Dexnav｜A panoramic interpretation of the current state of the cryptocurrency market. Utopian Narrative and Sector Rotation
Dexnav｜A panoramic interpretation of the current state of the cryptocurrency market. Utopian Narrative and Sector Rotation
The last two bull cycles (2020 and 2021) have been characterized by the predominance of the narrative. For a token project, the level of marketing and meme communication will be more important than the merits of the project itself.
First, deal firms transformed venture capital firms. Second, anonymous influencers got the power in 2017 that used to belong to venture capital firms. We can observe the evolution of the narrative - it shifted from DeFi to NFTs, then (briefly) to DAO, L2, then Play-to-Earn, the meta-universe, Web3, and finally back to NFTs. during this period, the L1 war has spanned five common narratives.
The cryptocurrency space is looking for a new story with which to justify the deployment of new capital and satisfy investors' appetite for big returns. Such returns were possible on the early foundations, but now the only viable option left is to lure less sophisticated capital into the game and distribute their money as "exit liquidity" to previous investors. Many years ago, I would have thought it a shame that misallocated capital would not produce value, but only predatory incentives for TikTok users who dream of getting rich to give them money for nothing. Every industry has its self-serving opportunists. Today, I think completely differently.
I believe that every bull cycle is an incarnation of the natural life cycle of the animal kingdom, and that there is a food chain among humans where the greedy are eaten by their slightly smarter counterparts. It's ugly, but inevitable. I am now a believer in crypto-accelerationism.
For so many years, we have been unable to rely on logical reasoning or any form of linguistic dialectic to achieve success in this profession. We have only been able to get ahead by witnessing and learning from the results of most experiments that were doomed to fail (although some did succeed, at least for now). Arguments about Small Block vs. Big Block, PoW vs. PoS, this PoS vs. that PoS, this L1 vs. that L1, L1 vs. L2, (3,3) vs. (-3,-3), Punks vs. Apes, DOGE vs. SHIB, CLOBs vs. AMMs, and so on, cannot be resolved without observing how these things in reality play out, it is impossible to resolve the arguments. Theoretical studies of mechanism design, flowcharts with boxed arrows, historical stories used as analogies, and hard-core textual descriptions are not enough to convince one tribe to abandon their sacred cows and join the other side. In the case of an industry, until it is burned into our zeitgeist and becomes our collective memory, we all have to experience how good and how effective things are with our hearts and minds, and only then can we move forward.
The introduction of jargon is an interesting development in cryptocurrency culture. Jargon has two uses in fields that were previously protected and supply-constrained (e.g., medicine and law). First, it can save time when both parties to a communication share a mutually understood corpus. Second, it prevents outsiders from easily extracting values that "rightfully" belong to the insider. The field of cryptocurrency is no exception. As it becomes a richer industry, we will all use the jargon of the group further to prevent outsiders from eating our lunch. This could trigger more M&A activity as cryptocurrency is a highly profitable but difficult to penetrate industry and non-cryptocurrency companies interested in penetrating the industry do not have the appropriate expertise. I'm not making any prescriptive judgments here about whether it's good or bad, it's just a natural occurrence.
Capital allocation always comes later than the introduction of novel and useful innovations. Over the course of a bull market cycle, more and more capital is chasing increasingly lower quality projects. Entrepreneurs and scammers alike are happy to launch new, half-baked ideas and create a supply with which to meet the demand for the new fiat money coming into the space. Some see through the "emperor's new clothes" but fear strong opposition from the flock of Shillers and Bag Holders, so they take maximum self-censorship in the "anti-narrative" aspect.
It is in this context that the narrative reaches its maximum upward rethinking. At the height of the mania, people only buy what they think they can speculate on to sell at a higher price to the next takeover buyer; valuations become increasingly absurd and human common sense is overwhelmed by the frenzy of the community praying for higher prices. If the macro environment had not changed, we would likely have gone to even more ridiculous heights. The frenzy has not yet reached its true peak. As the tide has turned, the "narrative" in cryptocurrencies, as well as in other areas, has weakened. The nature of many projects has surfaced, with the better ones being scams and the worst ones being outright frauds. When madness becomes the rule, nuance and careful consideration are branded as heresy. It is only when the "narrative" is diminished that these ideas can be published and not scrutinized for misguided thinking.
