Rain说：诉说 Broccoli 合并这一举措的真心话币圈大咖说 — 币圈之家，币圈人分享经验，抱团赚钱，吃瓜吐槽的交流平台

当我写下这一篇文章的时候，我不是站在🥦714 社区的角度去思考问题，而是站在 Broccoli 这个 IP 的角度。

也许我不应该发表这些观点，因为只要有态度，就会有角度，就会有接踵而至的攻击与谩骂。

也有人劝我不要再给“友商”流量和话题了，但我还是想做自己吧。

When I wrote this article, I wasn’t considering issues from the perspective of the 🥦714 community but rather from the standpoint of the Broccoli IP.

Perhaps I shouldn’t have expressed these opinions, because as long as you take a stance, you also adopt a perspective—and that inevitably attracts a barrage of attacks and insults.

Some have even advised me not to give “friendly competitors” any more attention or topics, but I still want to be true to myself.

其实早在 CZ 公开提起“merge 提案”之前，我就与 BNBChain 的工作人员在探讨 merge 的可行性。

那为什么当我看到 CZ 发表“merge 提案”时我会有点“崩溃”呢？因为将多个 token 合并到一个新的 token，这件事是不可行的。正因为已经思考了好几天各种可能的 merge 方案，所以才会在看到 CZ 的提案后感觉无力。现在想想，其实无论是我还是 BNBChain 的工作人员可能对 CZ 的内容过度解读了。

可以从 CZ 近些时间的发言看出，他是一个 idea 非常多的人，我们都知道在“脑暴”阶段不应该去否定任何一个“提案”，否定只会导致创新的缺失。当 CZ 是一个“程序员”的身份时，自己的脑暴会由自己去执行，搭配自身极强的执行力，那么就代表着企业可以快速的“进化”；但当 CZ 是一个“产品经理”的身份时，虽然也会提出很多新的想法，但由于执行者并不是自己，最终就会导致“揣摩圣意”的情况发生，并且基本上会执行错误。—— 因为执行者被对 CZ 的“尊敬、敬畏、畏惧”剥夺了主观能动性。

我曾经经历过我所论述的企业组织架构，所以大胆的“揣测”了一下。因此我觉得 CZ 的「初心」 ——“merge” 是好的，但是在执行过程中的执行者被限定在了一个 CZ 举例的创新性方案中。

In fact, even before CZ publicly mentioned the “merge proposal,” I had been discussing the feasibility of a merge with staff at BNBChain.

So why was I a bit overwhelmed when I saw CZ publish his “merge proposal”? It’s because merging multiple tokens into a new token is simply not feasible. Having spent several days contemplating various possible merge schemes, I felt powerless upon reading CZ’s proposal. In hindsight, perhaps both I and the BNBChain team may have overinterpreted what CZ meant.

From CZ’s recent remarks, it’s clear he is brimming with ideas. We all know that during the brainstorming phase no proposal should be dismissed—negation only stifles innovation. When CZ operates as a “programmer,” he can implement his ideas himself with his strong execution skills, enabling rapid evolution within the company; however, when he acts as a “product manager,” even though he also puts forth many new ideas, the fact that he isn’t the one executing them leads to a situation of “deciphering divine will,” and the execution generally goes awry. This happens because the executors are deprived of initiative by their respect, awe, and even fear of CZ.

Having experienced the kind of corporate structure I just described, I boldly speculated. Thus, I believe that while CZ’s original intention—the idea of “merge”—was sound, the execution was constrained by confining the implementers to one of the innovative schemes that CZ exemplified.

我讲一下为什么 merge 到新 token 是不可行的（我只能采用比喻的方式来表达它）：

不同的西蓝花社区之间竞争，最终只会有一个活下来，其它的都会归零。这就像“九狗夺嫡”，最终只有一个能够“登基”（上线币安现货交易）。
将多个社区通过按照不同的汇率合并到新的 token 就像是：皇子们不用争天下了，直接瓜分天下。那么瓜分天下的下场是什么呢？请看 Grok 的答案：https://x.com/i/grok/share/vZae4PujfdIuZngoWqHLNxryO
虽然新的 token 能够让价格合并成唯一的 token（同一个国旗）但是社区阵营、社区文化、愿景，这些是无法合并的。当必须要合并成一个新 token 时，就必须要由一个强有力的价值观去主导它后续的发展，不然只会陷入新的喋喋不休的争权夺利（如果对方是真的想发展这个 IP 就会去夺取话语权）。

我不打算花太多篇幅去证明 merge 不可行，也不打算用 Web3 源语去证明它，我相信参与到这一创新设想推进的人们能够更加“拎得清”。

Now, let me explain why merging into a new token is not feasible (I can only express this through analogy):

