The LIGHT project and PIPPIN seem to be following a similar path. To be honest, the development logic, token mechanism, and market positioning of the two coins all reveal similar shadows. The question is, is this design a coincidence or intentional? What the market needs is innovation, not just a rehashing of someone else's plan in a different guise. For LIGHT and PIPPIN to break through, they need to present truly differentiated offerings—whether it's technological breakthroughs, application scenarios, or ecosystem development. Merely sticking to one path is actually a waste for coin holders.
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.
14 Likes
Reward
14
10
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
NonFungibleDegen
· 2025-12-24 06:47
ngl ser these copy-paste tokenomics got me down bad... LIGHT just PIPPIN with extra steps? probably nothing but my bags are concerned
Reply0
rekt_but_not_broke
· 2025-12-23 17:13
It's the same old trap again, just changing the shell, I'm really fed up.
View OriginalReply0
ApeWithNoChain
· 2025-12-23 16:03
The copy-paste culture is really something; two coins are carved out of one mold...
View OriginalReply0
GasGuzzler
· 2025-12-21 18:50
It's another trap of switching shells; coin holders really need to wake up.
View OriginalReply0
GateUser-afe07a92
· 2025-12-21 18:47
Stop playing with things that are just shells, it's really annoying.
View OriginalReply0
TokenomicsTherapist
· 2025-12-21 18:46
Another skin swap? LIGHT and PIPPIN are really just copying and pasting from each other, holders are Rekt.
View OriginalReply0
OnchainDetective
· 2025-12-21 18:45
It's the same old trick again, copying and pasting two projects, thinking they can play people for suckers just by changing the skin.
View OriginalReply0
DegenApeSurfer
· 2025-12-21 18:34
To be honest, LIGHT and PIPPIN are just rebranded versions of each other, the mechanisms are basically the same, isn't it a waste for coin holders to be held like this?
View OriginalReply0
AirdropHarvester
· 2025-12-21 18:27
It's just the same old trap with a new twist; I really can't see any essential difference between the two projects.
The LIGHT project and PIPPIN seem to be following a similar path. To be honest, the development logic, token mechanism, and market positioning of the two coins all reveal similar shadows. The question is, is this design a coincidence or intentional? What the market needs is innovation, not just a rehashing of someone else's plan in a different guise. For LIGHT and PIPPIN to break through, they need to present truly differentiated offerings—whether it's technological breakthroughs, application scenarios, or ecosystem development. Merely sticking to one path is actually a waste for coin holders.