For now, the market seems to be pricing major stocks fairly, and agents are still a bit too rich. People initially thought the Fed rate hike talk was not entirely credible, but now most believe it and it is reflected in market prices. New developments regarding further hawkish Fed sentiment led to a small decline, but it was quickly bought. It looks like there will be 4-5 rate hikes this year, no more and no less, at least that is the current expectation. From speculative allies toBTCand major cryptocurrencies like ETH have seen some pullbacks, but it's not as severe as it was in 2018. Most of the huge amounts of third- or fourth-party capital raised by cryptocurrency venture capital firms are likely to flow to their long-standing destination, which is for new projects, not old ones. If macro conditions improve, new projects could still gain 10x or 100x from this capital support, but old projects will likely not see the same kind of growth from here on out.
Greed and Utopia
Based on my recent thinking, we can categorize the situation with various cryptocurrencies into two dimensions: "fraud" and "utopianism" (where "fraud" is not a pejorative term, similar to Alpha). For example, on the fraud dimension, I think we can all agree that OHM is more fraudulent than TIME, and TIME is more fraudulent than other OHM forks. I'm not setting any requirements for the absolute fraud level of these programs at this point, just that relatively speaking they can be ranked that way. In this dimension, the general rule is that forks are scarier than originals.
Another example is that on the utopian dimension, BTC is less utopian than ETH, which in turn is less utopian than SOL/AVAX and other new L1s. The general rule on this dimension is that the new project is trying to "solve" the problems inherent in the old project, so it is more utopian. Once these dimensions are understood, we can discuss each of the 4 quadrants in turn in terms of investability, return, and time study. The four quadrants are.
1) low fraud, low utopia; 2) low fraud, high utopia; 3) high fraud, low utopia; 4) high fraud, high utopia. This is a 2 by 2 Thinkboi matrix that people love to see.
The first quadrant (low fraud, low utopia) represents projects that are really working on solvable problems, where the problems faced by the project do not need to be solved by some kind of basic sci-tech breakthrough. Examples of this quadrant include (past) cryptocurrency exchanges, new cryptocurrency infrastructure games, and some potentially successful early-stage cryptocurrencies (such as BTC). These projects tend to be good long-term investments that will be seen as unattractive in some short term, especially during the manic phase of a bull market.
The second quadrant (low fraud, high utopia) represents projects that really strive to build grand designs and take us to a gorgeous new world. These designs often require at least one (if not more) technological breakthrough to work. You will often see followers of these projects rail against, and denounce, first quadrant projects as not satisfying them, and use this as a reason why their projects were necessary to exist in the first place. Utopia is only worth pursuing if the existing world is seriously flawed. Projects in the second quadrant are often good investments in the early stages due to the sincerity of the founders' attitude and the viability of their projects. This allows the founders to create a myth that can be sustained until the project receives at least one or two rounds of funding. In the later stages, these projects are only good investments when there are technological breakthroughs and utopian "realizations".
It is unclear whether these utopian project pursuits will succeed, but venture capital firms only need a few of them to succeed, because the profits from successful projects can make up for all the losses from failed projects. Part of this approach is to make the projects in the second quadrant look as much like the projects in the first quadrant as possible, because this makes the projects less risky on the surface and makes investors feel better. In this process, the real requirements for breakthroughs are often artificially obscured, and the proposed design is constantly reiterated as perfectly feasible and fully incentivized from a game theory and mechanism design perspective. A project in the second quadrant is similar to a project in the first quadrant, but it is high-risk and high-reward. The two differ in terms of risk, but not in terms of potential reward.
The third quadrant (high fraud, low utopia) represents money grabbing projects that are poorly executed, an example of which is Bitconnect. everyone in this quadrant is well aware that the project is a scam. This is why Bitconnect targets its audience outside of the cryptocurrency community and (frankly) to people who are less experienced. Projects in the third quadrant seem more utopian to inexperienced investors, which is exactly what they are aiming for - to fit into the second quadrant. Ultimately, utopianism tends to be a front for scams, so projects in the third quadrant are populated by the worst of the worst in our industry, a bunch of self-serving opportunists. The stupid and greedy will scam the greedy who are dumber than he is, and these blow-ups end up being the reason for regulators to regulate the entire cryptocurrency space more heavily. Can you think of any other programs currently in the cryptocurrency space that are intentionally targeting only people outside of that space? They are all intentionally scamming people!
