If you paid a KOL with your own native token, then maybe what he argued "might be" true. But if you paid them in fiat, USDT, or USDC, it’s closer to them shilling someone else’s bag—not their own. The form of payment matters. So it’s not something that can be judged as right or wrong in absolute terms. This entire industry runs on incentives. Sure, the early evangelists of Bitcoin may have acted like missionaries preaching the noble ideals of the cypherpunk movement. But how many of the so-called “Bitcoin evangelists” who came after were truly promoting it out of pure ideological belief? It was the same with Ethereum, Solana, and now Sui. The pattern is always: 1. Discover a good product(and assets in case of crypto) 2. Spread awareness, 3. Benefit from that process. That’s how the crypto industry works. If someone rejects that model, they probably shouldn’t issue a token at all. If you’re afraid of people dumping your token, then maybe you shouldn’t have minted one in the first place. Tokens are created out of thin air. The moment a foundation mints tokens and sells them without creating equivalent value in return, it’s already a form of dumping. If your belief in blockchain is purely technical or ideological, the most consistent path is not to issue a token at all. Don’t create narratives, don’t embrace memecoins, reject all of it. Personally, I believe this industry is fundamentally about aligning incentives. And if you view that as inherently negative, I don’t think you’ll go very far. The reason I like Sui is because my incentives are aligned with it. And honestly, that’s not just a crypto thing—it’s the essence of capitalism and market economies. Can't understand what he is saying here.