Many new crypto projects fail because their real product is their TGE with huge mintable allocation for themselves.
Their supposed product such as dapp is like the second thing they focused on. Only small amount of project actually focused on bringing product instead of finding exit through TGE such as layerzero with their interop, uniswap, and so on.
That is the real problem with new projects, they are not here because the tech, they are here because where else you can create some unfinished product and get valued half billion without effort
.
That expression "finding exit" is a big part of the problem I think.
The kind of developers who "invest" their time, effort and expertise in free open-source projects did not used-to-be looking for any exit at all.
Did Linus create Linux as a means to an exit out of free open source into some paying job obtained by having "created Linux" on his resume, and/or as a mere stepping-stone, a step on the way to a life in Microsoft Windows?
Was the Apple microcomputer built in a garage as a means to exit the world of electronics design to a bucolic pre-industrial retirement?
I think I heard that Elon started in facebook or paypal or both or somesuch so of course there are counterexamples but over the decades I myself have trended toward a "no exit" approach.
To me the idea is not at all to exit, but rather to build things that will be a store of value not as empty shells, piggy-banks one shatters to extract the value stored in them but rather as forever-homes, forever-cars, forever-literature, forever-everything forever-foreveryone.
Built to last, as doubtless some Corp has as slogan for its products. Oh lookie at that link, Google is still with us, I wonder if its creators use some other search engine nowadays or have failed to this day to exit Google?
I have found in actual practice - empirical experiment - that exit is not at all what actually stores retains and grows value, rather value is stored retained and grown by the very fact that it does not exit.
If your piggy-bank or liquidity-reservoir is designed/intended for exit, aka has a hole in it, how will it ever be filled, everything poured into it constantly flowing right out of it?
You can fill a shell-company with a host of shell-companies containing more shell-companies, shells all the way down as it were, but until you put something other than more empty shells into it it is just a circuit, a design, whether more like a normal electronics schematic or more like one of the deeper possibly-underlying schematics built upon
Laws of Form - which basically deals with patterns of containers containing containers (all the way down as it were) either empty or not.
It is the ones that are not empty that are the value, the mark, the form, described in Laws of Form.
Not only are they not empty, they are an empty "not", in that the mark, the form, the container, the shell is itself the "not"-operator.
To put something inside such a container (mark, form, shell) is to "not" it; if outside it had been truth, inside it is not-truth; if inside it is truth, outside it is not-truth.
The not-empty - the empty not - is the underlying true-or-not, the blank space functions as the "or" operator.
As students of computer-science are well aware, all logic-circuits at least in standard boolean algebra can be constructed out of any two of the "primitive" operators; any two of them can be taken as fundamental in an implementation and all the others built out of them.
Laws of Form basically uses "not" and "or" as fundamental and builds from those.
"Or" is emptiness, "not" is the mark, the form, the label, the "distinction" distinguishing its contents from not-its-contents.
Remove the distinction and you flip the truth / not-truth.
So do you really want to have that which distinguishes "exit" your design/circuit?
Or is its presence versus absence fundamental in some sense or way?
Laws of Form only carries us as far as where flow of ons and offs, truths versus not-truths begins: it is a two-dimensional form, pointing toward more dimensions and possibly showing us a way to approach them.
By flipping the idea of "market cap", measuring value per unit by dividing a total (treasury) by number of units (fractions, shares, coins, tokens, specie etc) to arrive at value per unit rather than assigning a value to a unit then totalling number of units to arrive at a "market cap", the
Galactic Milieu derives the truth or falsity of the unbounded circuit/design from the circuit/design itself rather than attempting to arbitrarily derive the value of the unbounded circuit/design from something inserted from "outside", since afterall "unbounded" has no "outside", its outside is simply one of the sides of itself...
-MarkM-
