If the ecosystem layout of leading exchanges cannot be established, then there’s no need for the exchange itself to develop further? These strange opinions are often seen online. But have you actually asked the project teams and core members? Do they agree with this judgment?
View Original
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.
10 Likes
Reward
10
7
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
MintMaster
· 01-10 14:45
This argument is indeed absurd; are you kidding?
View OriginalReply0
MetaReckt
· 01-08 09:56
If the ecosystem can't be built, does that mean it has to die? That's nonsense.
View OriginalReply0
YieldFarmRefugee
· 01-08 08:22
If the ecosystem can't be sustained, just give up. This logic is really brilliant. Does anyone still believe this?
View OriginalReply0
TokenVelocityTrauma
· 01-07 15:56
If the ecosystem can't be built up, should we give up on the exchange itself? That logic is ridiculous. Anyway, I haven't seen a single project team agree with this statement.
View OriginalReply0
MemeEchoer
· 01-07 15:54
Honestly, this logic is really absurd. If the ecosystem can't be built up, then give up on the exchange itself? Wouldn't that be self-elimination?
View OriginalReply0
Whale_Whisperer
· 01-07 15:54
If the ecosystem can't be built up, then give up on the exchange itself? How can this logic be so surreal...
View OriginalReply0
SleepyValidator
· 01-07 15:51
If the ecosystem layout fails, do we have to give up the exchange itself? That logic is way too disconnected. Wake up, everyone.
If the ecosystem layout of leading exchanges cannot be established, then there’s no need for the exchange itself to develop further? These strange opinions are often seen online. But have you actually asked the project teams and core members? Do they agree with this judgment?