From Educational Dreams to 1000x Coins: How GIGGLE Disturbs the Boundaries of Charity and Speculation

There’s a joke circulating in the crypto world – an educational platform founded by CZ out of boredom surprisingly led to the spontaneous creation of a meme, and this coin raised $900,000 for charity within 12 hours. It sounds like a perfect marketing story, but the underlying issues are worth pondering.

The Madness from 0 to 1000 Times

The story begins in March 2024, when CZ casually mentioned on Twitter his desire to create a free education platform—Giggle Academy. The intention is pure: over 1 billion children worldwide cannot go to school, especially in Africa. Instead of spending money to build school buildings, it is better to utilize the already widespread mobile phones and gamified learning, allowing children to learn skills while playing and earning money. This logic is pragmatic.

The turning point came on September 21st - Giggle Academy announced it would accept crypto donations. The community did not wait for an official response and created the GIGGLE coin on its own. The mechanism is quite interesting: a 5% tax is deducted from each transaction, and 100% goes into the smart contract GiggleFund.

Result: Over $1 million raised within 24 hours, with 90% coming from transaction taxes. Even CZ himself was shocked enough to change his tune: “This completely changed my view on memes.” On that day, GIGGLE's market value soared to $50 million.

The subsequent plot twists were dramatic—on September 25, the official account was hacked, and the market value once plummeted by 60%, falling below 10 million; on October 3, it was listed on Binance Alpha; on October 9, it went live with futures contracts; after the spot launch on October 25, the coin price broke through 300 dollars, and the market value surged to 300 million dollars; by November 4, it dropped again to 50 dollars. By mid-November this year, GIGGLE rebounded from its lowest point, still maintaining a market value of several hundred million.

Dilemma: Charity has turned into a financial model

An interesting paradox has emerged here.

The surface logic is beautiful: the higher the coin price → the more active the trading → the more tax flows to the charity fund → children receive more educational resources. It seems to be a positive cycle.

But the reality is more complex: the surge in coin prices attracts speculators, not educational supporters. When Binance announced on November 4 that it would allocate 50% of the spot/contract trading fees to the Giggle Fund, and the project party would use half of that to buy back and burn coins, this story evolved from “educational charity” to “token support mechanism.”

In other words—the educational resources that children receive are essentially built on the interests of coin holders. What happens when GIGGLE price drops? The scale of the charity fund shrinks. What happens when speculators leave? The entire system may collapse.

What does this operation indicate?

1. Memes are no longer purely speculative. They are seeking “legitimacy”—gaining narrative support by binding social significance (education, charity). GIGGLE has become the sample for this experiment.

2. The role of major exchanges has changed. Binance is no longer just a trading venue; it is now actively participating in the ecological design of coins—driving price stability through fee sharing and subsequently driving charitable fundraising. This is a new type of “win-win cooperation”.

3. The risks are still huge. Any charity project that relies on coin prices is essentially betting that the coin price won't crash. Historically, most memes ultimately go to zero. When GIGGLE goes to zero, what will happen to the funds flowing into the Giggle Fund?

Final Thoughts

The story of GIGGLE is not to deny the value of charity or education, but to remind us: when good deeds are intertwined with interests, a more transparent mechanism is needed.

The questions to be asked include: How is the funding of the Giggle fund tracked? How can the actual progress of the educational projects be quantified? If the coin price remains low for a long time, how is the charity funding guaranteed? Are community coin holders investing in the future, or are they betting on a promise that will materialize?

CZ's original intention may have been good, but when memes became the main fundraising channel, the project entered a strange territory—this territory has both the brilliance of charity and the shadows of speculation.

How will projects running in this hybrid model be evaluated by history? We shall wait and see.