Daydreamer
1.4K posts

Daydreamer
@bitezhang
加密货币 行情+仓位复盘 | 连续 10 年实盘记录 | 不卖课,只分享」

On FUD. FUD is an opportunity to either address misunderstandings or to identify mistakes and simply fix them. With every TGE, emotions run hot, as people focus on a single number, the token price, determining one’s feelings. It’s human nature, and because Backpack has such a large community around the world, spanning from advanced traders in Asia, to wallet users on every network, Mad Lad holders around the world, and everyone in between, the TGE is a time where people vocalize their views. I would like to address several different topics I’ve seen floating around over the past few days to set the record straight and offer my perspective. - OTC. I can’t believe I have to say this, no, we aren’t OTCing our own tokens to cash out. See the tokenomics. Fake news. End of story. What is true: buyers reached out to me and asked for OTC. I am happy to help buyers find more tokens. Unfortunately, due to the bad history of other crypto projects using OTC to cash out, folks assumed the worst when they saw me post about OTC in discord. - Mad Lads. All existing Mad Lad holders pre-TGE retain their Backpack VIP status. New holders do not. Some like this, some hate this. I understand both perspectives. My perspective is that Mad Lads has always been an evolution alongside Backpack. We went from the whitelist games inside Backpack => pre-reveal inside Backpack => reveal boss inside Backpack => xNFT inside Backpack => airdrops inside Backpack => VIP points inside Backpack => the BP token. Each one of these stages created a clear path for Mad Lads to get to the next stage, always focusing on long term holders over people that come and go. There are people that follow the path, and people that do not. There are people that evolve with us and people that do not. Our approach from the day Mad Lads was born has always been to focus people on the Backpack product. Naturally, new people came into Mad Lads with their own pre-conceived notion of what it was or what it should be. This creates tension. But we have always had a strong vision and we will always stick to it. The people that use the product always get to the next stage, where every stage answers a single question: how do we push Backpack forward. When designing token utility, it’s a question of economics, and it would be a disservice to BP to not align incentives around it. There’s an additional nuance worth pointing out: Backpack is different from basically every other product that dropped a mined token because we KYC users and are selective about the regions we open up. Those users have been out of the game, so to speak, not because I want to do that–nothing upsets me more than not being able to serve users in a particular region (what founder would want that?)--but it’s because we have chosen the path of building a crypto native financial institution. That path is long and hard. For these users, we have maintained the path to get to the next stage and have communicated that. When we open up regions, these regions will get their drops, and we will be running new campaigns to get more drops just by using the product, and that brings everyone up to speed with the same VIP benefits of the original pre-TGE seasons. For the long term holders, nothing has changed. The key issue is with respect to new NFT holders. Some people will hate this. Some will think it’s sound economics. I understand both perspectives. We are doing what we think is best. - Sybills. Our goal was to protect retail users competing for points against sophisticated players splitting accounts and giving themselves an unfair advantage over those that don’t. The mistake we made: our process was too black and white. From the team’s point of view, we had a line and we stuck to it. From the community’s point of view, the line is nuanced. We did not sufficiently take that into consideration. - Price/FDV. With every token comes the human nature to think about the price at all times. There are good ways to think about price and there are clearly illegal ways to think about price. Our position is simple, we are building over a long period of time, and we are not making short term decisions. 24h post-TGE FDV is not a meaningful metric. Even 1 week post-TGE FDV is not a meaningful metric. If you ask anyone that’s ever built anything, they’ll tell you the same. Many people will take issue with that statement, and that’s ok. Ultimately, you have to look at our incentives and decide for yourself. The fact of the matter is that the team and I are incentivized to make Backpack a success with arguably the most extreme tokenomics ever created. What happens if the token goes to zero and stays there? Our company fails, and we get nothing. Some people might rebut saying that we get rich from the company revenue. No. That is simply not how companies work. We don’t get rich from a bad token price. We are punished in the most extreme possible way. And we are rewarded in the most extreme way only if we achieve all of our hopes and dreams. The way it should be. This is by design. Beyond this post you won’t see me talk about price or FDV. You will see me talking about building and creating long term value. And it’s only by doing that, can BP become a success. Every project goes through trials and tribulations. This is certainly a moment for us. We are nothing without our community, and we will serve it in the best way we know how. I have complete conviction, I am all in, and the team is all in. Don’t trust us, look at the tokenomics to decide for yourself. Thank you for reading this. Thank you especially to those that have supported us this week. It means a lot. We will continue to review the above, particularly the cases around sybils, and get back to building.


