Just saw an NFT project’s floor drop by 70%, and the community is still yelling “diamond hands” and “don’t look at trading volume,” which is raising my blood pressure. The floor price is down, but have the revenue curve from fees and the parameters of the staking pool been changed? A bunch of people don’t even know royalties were cut from 10% to 2%, yet they’re still talking about “belief.” To put it plainly: when liquidity is so bad that the token-locked pools are collapsing, you can’t expect pure PFPs to become “blue chips.” With all the recent modularity narratives, developers blow it up to the sky, but users still don’t understand the block production rules and what the DA layer has to do with their NFTs—yet they can still fool people into taking over.

In my opinion, the key to switching NFT liquidity between “hot” and “cold” has never been whether the community shouts loud enough. It’s whether the pool depth is enough for you to control slippage within 5%. Those cases where the floor price is 20E but there’s no real market—there’s no difference from a scam. Either way, I treat it all as “liquidity lock ammo”: first calculate slippage in the trading pair and the cost of forced selling, then consider whether to get involved. That pitiful royalty income is barely worth a fraction of what people lost back when they blindly threw funds into the pools. Don’t think too hard—if you really want to provide NFT liquidity, it’s better to take apart those pools that say they’re doing “charity outward settlement and wildly locking capital inside.” Once you understand how they work, you’ll naturally know what you should buy.