The Overton Window Has Shifted—This Time, Things Are Different, but Not in the Way We Expected

The price of Bitcoin has surpassed $100,000; we have a president who supports cryptocurrency, yet strangely, everyone seems to be angry.

The recent surge in cryptocurrency prices has sparked a wave of excitement and trepidation within the crypto community. While some revel in the prospect of astronomical gains, others remain skeptical, questioning the sustainability of such a meteoric rise.

One school of thought maintains that the government's newfound support for cryptocurrencies, coupled with the participation of influential figures like Donald Trump, marks a pivotal shift in the Overton Window. This, they argue, will pave the way for broader acceptance and integration of digital assets into the mainstream.

However, a closer examination reveals a more nuanced and potentially troubling reality. While Trump may indeed be "posting promotional content" for cryptocurrencies, his actions also include promoting meme coins that ultimately benefit his family and siphoning capital away from the broader market.

This behavior, while perhaps amusing on the surface, highlights a deeper issue—the lack of clear legal frameworks and oversight within the cryptocurrency domain. This vacuum has allowed some projects to prioritize short-term gains and price manipulation over genuine innovation and user experience.

To some extent, this situation has worked in favor of internet enthusiasts like myself. In a bid to boost coin prices and mitigate legal risks, several project teams have engaged in distributing substantial "free funds" to individuals through airdrops.

According to CoinGecko, the total value of the top 50 airdrops has reached an astonishing $26 billion. Given the difficulty in creating truly valuable products within the current environment, we have instead valued these projects based on their aspirations and potential.

As a result, we have witnessed a string of curious phenomena. A Layer 1 with minimal users is valued higher than established traditional tech companies; "Ponzi stablecoins" that rely on new capital injections to maintain their value now surpass the GDP of some nations; and the trading price of ape images eclipses that of real estate properties.

In essence, the entire cryptocurrency industry is built upon a flawed incentive mechanism. Talking about building something can be just as lucrative as actually doing it. Many of us both criticize this phenomenon and reap its benefits firsthand.

But I believe this situation is poised to change. With the government shifting towards support and regulation of cryptocurrencies, we may finally have the opportunity to create serious, practical products for those who genuinely need them.

This marks a positive development for the industry as a whole, but its implications for us "speculators" remain unclear.

In a world governed by clear legal frameworks that foster true innovation, will innovators continue to dole out "free funds" via airdrops? As the legal landscape becomes more transparent, will an influx of professionals enter the on-chain ecosystem, potentially diluting the current "speculative spirit"?

And what fate awaits those applications that still lack users, despite the crypto projects achieving technological breakthroughs and attracting "real users"? Will we blindly flock to more centralized blockchains as the government pivots from hostility to support?

If the barrier to creating tokens drops to zero, will all tokens be diluted and rendered worthless? As higher-quality applications continue to emerge, will we witness a surge in actual users entering the on-chain economy and spending money? Will this money remain on-chain or be siphoned back into the traditional economy?

Ultimately, are we headed towards a scenario akin to Web 2.0, where a handful of companies reap the majority of the profits while other projects pale in comparison?

Does your family's future truly hinge on whether you purchased those seven coins? If you miss out on them, will you be condemned to poverty for holding onto Ethereum for too long?

Will Michael Saylor impulsively decide to sell (FSH) all his Bitcoin? It sounds preposterous, but if it were to happen, we might still end up with nothing.

What if the Ethereum Foundation abruptly disbands, leaving us to witness Vitalik's erratic creation of a new blockchain driven by his "Milady spirit"?

And what if Trump decides to launch an "American chain," airdropping tokens to every citizen while heavily taxing other chains and tokens?

Would these actions propel coin prices to new heights or lead to a market crash?

To be honest, I have no answers. This may be the most confusing juncture I've encountered in the past five years.

The only certainty is that everything will change, and the cryptocurrency landscape four years from now will be vastly different from today.

So, how do I打算应对这些变化?

坦白地说，我不聪明；过去几年我足够幸运赚了一些钱。因此，我决定降低投资风险，从加密货币市场中提取一些资金。

我再也无法忍受将 95% 的净资产押注在每隔几年就会暴跌 95% 的“虚拟货币”上。

我实在无法鼓起勇气告诉女友，我把我们的未来都押在了特朗普身上。在此之前，我已经将全部身家都押在了他赢得选举上。

不过，我觉得我未来表现可能会更好。毕竟，现在我知道了，即使自己搞砸了，