Berachain: How many times do you need to admit fault before you actually plan to change?
Since February, I’ve published four or five articles questioning Berachain. The project team hasn’t responded even once, and after repeated inquiries, they’ve learned to play dead.
What’s even more interesting is that every time someone comes out to "repent," it’s always the co-founder Smokey. Last time, during a media interview, he "regretted" selling too many tokens to VCs. This time, in the comment section, he admitted that during the genesis phase, they didn’t airdrop BERA to Boyco. Again, it’s him.
Months have passed, and Berachain keeps admitting fault but never seems to learn how to change.
This only shows that they’ve known about these issues from the very beginning. They’ve heard the community’s feedback; they’re not unaware of where the problems lie. It’s just that, from start to finish, they’ve never intended to make changes.
The community wants to know what you plan to do, but if all they get is: "We were wrong," that’s not solving the problem. It’s merely performing remorse.
Admitting fault without action is a complete betrayal of the community’s trust!
《How to Uncover Berachain's PUA-style Statements: Principles and Logic》
The community's criticism of Berachain seems to have been heard by the project team, but their response suggests otherwise.
Many project teams in the market are filled with this kind of ineffective reflection known as 'post-rationalization.' At first glance, it seems sincere, but it lacks any substantive content. If all reflections are expressed as 'if we could do it over,' then this is not reflection; it's merely a market PR move.
The reasoning is simple.
1. From the beginning, when designing tokenomics, the fairness of community distribution and VC distribution should have been considered. The current so-called reflection only shows that from the start, they fully endorsed the rationale of selling tokens to VCs, rather than focusing on long-term development.
A casual 'if we could do it over' is no different from the repentance of a scumbag or an abuser.
This contains a very clever rhetorical logic because once you believe the premise of 'if we could do it over,' his mistakes become irrelevant. In psychology, there's a term for this: counterfactual thinking (weakening responsibility) and cognitive dissonance (making mistakes seem unimportant).
All those unwilling to admit their mistakes habitually use hypothetical reflection to cover up real errors and garner sympathy. Correctly admitting mistakes should involve explaining why you acted that way at the time and directly and honestly acknowledging it was a hasty and short-sighted decision.
2. Buybacks as a compensatory measure are very unconvincing and ineffective. I ask, where does the buyback funding come from? Is your funding still from the community/users' contributions? Are you planning to issue more tokens???...... If you can't clarify this, it's nothing more than using community contributions to continue cashing out for VCs under the guise of a buyback.
In psychology, this is called: symbolic compensation. In other words: to cover up mistakes, I symbolically compensate, but this is not! truly! equivalent!
All those unwilling to correct their mistakes habitually use methods that avoid the main issue to cover up errors and attempt to muddle through. If you are truly correcting mistakes, you shouldn't say you're trying hard to buy back; instead, you should detail the specific actions taken over time to restore the community's reputation. @berachain
105
74.58K
The content on this page is provided by third parties. Unless otherwise stated, OKX is not the author of the cited article(s) and does not claim any copyright in the materials. The content is provided for informational purposes only and does not represent the views of OKX. It is not intended to be an endorsement of any kind and should not be considered investment advice or a solicitation to buy or sell digital assets. To the extent generative AI is utilized to provide summaries or other information, such AI generated content may be inaccurate or inconsistent. Please read the linked article for more details and information. OKX is not responsible for content hosted on third party sites. Digital asset holdings, including stablecoins and NFTs, involve a high degree of risk and can fluctuate greatly. You should carefully consider whether trading or holding digital assets is suitable for you in light of your financial condition.