been thinking about something, as an active observer (and selective participant) of the “trenches,” i’ve realized one thing that’s genuinely capping the growth of a lot of these tokens: the culture of flexing multiples as the primary marketing strategy. and honestly? it’s so counter-intuitive to me. … e.g token A is at XXX MC. mr A got in at 1/10(XXX) MC. mr A now gloats to the entire timeline about being “10x up” and in the trenches this is seen as some sort of “social proof,” as “good for attention,” as “bullish.” but i feel like the second you zoom out even a little, you’d see an understanding why everything collapses: > why should mr B (who entered at 1/2(XXX) MC) keep holding? > why should mr C (a fresh prospect) buy a token where someone already brags about being 10x on his head? i feel like people underestimate how psychologically damaging this is. cos it creates a hostile entry environment. nobody wants to buy into a chart where they feel like exit liquidity esp when it’s being shoved in their faces that there likely to be EL. there’s a reason why you for example won’t buy a “VC token” and that’s cos they’re up before you even get an entry. now imagine doing that for largely illiquid tokens. ain’t nobody wanna enter a token where early holders are already bragging about generational multiples before the token even forms a real culture, use case, or narrative. and worst part? this behavior hard-caps the network effects before it even begins. … another thing i think many don’t seem to understand is that the trenches meta doesn’t instantly translate to a new ecosystem cos of dynamic differences. on Solana for example, “trenches culture” came after: > deep liquidity > mature infra > established user base > existing narratives > cultural identity > a floor of conviction holders > and actual wealth creation to recycle all already existed. the trenches were a side quest built on top of an already thriving main game as a result of market participants being bored and needing something more active rather than passive. Monad is not in that phase yet. yes, Monad’s infra is insane. yes, it’s the most mature L1 eco ever built pre-mainnet. yes, talent and builders are flooding in. but remember, it’s still day zero of a new civilization. you don’t import behaviors from a mature nation into a newborn settlement and expect the same outcome. that’s how you get civil wars, not countries. … what Monad actually needs is a core. a group of holders who aren’t just here for 5-minute rotations. people who aren’t shilling from a FOMO angle. people who aren’t trying to sell the token through “look how much i made,” but through: strong conviction, shared belief, solid narrative, shared purpose and alignment. the people who want to own the token, not just trade it. they are the ones that become the nucleus. then they'd attract others who resonate with the “why” rather than the “multiple”. imo, this is the healthiest foundation you can build for a new ecosystem. … from an economic POV, from an economic POV, the entire point can be summarized in three laws imo: 1. Metcalfe’s Law - 'the value of a network is proportional to the square of the number of its connected users.” i.e., V ~ n² if early holders signal “we’ve already eaten,” you collapse the incentive for marginal buyers to come in (connected users become capped) . no marginal buyers = no network effect = no growth. 2. Goodhart’s Law - when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure. the moment the culture optimizes for showcasing X’s instead of building conviction, people start gaming the system, not growing it. the result is churn, zero compounding as no nucleus is ever formed. 3. The Cobra Effect - an attempted solution to a problem can make the problem worse due to perverse incentives. if the culture solely rewards extraction (flexing gains), you incentivize more extraction. if it rewards belief, you get more belief. ecosystems become what they incentivise. what do these mean? > network effects depend on increasing marginal participation. not on extracting from early participants. when your early cohort signals “we’ve already eaten, you kill the incentive for marginal buyers, which kills the network effect. > perceived fairness is a core economic growth driver. this isn’t just crypto, this is macro-econ 101. people enter systems they believe give them a fair shot and they avoid systems where they feel structurally disadvantaged. gloating about being up multiples erode perceived fairness which caps net new inflow and in turn, caps growth. > ecosystem stability requires a base layer of non-extractive holders. in economic terms, this is called utility-anchored demand. basically, holders who demand the asset for reasons other than speculation (identity, alignment, long-term positioning, cultural significance or whatever). if your core holder base is purely extractive, the system becomes reflexively unstable. > rotational cultures shrink economies. rapid extraction cycles creat5es high churn, shallow liquidity, no long-term price memory, no shared identity, zero compounding and you end up with an economy that stays small forever a rotational culture creates this negative-sum equilibria cos the more people rotate, the less there is to rotate. > entry psychology is the oxygen of early ecosystems. if the people entering feel late, the system will suffocate itself. if the people entering still feel early, the system steadily compounds. and you flexing 10x bags at literally less than 100k MC for example, kills the “i’m early” feeling instantly lmfaooo. ain’t nobody gonna buy your shit like that. … so what’s the solution? at this infancy stage Monad is in, we need a trench culture that prioritizes: strong floors, conviction holders, reduced rotation, shared identity, “belief” as onboarding, purpose-driven accumulation rather than FOMO, optics that make fresh buyers feel early, not late that’s how you bootstrap a fun and sustainable trenches imo. that’s how you prevent this new chain from devolving into pure PVP and take away the fun from it all. that’s how you create something that lasts. if Monad trenches are going to become “trenches” for real, we do need standout tokens with a strong core, held by people who actually want to own them rather than farm immediate term volatility, an we need such holders to be loud about it. (mentioned this in a conversation w someone who was screaming at James for why there’s no “runner”) no single human being can create a runner, a true runner is created from the collective desire to own something. we need fewer rotations, more conviction. we need culture over clout, narrative over flexing. we need people selling why they hold, not how much they made. early ecosystems die when everyone simply extracts. but they thrive when a core group builds a psychological and economic floor that others wanna stand on. … there’s no onchain wealth creation on Monad yet and imo, that’s exactly why the foundation matters now. wealth is usually a downstream effect of belief. you can’t compound value in a place where nothing is being held. so imo, as an avg participant if you’re “trenching” solely to make money rn (in a new eco w zero onchain wealth creation yet) rather than belong, you’d most likely end up losing. so imo, better to maybe just buy things in the trenches you think could survive, with amounts you can afford to burn. this is how it should be. cos, the more people believe together, the more likely that first wealth-creation moment becomes real and the more fair, shared, and non-extractive it feels, the more attractive it’ll be to marginal participants. there’s probably more PVE gambling versions on Monad today that would be reliant on your skillset and luck not anyone else and if you focus on these maybe you’d do better getting upsides than the current version of the trenches imo. but i guess everyone just wants to import what worked in A into B instead. not to say oh all I’ve said here is the absolute truth or whatnot, it’s just to say it’s what i think about things rn and I’m happy to see things through the lenses of others too. cheers, and thanks for listening to my rant.