ConstitutionDAO (PEOPLE)

$people with less than 100k followers tweeting https://t.co/jPEEGiuXjy https://t.co/oTbJmf2aJa

Let's talk about the 'listing fee' again. It seems that the public opinion effect of CJ's tweet was not as righteous as he imagined, but instead attracted a lot of criticism from those with vested interests in his project, accusing him of being ignorant. The so-called 'keyboard warrior' justice essentially boils down to whether you truly 'have a cow' (i.e., have skin in the game). Whether a listing fee is reasonable or not doesn't depend on what others say, but on what they do. If you ask any project that hasn't yet listed on Binance if they would be willing to list if they only needed to provide 5% of their tokens, don't disbelieve it, all answers will immediately be: 'Where do I pay?' 🤣 Even if the project team doesn't want to pay, the community will urge them to. Who doesn't want their 'wool' (airdrops/benefits) to be listed on Binance? At least I've seen many projects that initially thought they were too good to pay this fee and rejected the offer, but are now suffering and trying to 'lick their way back in'. CJ's tweet, while seemingly an exposé, actually contains nothing hidden or illicit. The mentioned token allocation, apart from 1% for marketing, is entirely for airdrops. Whenever a project lists on Binance, the announcement clearly states the airdrop percentage, which is quite similar to what he posted. So, this is essentially not an exposé, but merely reiterating publicly available information. If these allocations were truly not made, the 'praise squad' you imagine would not appear. Instead, a new wave of people would complain, because those who 'farm Alpha' would go hungry. So, whenever you see someone acting self-righteously, first ask them, 'Do you have a cow?'

One thing that really hit me back in the day is when the Constitution DAO got to the end of bidding and wasn't able to secure the Constitution. We had to buy the hat to change the trajectory of our industry.