When different Broccoli communities compete, in the end only one will survive while all others will be reduced to zero. It’s akin to the “Nine Dogs Contend for the Throne” scenario, where ultimately only one can ascend (i.e., be listed on Binance Spot Trading).
Merging multiple communities into a new token based on different exchange rates is like saying that the princes no longer need to fight for the realm but can simply divide it among themselves. And what is the outcome of dividing the realm? Please refer to Grok’s answer: https://x.com/i/grok/share/vZae4PujfdIuZngoWqHLNxryO
Although a new token might consolidate the price into a single value (a unified flag), the community factions, culture, and vision cannot be merged. When forced to merge into a new token, its subsequent development must be guided by a strong set of values; otherwise, it will only spiral into yet another round of endless power struggles (if the opposing side truly intends to develop this IP, they will seize the narrative).

I don’t intend to spend too much time proving that merging is unfeasible, nor will I rely on Web3 jargon to do so—I trust that those participating in advancing this innovative idea can see through it clearly.

那么我认为的 merge 应该是怎样的呢？我在上个篇幅借助“九狗夺嫡”来比喻，就是想直白的说明 —— merge 只能通过吞并（absorb）的方法。

当我们谈及 merge 的时候，其实深层次的是要 merge “共识”。当共识很浅显（偏向于宏观基本面）的时候，共识就是三个合约合并，当“共识”出现文化/愿景的时候（偏向于垂直子领域），共识就是三个“文化/愿景”的合并。

文化/愿景肯定是有一个“种子”，直白的说，最初你在多个西蓝花之间进行选择的时候，你为什么选择了你持有的那一个？

你为什么选择买入🥦714？
你为什么选择买入🥦f2b？
你为什么选择买入🥦f3b？

我们为什么不能诚实一点呢？在我参与到🥦之争之前，我有写过一篇推文：

那时候我是中立的，我认为：

🥦714 有最好的链上数据和持仓分布
🥦f2b 有一个车头，人脉能够直达 CZ
🥦f3b 有几个海外“KOL”在共同宣传

为什么我最终选择了🥦714，因为：我相信这些链上数据能够保障我不会被“掏池子”；我相信币安不会再喜欢“关系户币”的舆论出现；我有过给“KOL抬轿子”被收割亏损过多次的经历。

我相信，每个人在当初下注的时候都有自己的选择，不同的选择就代表了不同的“价值观”。而这三种价值观的人进入了不同社区，在 IP 的共识难以“确定性”导致总市值不断下跌的阴霾中产生了更加不可调和的矛盾。

因此我说：唯一 merge 的方法就是吞并（absorb），不是吞并代币分配比例，而是吞并“共识”，吞并「价值观」。

能让价值观被吞并的方法只有两种：

经过 CZ 的选择，直接选出最符 IP 未来发展的一个社区
经过漫长的时间沉淀，最终让时间变成价值观的鉴定器

关于第一种方法，CZ 曾经选中过🥦714 社区，然后删除了帖子。我当时没有注意到为什么 CZ 会删帖，我虽然认为后来的一切纷争都是诱导 CZ 删帖的那些人导致的，但时间不会倒流，只能往前走。

关于第二种方法，如果是在 web2 世界，那就简单的多。因为在 web2 世界社区的参与者基本是围绕着兴趣和爱好在参与 Build，虽然也会有人来人往，但都是相对和谐的。反观在 web3 世界社区的参与者基本都有“仓位”，若一个社区在建设价值观，一个社区在控筹做拉盘，那么在这个过程中对参与 Build 人将会是一种折磨。

现在的西蓝花之争就处在第二种方法下，虽然从“建设者”的角度来说是正确的选择，但是从投资者的视角来看，这种场面就非常的“左侧”。

因为 BNBChain 需要长期建设者，而建设者需要物质回报的正反馈。哪一条链没有 builder 呢？又有几条链有造富效应呢？

So, what kind of merge do I envision? In the previous section, I used the “Nine Dogs Contend for the Throne” analogy to clearly state that merging can only be achieved through absorption.

When we talk about merging, at its core it’s about merging “consensus.” When the consensus is shallow (focused on macro fundamentals), it amounts to merging three contracts; when the consensus involves culture or vision (focused on niche areas), it is the merger of three different cultures or visions.

Culture and vision always have a “seed.” Simply put, when you initially choose among multiple Broccoli options, ask yourself: why did you choose the one you hold?

Why did you choose to buy 🥦714?
Why did you choose to buy 🥦f2b?
Why did you choose to buy 🥦f3b?

