2025-12-26 13:26:33

Everyone, update your understanding. This time it's not a delay, but a buildup. It's not postponement, but recharging. MemeMax_Fi has postponed the pre-launch event to January next year, and has also increased the reward probabilities.

Simply put, it's like this: "Give out more sugar first, and when the server opens, just start fighting."

The logic behind this approach is very clear:

• Is the user base not yet solid enough? Then keep expanding
• Does $M token not yet hold enough distribution? Then keep spreading

Instead of rushing to launch, it's better to spend time laying a solid foundation. Release incentives early to get more people involved, and accumulate enough token holders. When the official launch happens, market activity will naturally be higher. A very straightforward logic — give players enough chips, and they will follow.

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.

16 Likes

Reward
16
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

AirdropHunter9000

· 4h ago

Haha, it's the same old spiel again, I can't help but laugh. --- Instead of saying accumulating momentum, it's more like waiting for the right moment... Anyway, the tokens are already in hand. --- I've heard this logic many times before, and in the end? --- Hold on, has the reward probability been increased? Then I need to recalculate the costs. --- Sounds nice, but it's just that the liquidity isn't enough to support it. --- Giving enough chips isn't a problem; the key is whether those chips are real or just air. --- Next January, huh? Then you'll have to come up with another excuse, haha. --- No rush, no rush, just grinding away anyway. --- Hey, wait a minute, this routine looks so much like that of a certain previous project.

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-a606bf0c

· 4h ago

You know, I see through this routine; it's all about aggressive promotion early on and then unleashing the attack later. Wait, did the probability increase too? Then I better quickly grab more profits. Actually, this logic isn't a problem; it depends on whether things can really follow the plan later. Next January, let's see then if we can stir up a big movement. But to be fair, projects like this need to survive until that time. If you give enough sweet talk and bombard with incentives, you can lock people in. Let me see if any friends are also involved in this; we need to form a group.

View OriginalReply0

GasGrillMaster

· 5h ago

Alright, I understand this move. It's definitely about nurturing the user base. Compared to rushing to launch and risking failure, I still prefer this slow and steady approach. But to be fair, it depends on whether the subsequent rewards are truly delivered. Let's not fall back into the old trick of "drawing cakes to satisfy hunger." Now, it all depends on whether they can really make some progress by January next year.

View OriginalReply0

SwapWhisperer

· 5h ago

Wow, this move is really something. Only with proper groundwork in the beginning can it truly take off.

View OriginalReply0

ParanoiaKing

· 5h ago

Haha, this wave is indeed setting up the market, but to be honest, I'm still a bit confused about delaying until January. It's just for the sake of profit, so what if the probability increases? In the end, it still depends on whether it can hold after going live.

View OriginalReply0

AlphaLeaker

· 5h ago

Haha, I see what this move is about. It's about diluting the cost basis. It only started in January, so there's still more than half a year of holding to go.

View OriginalReply0

MetaverseVagrant

· 5h ago

Wow, this wave is really something. Increasing the probability and delaying again—looks like they are really willing to spend money to build momentum. All these sugar-coated tactics are just to boost the hype when the server opens; I've seen this kind of routine before. Whether they delay or not doesn't matter to me; the real issue is whether $M can hold on until the end.

View OriginalReply0