The fourth quadrant (High Fraud, High Utopia) represents projects in our industry that are either fictitious or unfounded (the former is similar to the Rube Goldberg machine, the latter is similar to perpetual motion). They are as much frauds as the third quadrant projects, but using more sophisticated methods. It is difficult to explain and analyze their complex structure, even for those in the field, and even if one has doubts, one can only conclude that "it may not work, but it may also work, because I can't exactly point out the problem". Like the Gordian knot in mythology, one cannot see if it is loose, nor can one understand if it can be untied.
Projects in the fourth quadrant will do their best to pretend to be projects in the second quadrant. If they achieve short-term success after a period of time, they are likely to fake it and turn the scam into a real business and move into the second quadrant. As an example, what is the difference between WeWork and Theranos? The former is a quadrant 4 scam transformed into a real project in quadrant 2, while the latter is a scam from start to finish. Overall, the projects in quadrant 4 are good short-term investments for many participants in that quadrant. This is sad, but true, in part because token projects can achieve liquidity in a shorter period of time than traditional private companies; token projects can effectively make an initial public offering. After the project "goes public", all the incentives of a public company, i.e., short-term orientation for the next few quarters, come with it. Founders can "retire" early without having to wait until the product actually works or has real, unsubsidized product marketability proven - a phenomenon that is particularly evident in projects where usage rights can be purchased by paying tokens. Most seemingly successful cryptocurrency projects fall into the fourth quadrant because the lure of quickly doubling cash is simply too much to resist.
Fraud in fourth quadrant projects benefits founders, employees, investors, traders, exchanges, market makers, OTC counters, SAFT salespeople, lawyers and other third-party service providers; the only people who don't benefit are the final holders - they are "cool " with these programs, and those smarter but worse than them sold them a utopian dream that they desperately clung to.
I find that the explanations based on these two dimensions of fraud and utopia are very favorable in terms of the phenomena we see in crypto space cycle after cycle. In short, the first quadrant is good in the long run, but unattractive in the short run. The second quadrant pretends to be the first quadrant and can move to the first quadrant if they solve a problem for which a solution may not exist. The second quadrant is profitable in the short term, with higher risk and higher reward in the long term. The third quadrant loves to pretend they are the second quadrant, but only scams novice players; avoid them completely. The fourth quadrant also loves to pretend they are the second quadrant and will move into the second quadrant after some initial success if they want to avoid bad results later on. If all you care about is money, projects in the fourth quadrant are by far the best short-term investments, and venture capital firms benefit the most from entry arbitrage in the fourth quadrant. Quadrants two and four are where accelerationism is most needed.
We have largely stayed away from trading in NFT and NFT-related tokens. We don't think we are competitive enough to play this game. In terms of aesthetics, we don't have any refined tastes. We don't have enough Twitter followers as far as imitation goes. There are plenty of other markets to trade in right now, just like there are plenty of fish in the sea.
First, let's look at the categories of art and pfp NFTs. Since they are symbols of status/signature, Vibranium/luxury, and heirlooms/dignity items, we can assume that some of them will retain their value over time. Just as there are two or a dozen top fashion houses in real space, we could see the same number of NFT collections having enough brand value to retain their value. That said, just as there are not 1,000 top fashion houses in the real world, most NFT collections in the crypto space are unlikely to have high value. So in the best case scenario it will produce a power law distribution of value, or what is commonly referred to as a winner-take-all scenario. We can also say that an item can only exert the status it symbolizes by showing it to others - for fashion brands in real space, it's about walking among similar crowds in clothes to show off status. For NFTs, the place to make a statement is limited to social media such as Twitter and Discord. It's hard to say which display space is more expansive, although there is a valid argument that the virtual world is far more expansive than the physical world - Twitter and Instagram are actively integrating NFT functionality, people are spending more and more time on the Internet, and the expansiveness of the virtual world is particularly evident in these premises. is particularly evident on these premises. It is also not surprising that pfp NFTs are outperforming artistic NFTs in general - after all, they function better when used in the incarnation of an online identity. Still, be careful about investing in NFTs, as this is the most corrupt area of all the recent events. The gamer community and the streaming community are largely already hating on NFTs, and I personally blame Ice Poseidon for that.