Why can’t we be a bit more honest about it? Before I got involved in the 🥦 dispute, I had written a tweet (

) where, in a neutral stance, I expressed that:

🥦714 had the best on-chain data and distribution of holdings.
🥦f2b had a leading figure whose connections could directly reach CZ.
🥦f3b had several overseas “KOLs” jointly promoting it.

I ultimately chose 🥦714 because I believed its on-chain data would ensure I wouldn’t be “drained” (i.e., exploited), I trusted that Binance would no longer favor “insider coins,” and I had suffered losses too many times from being used as a pawn by “KOLs.”

I believe that when each person placed their bet, they made their own choice—and different choices represent different “values.” These varying values have led people into different communities, creating irreconcilable conflicts amid the gloomy uncertainty over the IP consensus and the continuous decline in overall market cap.

Thus, I say: the only way to merge is through absorption—not by absorbing token allocation ratios, but by absorbing “consensus” and, ultimately, “values.”

There are only two ways for values to be absorbed:

Through CZ’s selection—directly choosing the community that best fits the future development of the IP.
Through the passage of time—allowing time itself to serve as the tester of values.

Regarding the first method, CZ once selected the 🥦714 community and then deleted his post. I didn’t notice at the time why he did so; although I believe that all the subsequent disputes were triggered by those who induced him to delete the post, time cannot be reversed—we can only move forward.

As for the second method, if we were in the Web2 world, it would be much simpler. In Web2, community participants generally gather around shared interests and hobbies, and while people may come and go, the atmosphere is relatively harmonious. In contrast, in the Web3 world, community members typically hold positions, and if one community is building values while another is controlling funds to pump prices, the process becomes a torment for those involved in building.

The current Broccoli dispute falls under the second method. Although from a “builder’s” perspective it might be the right choice, from an investor’s standpoint this situation is very “left-leaning.”

After all, BNBChain needs long-term builders, and builders require positive material rewards. Which blockchain doesn’t need builders? And how many blockchains actually create wealth?

从个人利益角度上来讲，我当然希望 CZ 再次选择🥦714，让”Let the best in the community win.”圆满。但是我从客观角度来讲我看到了很多不足。

🥦714 在昨天被举报导致官推封禁，这是社区之间恶意斗争的一个证明。对于一个 CTO 社区来讲，你可以做到统一大家的思想，但你无法统一大家的行为。同样的目标会在不同人手上有不同的手段，而过于干预社区成员的手段并不是明智之举。

我只能说出我不赞同的一些行为，希望🥦714社区成员能够倾听：

不要因为 CZ 与 f2b、f3b 的 core member 进行互动而发表愤慨的言论，CZ 早就说过了他无法对每一个人和每一条信息进行“尽职调查”，所以我希望社区成员要保持平常心。
不要因为一些 BNBChain 上的一些官方账号“拉偏架”而发表愤慨的言论，更多的圈内人对不同西蓝花社区的看法是一视同仁的，我们不应该去强迫别人去深入研究。
分清 BNBChain（BSC）与币安（BNB）的区别，有时候一些问题表达方式错了，有时候一些问题的沟通对象错了。

而对于其它同 IP 社区，我不想多说什么，有社区做出了很不明智的行为，违反了最基本的商业道德，甚至一些推文（发表于3月7日）疑似违反 Binance 保密协议。我不知道当合并到新 token 变成“不可能”之后，我还能为该社区的真实散户做什么样提醒。也许他们仍然认为我是在恶意攻击他们。

更多的就不说了。

From a personal interest perspective, of course I hope that CZ will once again choose 🥦714 to fulfill the ideal of “Let the best in the community win.” However, from an objective standpoint, I see many shortcomings.

Yesterday, 🥦714 was reported and its official Twitter account was banned—a clear sign of malicious infighting within the community. In a CTO community, you can unify everyone’s mindset, but you can’t unify everyone’s actions. The same goal can be pursued by different people in different ways, and overly intervening in community members’ actions is unwise.

I can only express my disapproval of certain behaviors, and I hope the members of the 🥦714 community will listen:

Do not express outrage simply because CZ interacts with core members of f2b and f3b; CZ has long stated that he cannot perform due diligence on every person and every piece of information, so I hope community members remain calm.
Do not get incensed because some official accounts on BNBChain appear to take sides; most insiders regard the various Broccoli communities impartially, and we shouldn’t force others to dive deep into these issues.
Distinguish between BNBChain (BSC) and Binance (BNB); sometimes the way issues are expressed is off, and sometimes the intended audience is wrong.