.@Backpack🎒背包空投 $BP 可以领了,大都被女巫了,盘前0.3U,这点毛和成本几乎持平了。 领到币的记得马上点击解除质押,这样TGE就能马上卖。 总量10亿,TGE 25%,盘前价初始流通7500万,FDV3亿。 以现在的行情也没啥空间,打算上线就卖了,以后背包只供我出金港卡用。 另外,之前SOL手机去刷的,每号平均给了我1100个 $BP ,这个是有利润可赚的没反撸。 很多人刷大半年,被女巫的利润不如人家一部0成本的SOL手机。。真是讽刺

@maoshen 猫神 您这篇帖子把张雪峰的志愿填报服务简单归结为“一个视频就能讲清楚的事,却收费几万块,招几万会员,坑害底层血汗钱”。 我认为这个判断过于情绪化,也低估了高考志愿填报的复杂性,以及市场对专业服务的真实需求。 首先,志愿填报绝不是“一个视频就能搞定”。高考政策每年都在调整,分数线、位次、招生计划、调剂规则、平行志愿投档逻辑、专业限制、转专业难度、城市生活成本、家庭资源匹配…… 这些因素交织在一起,对一个考生来说,是高度个性化的决策。 公开视频可以讲通用方法、避坑常识,但无法替你分析“这个分数在江苏报南京信息工程大学计算机 vs 浙江报杭州电子科技大学信息风险如何对冲”,以及“孩子兴趣偏文但就业压力大,该不该冲某985冷门专业”的问题。 一个通用视频顶多解决30%的信息差,剩下的70%需要结合考生真实分数、位次、省份政策、家庭情况做多轮模拟和风险评估。 其次,张雪峰的服务并非他本人“一对一解答所有问题”这里,您说得没错。但团队化运作不是原罪。律师事务所、医疗机构、留学中介哪一家不是靠团队?对吧。 张雪峰早期靠大量免费直播和视频积累口碑,把原本线下高价、门槛高的志愿咨询变成了大众可及的知识产品。他把复杂的高考规则用大白话讲透,让无数农村、县城和普通工薪家庭的父母第一次系统了解“天坑专业”“地域就业差异”“保研率”等现实因素。这本身就是在缩小信息差,而不是制造茧房。 真正富豪家庭确实很少依赖他,因为他们有国际学校、留学规划师、私人导师等更高端资源。但这恰恰说明他的受众主要是有一定积蓄、却信息闭塞的中下层家庭,他们愿意为孩子前途花钱买经验和时间,这叫知识付费,而非“骗血汗钱”。 价格方面,2025届他的“梦想卡”约12999元、“圆梦卡”约18999元(较前一年小幅上涨)。听起来贵,但放到整个教育投入里看(从小学到高中,普通家庭在补课、培训上的花费动辄十几二十万。志愿填报是高考这盘大棋的最后一招,一步错可能导致四年大学“滑档”“调剂”或专业不匹配,直接影响就业和人生轨迹)相比之下,花一两万买一套包含前期模拟方案、后期沟通、风险对冲的系统服务,很多家长觉得值,至少他们认为比盲目填报后悔四年强。 市场是需要检验的,也必须经受得住考验才能活下来。名额抢空,说明需求真实存在,而不是单纯被“拿捏天下父母心”。 当然,不否认行业存在乱象,部分机构过度营销、放大焦虑、服务质量参差,甚至有敷衍了事的案例。 张雪峰的团队服务也并非完美,有人反馈方案与公开数据差别不大,也有人觉得性价比一般。但把个别问题上升到“坑害底层”“纯割韭菜”,就忽略了张雪峰早期免费内容的巨大正面影响,以及他敢于直言某些专业就业现实的勇气。 真正帮助底层打破信息茧房的,往往不是零成本的“一个视频”,而是把碎片化信息系统化、把隐性风险显性化的专业服务。 这服务有成本,自然有价格。 猫神,您坚持清醒表达,大家尊重。但在批评商业模式时,也请看到,信息从来不是免费的,时间、经验和专业判断更不是。 家长们不是“傻傻的韭菜”,他们是在用有限的积蓄为孩子的人生买一份保险。 也许,未来AI工具普及后,价格大概率会回归合理区间。但目前阶段,把这种“花钱买确定性”的行为一棍子打成骗局,我认为不对。


