Secondly, I do think vampire attacks like LOOKS have the potential to gain market share. They are able to target the right people directly, targeting the perfect users of their platform. In other words, LOOKS' price and market cap have been slashed recently, and most of its trading volume is wash volume, with founders cashing out. Given that the team is anonymous and that the token price has reached extremely high levels in a very short period of time, it wouldn't be surprising to see it prove to be an outright scam one day. Nonetheless, because fees are high and there is room for competition, the idea that multiple competing platforms exist for NFT trading makes a lot of sense. Moreover, there is no liquidity network effect similar to that of an order book, so it is easier for a challenger to compete with an incumbent. the liquidity network effect is weaker on NFT exchanges than on delta one exchanges, which in turn are weaker than options exchanges.
In the end, the design space involving non-artistic non-pfp NFTs is largely unexplored, and I think the exploration is worthwhile. Like all innovation, much of it is probably nonsense, but I'm optimistic that people will find something excellent and useful in it.
Since the technical merits are of absolutely no importance until they eventually appear in the future (some indefinite time), we should not waste time on this issue.
I just want to say that it makes total sense for different people to support different L1s. Chicago's HFT prop store likes SOL; Koreans likeLUNAThe graduate students like AMAX (which is after all the only professor coin that plays well); Andre's followers like FTM; Silicon Valley VCs like everything because the whole fund has a good return if you buy right once; and sometimes the smaller L1-NEAR because NEAR can have billions more growth when you don't already have millions in market cap. The ETH maximalists are now in the same camp as the old BTC maximalists when it comes to defending against the "new thing" from all sides. Generally speaking, their defense is unsuccessful, and people are averse to the old. With something new, you have the possibility to realize the most ambitious hopes and dreams, and with something that has already started and is steadily moving forward, you can only see the cold reality of the actual situation.
Behind utopianism is precisely the savagery of the real world and the ugliness of human nature. People have a natural desire for a perfect world, and they also take advantage of the natural desire of others for a perfect world. In the end the true believers are reduced to disappointed traitors who need a Girardian scapegoat to fill their anger and discontent. At such a time, who better to be the scapegoat than prophets who promise a future that can never be realized? This is not to say that these L1s would not have succeeded, only that the founders were well aware of the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads. The best they can do is to win, followed by constantly making bigger trade-offs on the principle of decentralization - because decentralization doesn't matter until it does, and who knows if it will happen, and if it does, when it will happen? Maybe we're afraid of the boogeyman, maybe we're not afraid of it.
As we are reshaping the financial and monetary system, we will begin to sympathize with past Fed Chairs. No Fed Chairman wants an economic collapse on their watch, so why would they all want to push the problem onto the next guy, like kicking the can down the road? Given all the incentives for participants that work, I would hope for the best L1 to win in any case. That's what I'm trying to say. Not everyone is in the game for the technology. In fact, not many people are in it for the technology.
At this point in time, I've been waiting for over 7 years and I'm not even afraid to ask if we're actually going to getEthereumWhich will come first, the arrival of ETH 2.0 or the recovery of Hal Finey's frozen body? Haha, who will know the answer now? I am kidding, don't spray me.
As for cross-chain bridges, the main difficulties it faces are to ensure that synthetic assets on a chain are not artificially and recklessly inflated without proper support, and to secure the transport process. We recently witnessed a wormhole vulnerability between SOL and ETH, which was caused by a problem with SOL. I am not particularly concerned about this vulnerability as it is just a bug that can be fixed. While the SOL wormhole vulnerability was bailed out by Jump, it was likely at their own expense. If the cross-chain bridge fails, they lose a lot of value in their SOL wallet and I believe they have to cut off a pound of their own flesh in the bailout structure. However, this would not be overly worrisome. What worries me is that even if the code is written well, there will be fundamental problems with the cross-chain bridge, which remains to be seen. Also, even with the rather centralized nature that bridges have today, as long as there is eventually a way to decentralize without compromising safety, it should get better. People will wait and see, and I will take a skeptical view of it.
