for projects that are truly community-oriented and aimed at retail investors. Without such projects, I will just watch the changes.