Looking back, I have witnessed the rise and fall of numerous projects. This time, Monad's experience inevitably reminds me of those young and ambitious "Ethereum killers." Arthur Hayes's sharp words point out that the high FDV and low circulating supply tokenomics of Monad may lead to a 99% crash. Such situations are indeed common in the past.

From Terra to Berachain, and now to Monad, it seems each cycle has several high-profile projects that are destined for misfortune. Token distribution and fundraising mechanisms are always a double-edged sword. Overly centralized token allocations often hide risks, while overly aggressive unlocking schedules can trigger sell-offs.

The Monad team emphasizes technological innovation, but Hayes sharply notes that what truly tests a project's vitality is its ability to absorb large token supplies. This brings to mind the bleak outcomes after the 2017 ICO frenzy. While technology is important, a token economy model without real application and demand ultimately cannot survive.

History is surprisingly repetitive. In every bull market, we see a wave of self-proclaimed disruptive new blockchains emerge, only to vanish during bear markets. The projects that truly survive are usually those that have withstood market tests and possess real use cases.

This scene once again reminds us how important it is to stay rational amid fervor. No matter how projects promote themselves, investors should carefully evaluate the tokenomics and focus on genuine demand. After all, the market will ultimately deliver the fairest judgment.