AI Agent: From "Asset Issuance" Narrative to "Chaining" Integration Stage

e feels that this round of AI Agent narrative advancement is very similar to the inscription track in the past 23 years. It is not completely the same to compare, but it makes sense. I think at least we can copy the historical experience of the inscription track to the AI Agent track and sort out some potential development and evolution logic and investment opportunities:

The narrative advancement of AI Agent in this round is indeed very similar to the inscription track in the past 23 years, and it makes sense to copy the historical experience of the inscription track to the AI Agent track and sort out some potential development and evolution logic and investment opportunities.

The beginning of the bubble of the “asset issuance” narrative

There is no doubt that whether it is inscriptions, AI Agents, or the previous NFTs, the narrative evolution is born from the Fomo sentiment of "asset issuance". After all, it is too early and no one can figure out what the future use of such tokens that are quickly circulated in the market will be, but perhaps because of this, information asymmetry will produce a potential "get rich quick effect". This will push the Fomo sentiment to spread like a snowball, resulting in a "bubble" situation where more people look for the code of wealth and more meaningless tokens are born. This is actually difficult to avoid, but it is the engine for the emergence of rounds of bull markets.

For example, the inscription track initially hyped BRC20. In addition to being novel and fun, the core selling point was the "first is first" scarcity hype attribute, and the main logic was the first-mover advantage of the narrative creators who competed for the first and second dragons. AI Agent is no exception. At the beginning, AI interactive dialogue AI Agent was hyped. Goat, act, fartcoin and other coins with the same MEME attributes also appeared. The script was similar. The MEME war around the first and second dragons lasted for a long time, and it is still unknown whether it has settled.

Of course, AI Agent’s asset issuance narrative is much stronger than inscriptions, and at least has some utlity application attributes. The only question is how to enrich application scenarios such as dialogue interaction, image and text generation, and on-chain transactions, and whether a single application scenario can support hundreds of millions of FDVs.

But I would like to remind you that AI Agent naturally has application attributes, so the process of track application maturity is also a process of continuously stripping away MEME. If you have to choose MEME, find the source that best represents the cultural attribution of AI Agent.

"Framework Standards" compete for internal competition

When the MEME-based pure financial nihilism "asset issuance" narrative is deduced to a certain stage, it will inevitably transform into a technology-enabled implementation narrative, and a longer-term round of competition will unfold around the differences in technical standards and framework agreements.

Looking back at the emergence of ARC20, SRC20, DRC20, Runes protocol and other public chain inscription burning stress testing wars, isn’t it very similar to the current framework and standard melee between ELIZA, ARC, Virtual, Vvaifu, zerobro, Griffain, Swarms, etc.?

During this process, the hot spots of the track will continue to be refreshed, the same funds will continue to rotate, communities around the technology will also be formed, and even some confrontations and verbal battles are inevitable.

The so-called technical melee exists mainly because it is difficult for technology to prove its own superiority at this stage. Relying on information such as the number of Github repo forks, the number of stars, the background of the initiator, and the mysterious dealers as references cannot resist the huge fluctuations of the project. Because you don’t know which information is mixed with water.

However, since the standards of technical excellence are involuted, the quality of technology must take the "first place". In the process of sorting out and analyzing the technical framework, characteristics and advantages of new projects, it is also a kind of "technical screening". Although it may not be accurate, it can at least avoid being misled by some MEME coins dressed in technical clothes. The logic is simple. The threshold for technical project fraud is not low. What needs to be challenged is the aesthetic preferences of the entire developer group. You can't try to harvest with a fancy website.

In general, the market at this stage is characterized by "hot spot rotation", which is mixed with various fraudulent projects, but fortunately, projects that can attract attention by selling technical quality are generally not bad. Of course, don't FOMO for missing a new project, FUD will definitely happen (the fate of fast pass), and there will definitely be opportunities to get on board during the huge fluctuations. Even if you miss it, you must believe that there will definitely be a better one than it. At this stage, it is definitely right to play with coins with a scumbag's thinking.

There is no way. No matter how perfect the framework standard design is, it is just an idea at the beginning, which is no different from relying on white papers for financing in the ICO era. The best logic is