On April 24, an exciting debate unfolded on social media platform X involving several leading figures in the cryptocurrency investment community. The discussion, initiated by Michael Dempsey of Compound, centered on the problematic nature of memecoins within the cryptocurrency sector.

Michael Dempsey expressed concerns that memecoins were causing more harm than the recent bear market by driving away serious cryptocurrency developers. He questioned the alignment of venture capitalists who support memecoins while claiming to care about the fulfillment of crypto’s long-term promises.

Eddy Lazzarin, CTO at venture firm a16z, responded by highlighting the trivial nature of memecoins from a technological perspective and their detrimental effect on the industry’s long-term vision. According to Lazzarin, memecoins fail to attract builders due to their lack of technical depth and undermine the foundational goals that keep many dedicated to the crypto space.

Contrasting these views, Mike Dudas, Founder and Managing Partner at 6MV, argued that memecoins were captivating to users, as shown by their widespread adoption across various blockchain platforms like Base, Blast, and Solana. He emphasized that engagement with memecoins does not prevent users from participating in other blockchain applications such as decentralized finance, gaming, and social networks.

In a retort, Lazzarin questioned the type of audience memecoins attract, describing them as catering to a niche, casino-like user base which might be perceived negatively on a broader scale. He stressed his commitment to developing new networks that could empower a more robust internet, highlighting a divergence in vision from the memecoin phenomenon.

Dudas defended the role of memecoins by stating that they represent just one of many activities available on blockchain networks, and they engage a significant portion of the current users in the blockchain space. He advocated for supporting diverse blockchain uses, including memecoins.

Lazzarin further criticized memecoins for distorting public and regulatory perception of the cryptocurrency industry, likening them to a “risky casino” or “false promises.” He lamented the negative impact this has on the adoption, regulation, and behavior of builders in the crypto space.

Adding another layer to the discussion, Jesse Walden of Variant Fund challenged Lazzarin’s viewpoint by contrasting memecoins with projects that falsely claim to offer groundbreaking technology merely to facilitate token liquidity schemes. He argued that unlike these deceptive projects, memecoins are straightforward about offering volatility and entertainment, making them more defensible.

Lazzarin countered by pointing out the lack of serious defenses for projects that disguise token liquidity schemes as innovative technology, whereas memecoins continue to be advocated for despite the broader struggles within the industry.

Walden concluded by suggesting that the industry should concentrate more on addressing deceptive practices in tech-centric crypto projects rather than focusing solely on the drawbacks of memecoins.

Featured Image via Unsplash