SongShu, a former Swarms Foundation member and founder of NexGen Venture, said he has sold Long platform’s $AI and BSC-based $bStocks and moved both capital and attention into $BLINK. He disclosed that he currently holds more than 2% of BLINK and described the write-up as a public thesis from a heavily exposed holder, not a return promise.
He said the trade is not built on a belief in a fairer world. His argument is that human behavior in crypto does not change: people follow winners, compete for early opportunities, display positions, and use profit and loss to prove conviction. In his view, Blink is worth studying not because it calls itself “fair,” but because it may compress those already-existing behaviors into a product chain that can be verified, distributed, monetized, and repeated.
From Swarms to BLINK: sector conviction did not translate into token success
SongShu said his earlier Swarms position came from a belief that AI agents would reach industrial-scale adoption. Looking back, he said he may have been right on the broad sector direction but wrong in assuming a long value chain would play out on schedule: technology advances, product matures, users adopt, revenue forms, and the token captures value.
His point was that if any one link in that chain fails to arrive on the same timeline, the token can be rejected by the market before the product fulfills the original promise. That trade, he wrote, depended on a series of “ifs.”
His BLINK work starts from a different place. Rather than betting on a distant technical future, he said Blink is trying to organize behavior that already exists today: projects launch, users compete for early access, FOMO drives participation, positions and theses go public, social distribution follows, and that process can feed more users, more trading, fees, and the next launch. Because that loop already exists, he argued, it can be observed now and falsified with data now.
He sees the current memecoin launch pattern as the problem Blink needs to solve
SongShu described “market open + market-making capital + KOL/FNF small groups” as a real operating pattern across many memecoin launches. In that structure, some parties supply capital, some bring attention, some coordinate reach, and later entrants end up serving as exit liquidity.
He said that is not the script he wants Blink to copy. It is the reason he thinks the market needs another issuance mechanism. If Blink merely replaces bundlers with KOL whitelists, or swaps bot advantage for social advantage, then it has failed.
For him, a meaningful fair launch does not guarantee profits for everyone. It means clearer rules, early supply that is harder for a single group to dominate, and a better chance for real users rather than hidden wallet clusters to get access.
Fomo, in his framing, is trying to build a speculation graph
SongShu compared three distribution models. Facebook turned relationships into distribution. TikTok turned interest into distribution. Fomo, he wrote, is trying to turn verifiable judgment into distribution.
His reasoning is that traditional social media allows content to be deleted, losses to be hidden, and influencers to show only the winners. Once positions, trades, theses, and PnL sit in the same account, “what I believe” becomes linked to “what results I accepted for that belief.”
He summarized that shift with three lines: Portfolio becomes profile. Trades become posts. PnL becomes reputation.
He also cautioned against overreading the idea. A single leveraged win is not the same as reputation, and multiple wallets do not disappear just because data is on-chain. A useful speculation graph, he argued, would need long-term records, risk-adjusted performance, and identities that cannot be reset casually.
He cited figures disclosed by Fomo, saying the platform has 625,000 users, more than $4B in trading volume, and 110M social interactions. Profile, Thesis, leaderboards, follows, and trading, he added, are already part of one product system.
BLINK should be an issuance and acquisition layer, not a replacement for Fomo
SongShu drew a clear line between the two platforms. In his view, Fomo controls identity, funding entry, trade execution, public performance, theses, feeds, leaderboards, and retention. Blink should not try to become another Fomo. It should fill the upstream issuance layer that Fomo does not have.
The loop he wants to see is this: outside creators and communities launch on Blink; new users register and fund Fomo to access the participation window; users get relatively fair early access through Fomo; positions and theses flow back into public Fomo accounts; feeds, leaderboards, and follow relationships continue distribution; that process drives more content, users, and trading; and then the cycle attracts the next group of creators.
If that logic holds, he said, Blink would function as the issuance layer of Fomo’s speculation graph, while Fomo remains the main network for identity, trading, reputation, and distribution.
He also made two limitations explicit. He said he cannot invest in Fomo equity, so he is looking for adjacent infrastructure exposure that may benefit if the Fomo network grows. But buying BLINK is not the same as owning Fomo, and Blink is not described as a Fomo-endorsed project.