DeFi 2.0 is similar to DeFi 1.0, but 2 is bigger than 1, and the bigger the number the better. deFi 2.0 features the idea of having the protocol itself control or own the assets, which is sometimes referred to as PCV (Protocol Controlled Value) or POL (Protocol Owned Liquidity), etc. The idea is the same, that you own a DeFi protocol and run a hedge fund at the same time. I'll leave it to my readers to answer whether this is a good idea or a bad idea. With some protocols now holding tokens of other protocols and participating in each other's governance votes, we are entering an era of systemic risk. It is easier to reason that this relatively small TIME-MIM-LUNA slice will be used for a larger network of portfolio products, or for CDO squares that are highly calculated from the pre-2008 financial crisis structured products? That's scary. Combinability is great, and it enables things that were not possible before. But systemic risk accumulates over time and tangled protocols become increasingly difficult to sort out, so we need to stay careful or it will end up being a much larger dollar mess.
You work to make money, and then spend the money you make on fun. That's how it's always been done, right? Work is essentially something you don't want to do, and you're willing to work because it pays for it. A game is essentially something you want to do because you like it and might even be willing to pay for it. So what the hell is P2E again? If you're a farmer in rural China making a living off of earning game gold in WoW, that's work. If you play WoW and like it, you might buy WoW gold on the RMT site, and the RMT site is all about the game from those rural areas of China.
Once again, there is so much terminology used in P2E that it sounds like a cool buzzword and makes you think that P2E is "both the fish and the bear's paw". In most normal games, some people work to earn money, some people pay to play, and there is little overlap between these two groups. In most "P2E" games, while there are still people who work to earn money, the people who pay to play are almost replaced by a new group of people who pay for workers' work and eventually sell it to other paying groups. group of people. In other words, the difference between most regular games and P2E games is that the former have workers and players, while the latter have workers and speculators. What is clear is that almost no one really wants to play P2E games.
If the P2E industry ever launches a truly interesting game, it becomes a regular game with workers and players that differs from a regular game only on one subtle issue: it provides on-chain bearer assets for virtual game assets, allowing an active secondary market outside of the game developer's platform, but one that the game developer can still easily tax. The general consensus among game developers is that the secondary market is bad for their revenue because they can't easily take a cut of every transaction in the secondary market, and it eats into the primary market. Now with cryptocurrencies, they are able to tax it easily, although the cannibalization of the primary market can't be solved yet. This is still a good thing in my opinion, as there used to be a real active secondary market for those best quality games, and now there is at least a greater incentive for game developers to return to the good old days before the anti-secondary market trend. Players can get what they want, and developers can get half of what they want. As a result, there can be some powerful synergies between cryptocurrency and gaming that current P2E games don't have.
If the term Metaverse means virtual reality (VR), then we already have it, and it is a growing industry. If the Metaverse means more than just VR, then we have to define it precisely to avoid having ordinary words inflated in value because they are too abstract - think about it: when people say artificial intelligence, they mean mechanical learning; when people say mechanical learning, they mean statistical methods; when people say statistical methods, they mean linear regression. Money is inflated enough; let's not let the vocabulary become inflated as well. If the metaverse meant virtual communities, we now have Telegram chat rooms, Discord communities, and even the company formerly known as Facebook.
If the metaverse only describes a trend where people generally spend more and more time in the virtual world and less and less time in real space, then it is a trend that is happening, and the Japanese hikikomori are our future. Too much money printed by the banks will result in half of humanity becoming sexless, homeless and basement dwellers, and the average person becoming a giant "club" of zombie social animals that will inevitably die of "overwork". Believe me; it's true, but the evidence for it can't be written in the margins of this article.
However, from a practical point of view, when we talk about investing in the metaverse, whatever it actually means, it usually comes in two forms: investing in a virtual world or niche, or investing in a specific virtual land/asset within a niche. In the former case, cryptocurrencies bring two innovations that were not possible in the past - first, you can allow your users to gain ownership of "vignettes" through the equivalent of Web3-style yield farming, provided you have some anti-Sybil mechanism in place. Second, you can organize your user base to conduct business with each other without relying on a centralized payment track. In other words, you can log into a place like Decentraland, have your avatar walk into a virtual art gallery, find a punk you like, and click on it to link directly to an auction on OpenSea. One more click and your Metamask wallet will open, and you can then buy it from the gallery. Once you've bought it, you can leave it in the gallery to display, or take it down and put it in your virtual house to display, or you can have it in both places. That's certainly cool. But in the case of VRChat, i.e. their vignettes are centralized, they could also integrate this feature directly. does Decentraland have unique advantages and disadvantages over VRChat? It's hard to be clear right now, but maybe the next topic will give us some insight.
