People overlook a key detail about what happened when FriendTech exploded onto the scene. The ones who actually profited most? The traders—names like Cobie, Ansem, and Hsaka dominated the leaderboards. Here's the thing: token prices moved in lockstep with trading performance. The better you were at trading, the higher your share went. It was almost mechanical—profit potential directly translated to valuation. Everyone chased returns. Everyone wanted to be associated with winners. But that's also exactly why the whole thing eventually collapsed. The system was gaming itself. People weren't buying the product; they were buying the trader's track record. Once that narrative broke, there was nothing left underneath.
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
10
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
DaoDeveloper
· 01-03 05:16
ngl this is exactly the tokenomics death spiral we keep seeing—when valuation becomes pure performance theater instead of actual utility. the merkle proof of value just evaporates once retail catches the drift that they're buying hype, not governance primitives or real composability. friends as a product layer was broken from the start tbh
Reply0
OnlyUpOnly
· 01-02 16:07
Basically, it's just hot potato; there's no fundamentals, only stories.
View OriginalReply0
MissedAirdropBro
· 01-02 13:19
Ha, is that all? Friendtech is basically hot potato; no one truly believes in that stuff.
View OriginalReply0
GasDevourer
· 01-01 08:57
Basically, it's a Ponzi scheme where later participants take over the story from those before them.
View OriginalReply0
FlashLoanLarry
· 2025-12-31 05:59
nah this is just value extraction with extra steps. the mev was always in the narrative, not the protocol. once you see the leaderboard as the actual product... everything clicks. cobie knew what he was doing fr
Reply0
GamefiHarvester
· 2025-12-31 05:58
Basically, it's just hot potato; no one really believes in that stuff.
View OriginalReply0
Tokenomics911
· 2025-12-31 05:57
At its core, it's still a Ponzi scheme. You're not really buying a product; you're just betting on the faces of those big players.
View OriginalReply0
Fren_Not_Food
· 2025-12-31 05:50
Friendtech is just a Ponzi scheme; I've seen through it long ago.
View OriginalReply0
MemeTokenGenius
· 2025-12-31 05:43
Basically, it's just a Ponzi scheme with nested layers, a story of later players taking over the previous waves.
View OriginalReply0
FundingMartyr
· 2025-12-31 05:37
Basically, it's just a hot potato game; no one really cares about the product itself.
People overlook a key detail about what happened when FriendTech exploded onto the scene. The ones who actually profited most? The traders—names like Cobie, Ansem, and Hsaka dominated the leaderboards. Here's the thing: token prices moved in lockstep with trading performance. The better you were at trading, the higher your share went. It was almost mechanical—profit potential directly translated to valuation. Everyone chased returns. Everyone wanted to be associated with winners. But that's also exactly why the whole thing eventually collapsed. The system was gaming itself. People weren't buying the product; they were buying the trader's track record. Once that narrative broke, there was nothing left underneath.