As for the other communities under the same IP, I won’t say much more. Some have acted very unwisely, violating basic business ethics—even some tweets (posted on March 7) appear to have potentially breached Binance’s confidentiality agreement. I don’t know what further advice I can offer the genuine retail investors in those communities once merging into a new token becomes “impossible.” Perhaps they will still think I am maliciously attacking them.

I won’t say any more.

这也应该是我最后一次发文谈论“merge”，我希望 Broccoli 这个天王级 IP 能好，所以提出一些我认为涉及本质的建议 —— 不要去合并 token（创建新 token），而是去合并价值观。

而这个价值观的合并，其实只需要 CZ 一篇推文就能完成。甚至对于补偿方案也其实是显而易见的，这里不再表达，以免显得这篇文章非常“功利”。

这篇文章写于：

一些 Broccoli IP 的理性投资者在看到 mubarak 后对这个 IP 系统性风险担忧之后
一些看到 CZ 一个接着一个 meme “喊单”对此表达不是明智之举提醒的内容出现后
一些 BSC memecoin 只能由 CZ 去“喊单”但是却缺乏龙头 meme 去打开市值天花板之后
一些有实力的人开始观望 BSC 造福效应，并打算尝试之后
一些圈内人对西蓝花 IP 的共识停留在宏观层面（判定左侧）之后

This should also be my final post on the subject of “merge.” I hope that the titan-level IP, Broccoli, will thrive, so I offer what I believe is fundamental advice: do not merge tokens (i.e., create a new token); instead, merge values.

The merging of values can actually be achieved with just one tweet from CZ. Even the compensation scheme is self-evident, so I won’t elaborate further to avoid making this article seem overly “calculative.”

This article was written at a time when:

Some rational investors in the Broccoli IP, after witnessing events like Mubarak, became concerned about the systemic risks of this IP.
Some people, after seeing one meme “signal” after another from CZ, pointed out that such behavior wasn’t wise.
Some BSC memecoins can only be “called” by CZ, yet they lack a leading meme to break through the market cap ceiling.
Some influential figures began to observe the wealth-creation effect of BSC and planned to try it out.
Some insiders’ consensus on the Broccoli IP remained at a macro level (judged as left-leaning).

好了，最强社区不止应该在链上有最耀眼的数据（

https://dune.com/2048eth/data-of-broccoli）

，还应该有让圈内人对该 IP 的感官进行提升的责任在。

🥦714 社区的成员，我们每个人都有必要、有责任这么做。

Alright, the strongest community should not only boast the most dazzling on-chain data (

https://dune.com/2048eth/data-of-broccoli

) but also bear the responsibility of enhancing how insiders perceive this IP.

Members of the 🥦714 community, each of us has both the necessity and the responsibility to do so.

Keep building.

——————————————

旧金山不是巴黎说：

说实话
我佩服Rain
永远是那么冷静
我就不行
我容易被激怒
我看过对面给我的评价
说我是啥来
我想想啊
对对
想起来了
说我是低智莽夫（几把毛的，都莽夫了，还非加个低智，请问有高智莽夫么？）

从最开始我就不赞成合并
这个观点我公开也好
私信也好
像BSC链反馈了很多次了

首先合并的本身就不符合区块链的去中心精神
Meme的最大特点就是无主货币
再加上现在包括以后同名代币的现象每时每刻都在发生
已经是一个不可能规避的问题

比方这几天的白布
那又出来一大堆同名的
我是不是也发一个销毁80%然后去跟市值第一的合并？
他尼玛要是不跟我合并
我就说他没有大局观？
说他自私？
这不是纯粹胡扯的东西么？

这个先河如果开了
以后BSC链还如何发展？
以后任何一个代币跑出来了
大家就发个同名的去要求合并就完事儿了
也别社区建设了
因为不建设社区的可以跟建设的去合并
那还建设啥？

也不用要啥交易量市值这些了
反正低交易量的可以跟高交易量的合并
反正低市值的可以跟高市值的合并
PVP谁都不愿意看到
但是市场就是残酷的
人生也是如此
优胜劣汰
适者生存
成王败寇
每一个人都要为了自己的选择买单

尤其西兰花这个币
如果你到现在还仍然要选错
那真的怪不得别人
因为但凡一个明白人
一个正常人
都能看出来应该选哪个
你就不选
就要助纣为虐
那如果你失败了归0了
那真的无话可说
尤其我再说句掏心窝子的话
你现在换仓714晚么？
714现在3000万市值高么？
你换仓714后你会赚不到钱么？
给了你这么长这么长的时间窗口
包括现在也是最佳的时间窗口
那你就是不换
那你以后除了自己
真的谁都不能怪