What happens when we turn land ownership into bearer instruments? What happens when we turn virtual land ownership into a bearer note? This is really a core difference between Decentraland and Second Life that creates a certain level of scarcity for virtual land and an unforgeable, immutable title to land. Although there is still the question of how much of a difference in value land near a transportation center is compared to land far away. The value of virtual land also benefits from the flow of people around it, just like land in real space, but with the ability to teleport and fly in human virtual reality. If a project restricts users from teleporting or flying, its competitors may not impose such restrictions. Since gravity need not be the law of the virtual world, I imagine that the land there can also be stacked vertically. Thus, I don't think the price of virtual land presents the same percentage of difference between urban and rural land values as it does in real space, but it is still possible that some virtual lands are more valuable than others, depending on how much eyeballs they attract locally. Finally, just how unpredictable are the property rights to virtual land? What if someone puts something very vulgar or illegal (like bloody pornography) on their Decentraland parcel, and does Decentraland have the ability to take it down? True bearer land ownership means that Decentraland has no authority in such a situation.
Unlike Gabe Newell's (G Fat) Valve, we actually managed to count to 3. To avoid concept and word inflation, we'll use Chris Dixon's definition of Web3 here: Web1 is read; Web2 is read/write; Web3 is read/write/own.
So FCoin basically invented anti-fee mining, and it was subsequently popularized as yield farming in DeFi. So Web3 is yield farming? Just kidding, it's not enough of a paradigm shift. web3 is yield farming in general for a stock-like instrument that securities regulators will have a hard time taking enforcement action against. Could be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on whether you are a regulator. Imagine if Uber (or Lyft if you're Chris Dixon) would issue a small amount of Uber/Lyft stock to riders and drivers based on each ride on their platform, with no paperwork or man-in-the-middle overhead in the process, or any overhead due to regulator action. This could actually be a great way to build a two-sided or multi-faceted market, solve the "chicken or egg" problem, acquire customers and make them evangelists. Well, let's see what it's all about. When ambitious entrepreneurs mention Web3 in their speeches, as has been the case with past trends in "artificial intelligence" and the "sharing economy," you have to be extra careful.
In summary, the conclusion is that all is well in the cryptocurrency space. In the long run, as usual, I remain optimistic about the cryptocurrency space. In the short term, the space has some work to do and some things to clean up. I know some people will call my post silly, but I will not comment on them.
So, don't want to try that approach just because one of your college friends doubled his earnings several times on NFTs. We can all succeed in the end, except for those who can never achieve success. Life goes on, cryptocurrencies go on, keep building, keep hodling, try to do some good in the world, but make sure the good you do doesn't drag us all to hell by getting out and about at least every once in a while ......
We really need to clean up this space of our own or it will systematically explode at some point and then everyone will cry for regulation and it will be like mature market like history will repeat itself, I can't believe Gerko blocked me on twitter for being an idiot for telling the truth. As you know, when people open their mouths and say no offense, the next thing they say will always mean offense, sorry, not sorry, whatever happened to artforz, I can't believe they came up with such a clever scam. I would say there is usually a problem with carpet pulling in that once the scammers start dumping and there is a price drop, their community members get up in arms and cry foul, but what if they could covertly dump without causing a price drop, or even make the price go up and monetize at the same time? I'd say they even got a bunch of geniuses like that! If you ask me about the next stage of monetization defi 3.0, then I would say that this kind of staged machine is really complicated to death, even so complicated that it would make big guys like Daniel larimer feel less skilled than others.
The reader who reads this must be a very curious person, kudos to you! Francis Bacon Solomon said that there is nothing new on earth, as Plato imagined, and all knowledge is memory. So Solomon says that all novelties are forgotten, barry can gain from closed-end funds as a compromise, but if people are just going to buy more cryptocurrency from it I think all the pressure to sell is probably bad.
Nietzsche said that people who sit and think are nihilists, well I'm a pacer, Mev is like the Olympics of intellectual sports and I don't know sports. I mean, there are only so many ways to put the ball in the hole, and Starcraft, WC3, andDOTA are more strategic sense of athletics, looks more interesting, see here the reader friend may be an obsessive-compulsive, do a real meticulous.
Please specify source if reproducedDexnav | 加密市场现状全景解读：乌托邦叙事与板块轮动 | Dexnav 区块链导航网