2026-01-02 03:23:10

Thoughts on the Investment Logic of Meme Coins

Recently, I noticed an interesting phenomenon. In the ecosystem of meme coins with a face value of USD 1, it seems that many people share a common understanding—only projects favored by top-tier capital have the potential to break through the ceiling.

But here’s the question: when you look at those viral meme coins, is their success really entirely dependent on institutional backing? It doesn’t seem so. Many of the most popular projects are actually completely decentralized, without celebrity endorsements.

This is a bit awkward. On one hand, the market pursues this kind of endorsement and recognition; on the other hand, it casually expects support from some big figures. But if it does so, doesn’t that dilute the original gene of meme coins—bottom-up community-driven and anti-authority? What’s the essential difference between that and waiting for a "saint" to respond?

It seems to have lost the original meaning of the meme movement—the true decentralization and community self-organization. What do you all think about this? Should we stick to community consensus as king, or does the backing of capital in reality really change the game?

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

18 Likes

Reward
18
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

Degen4Breakfast

· 5h ago

Well said, but I think this is just a false binary opposition. Coins that can't get hot without capital are nonsense; community consensus is the real trump card. Alright, there are actually only two paths: either bet on the explosive power of community self-organization or follow the endorsement of institutions. The problem is that most people want to have it both ways, and as a result, they become walking corpses. Meme coins are originally a rebellion against elite narratives; now, turning around to kneel to big capital has truly lost its soul. Instead of obsessing over this, it's better to see whose community truly has strong stickiness. Projects that become more popular without backing are the real deal. Institutional endorsement is just an accelerant; the community is the fuel. Unfortunately, everyone has forgotten that now. Your "saint reply" analogy is perfect, hitting the nail on the head. We're just repeating the old tricks of history. Honestly, coins that can take off without big V endorsements are more worth paying attention to than those supported by institutions. The true decentralized movement should grow wildly like this.

View OriginalReply0

BlockchainDecoder

· 5h ago

According to research, there is a classic game theory paradox here — pursuing endorsements while actually undermining the essence of decentralization. Data shows that meme coins without institutional backing are more likely to form strong community loyalty, and this phenomenon warrants in-depth analysis. The core issue is that market participants are caught in a collective action dilemma, knowing it goes against their original intentions but unable to extricate themselves.

View OriginalReply0

just_another_wallet

· 01-02 03:51

To be honest, this question is quite pointed, but I think you're overthinking it. Capital and community are not mutually exclusive; both are needed. The truly explosive coins are those with enough buzz and a fierce community. Whether capital comes or not is actually a secondary matter. However, institutional endorsement is sometimes just a psychological effect, giving people confidence. Community consensus is the real hard currency; capital is just adding fuel to the fire. Don't be hijacked by the "anti-authority" mindset; if there's money to be made, go ahead and make it. Frankly, who cares about the underlying philosophy as long as it can pump.

View OriginalReply0

MoneyBurnerSociety

· 01-02 03:47

Haha, isn't this just the story I learned the hard way from my blood, sweat, and tears... Waiting for institutions vs waiting for the community, both ended up losing everything. By the time we sought endorsement, we had already taken the plunge. Now we regret and say we want decentralization—this is truly the daily routine of us professional leek farmers. To put it simply, making money from meme coins has never been about ideology; it's just a race to see who can run faster than the other. Community consensus? The most consensus I've seen is when everyone gets liquidated together.

View OriginalReply0

GasFeeCrier

· 01-02 03:47

Basically, this is the contradiction between faith and profit—everyone wants to make money.

View OriginalReply0

LiquidatorFlash

· 01-02 03:46

Wait a minute, I need to do some calculations... Projects without institutional backing are actually booming, what does that indicate? Risk control thresholds are basically ignored. Once market fluctuations trigger chain liquidation, how high can the liquidation rate go? That's what I care about. Community consensus sounds good, but once the collateralization ratio becomes unbalanced, no one can save it.

View OriginalReply0

GasFeeLady

· 01-02 03:24

honestly the whole "need big money to moon" narrative is just cope for people who fomo'd too late... watched gwei prices spike while everyone was jerking off over some vc's tweet that never even materialized lmao

Reply0