“Fairness” matters only if it creates growth incentives
SongShu argued that fairness on its own is still idealism. What could make Blink work, in his view, is that relative fairness can produce concrete economic outcomes.
- Users want to reduce the odds of being exploited by bundlers, sniping bots, and hidden related wallets.
- Creators need stronger issuance, distribution, and recurring income.
- Fomo needs new outside users, fresh deposits, more content, and more trading activity.
- Blink needs project supply, volume, and fees.
Under that framework, no participant needs to become altruistic. Fairness is not the moral endpoint. It is a product constraint that can reduce adverse selection, widen real participation, lower acquisition costs, and improve retention.
He added that Blink could later make use of signals already present on Fomo, including verified accounts, public theses, historical participation records, and anti-Sybil proof, to turn verifiable judgment into early participation rights. He explicitly said this is a product suggestion and expectation, not a live feature.
Code is not the moat, he said; distribution, trust, data, and loops are
SongShu wrote that implementing a basic bonding curve, token deployment, and DEX migration is not the hardest or most expensive part today. The expensive work sits elsewhere: production-grade security and audits, data indexing, wallet and terminal integration, anti-bot systems, liquidity, creator supply, user trust, and long-term distribution.
So his conclusion is not that a launchpad must succeed because the base product is cheap to build. His point is that the base layer can be iterated quickly, but the winner will be the one that builds a distribution and value loop that competitors cannot copy easily.
He pointed to Flap on BSC as a case worth watching. Four.meme still leads on cumulative scale, he said, and it already has an official distribution entry through Binance Wallet. That, however, does not mean no room remains for others.
Citing same-chain, same-methodology data from DeFiLlama as of Aug. 13, 2026, he said Flap posted about $872.15M in BSC curve trading volume over the past 30 days, versus about $200.33M for Four.meme, or roughly 4.35 times as much. Protocol revenue over the same period was about $5.02M for Flap against $856K for Four.meme, around 5.86 times as high.
He said those numbers do not prove Flap has won permanently, especially since Four.meme still leads in cumulative scale. They do, in his reading, show that an official entry point matters a great deal but does not decide the ending. He added that Flap found its own demand through tax/non-tax tokens, creator revenue, and programmable Vaults.
That is also how he is looking at Blink. The project, he argued, cannot stop at replicating a token launch page. It has to combine Fomo’s identity layer, theses, real-user distribution, and trade retention into a system that is harder for rivals to reproduce directly.
What would invalidate the thesis
SongShu said low market cap, controversy, or token burns do not prove value on their own. A low market cap expands upside and zero risk at the same time. Burns represent value capture after demand appears, not demand itself.
The metrics he said he will watch are more direct:
- How many net new funded users Blink can bring to Fomo.
- How many participants are real independent accounts rather than multi-wallet disguises.
- Whether users remain on Fomo after their first launch.
- Whether creators are willing to issue repeatedly.
- Whether projects still have liquidity, trading, and community after 7 days and 30 days.
- Whether the conversion rate from thesis to follows, deposits, and trades improves.
- Whether fee generation and token value capture are transparent, sustained, and verifiable.
He said his thesis would be wrong if bots and multi-wallet users can bypass the rules easily, if projects die once they leave the Blink window, or if Blink fails to bring user growth and retention back to Fomo.
Disclosure and limits
SongShu closed by saying he previously sold $bStocks too early and had also taken large losses after believing in a broad technological direction. This time, he wrote, he does not want to persuade himself with the idea that “the future will definitely happen.”
He said he likes Blink not because he expects the market to become kinder, but because he expects human behavior to stay the same: people will continue to compete for early opportunities, follow verifiable winners, and commit capital, attention, and identity to judgments they actually believe in.
In his framing, Fomo is turning trading into content and performance into reputation. Blink’s opening, then, is to turn that reputation and distribution into issuance access while bringing outside users back into Fomo.
He also said this is not a finished product and not a risk-free investment. It still needs to prove anti-bot performance, real allocation, creator repeat usage, user retention, and value capture.
In the disclosure, he said he holds more than 2% of BLINK and has a clear conflict of interest. He described the article as a personal thesis rather than investment advice. He also stated that Fomo and Blink are independent platforms, and that some of the deeper product logic discussed in the piece reflects his own suggestions rather than live features or official partnership commitments.