It's wild watching people contort themselves defending the "Abundance" framing. Here's the thing though—strip away the positioning and you realize there's no real affordability story without it. Mamdani's word choice wasn't random; it's central to what they're actually pitching. Yet everyone's scrambling to rationalize why the branding even matters. The gap between what's being sold and what people are willing to admit about it? That's where things get interesting.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
5 Likes
Reward
5
4
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
All-InQueen
· 13h ago
Really, this "rich" packaging is just ridiculous; upon closer inspection, it's just a numbers game.
View OriginalReply0
SpeakWithHatOn
· 13h ago
Basically, it's a matter of rhetoric. Once you peel off the "richness" layer, there's nothing left to sell. Mamdani's word choice is definitely not random. Interestingly, everyone is fooling themselves into rationalizing this logic.
View OriginalReply0
DAOdreamer
· 13h ago
ngl, this is the common problem in Web3 marketing. Just changing a word and trying to deceive people.
View OriginalReply0
DegenWhisperer
· 13h ago
Basically, it's a self-deceptive game that must be wrapped in a "rich" coating of sugar to cover up the mess.
It's wild watching people contort themselves defending the "Abundance" framing. Here's the thing though—strip away the positioning and you realize there's no real affordability story without it. Mamdani's word choice wasn't random; it's central to what they're actually pitching. Yet everyone's scrambling to rationalize why the branding even matters. The gap between what's being sold and what people are willing to admit about it? That's where things get interesting.