The post ‘Memecoins are toxic’: Vitalik Buterin urges crypto to shun the $50B hype appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Key Takeaways Why is Buterin backing prediction markets over memecoins?  He argued that most memecoins are risky with little real-world utility, unlike structured prediction markets. Will memecoin traders shift to prediction markets?  That remains to be seen, but there were still considerable losses in both segments.  Ethereum [ETH] Co-Founder, Vitalik Buterin, has heightened criticism against memecoin gambling.  In an X (formerly Twitter) post, Buterin decried that they are short-term “risky weird things” that do not make financial sense and should be shunned.  “Memes glorifying being ‘all in’ in a financial sense on things you did not even know about 5 years ago are toxic and should be pushed back against.” Source: X He was reacting to another user who claimed that “gambling” is bad and shouldn’t be promoted to the mainstream. But prediction markets were better and should be allowed to operate freely.  Subtly, Buterin’s reaction equated gambling to trading memecoins while viewing prediction markets as a better option.  Unsurprisingly, he has always embraced prediction markets like Polymarket as the “source of truth.”  In contrast, memecoins are detrimental to the industry, according to him. However, he only supports those that focus on charity or community empowerment.    Memecoins vs prediction markets The memecoins narrative became overheated in 2023-2024 as the segment printed returns of up to +1000%. The catalyst? A rebellious crypto trend that boycotted “VC-tokens” being dumped on retail found solace in memecoins.  New shiny memecoins like dogewifhat [WIF] and others popped up and saw massive upside before the steam ran out.   In 2025, the DEX perps, prediction markets, privacy coins, and stablecoins become top narratives. With insufficient attention to the memecoins, the segment has underperformed in the past few months.  From peak hype to decline The total memecoin market cap has dropped nearly 3x from $130 billion+ to $50… The post ‘Memecoins are toxic’: Vitalik Buterin urges crypto to shun the $50B hype appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Key Takeaways Why is Buterin backing prediction markets over memecoins?  He argued that most memecoins are risky with little real-world utility, unlike structured prediction markets. Will memecoin traders shift to prediction markets?  That remains to be seen, but there were still considerable losses in both segments.  Ethereum [ETH] Co-Founder, Vitalik Buterin, has heightened criticism against memecoin gambling.  In an X (formerly Twitter) post, Buterin decried that they are short-term “risky weird things” that do not make financial sense and should be shunned.  “Memes glorifying being ‘all in’ in a financial sense on things you did not even know about 5 years ago are toxic and should be pushed back against.” Source: X He was reacting to another user who claimed that “gambling” is bad and shouldn’t be promoted to the mainstream. But prediction markets were better and should be allowed to operate freely.  Subtly, Buterin’s reaction equated gambling to trading memecoins while viewing prediction markets as a better option.  Unsurprisingly, he has always embraced prediction markets like Polymarket as the “source of truth.”  In contrast, memecoins are detrimental to the industry, according to him. However, he only supports those that focus on charity or community empowerment.    Memecoins vs prediction markets The memecoins narrative became overheated in 2023-2024 as the segment printed returns of up to +1000%. The catalyst? A rebellious crypto trend that boycotted “VC-tokens” being dumped on retail found solace in memecoins.  New shiny memecoins like dogewifhat [WIF] and others popped up and saw massive upside before the steam ran out.   In 2025, the DEX perps, prediction markets, privacy coins, and stablecoins become top narratives. With insufficient attention to the memecoins, the segment has underperformed in the past few months.  From peak hype to decline The total memecoin market cap has dropped nearly 3x from $130 billion+ to $50…

‘Memecoins are toxic’: Vitalik Buterin urges crypto to shun the $50B hype

2025/11/03 19:14

Key Takeaways

Why is Buterin backing prediction markets over memecoins? 

He argued that most memecoins are risky with little real-world utility, unlike structured prediction markets.

Will memecoin traders shift to prediction markets? 

That remains to be seen, but there were still considerable losses in both segments. 


Ethereum [ETH] Co-Founder, Vitalik Buterin, has heightened criticism against memecoin gambling. 

In an X (formerly Twitter) post, Buterin decried that they are short-term “risky weird things” that do not make financial sense and should be shunned. 

Source: X

He was reacting to another user who claimed that “gambling” is bad and shouldn’t be promoted to the mainstream. But prediction markets were better and should be allowed to operate freely. 

Subtly, Buterin’s reaction equated gambling to trading memecoins while viewing prediction markets as a better option. 

Unsurprisingly, he has always embraced prediction markets like Polymarket as the “source of truth.” 

In contrast, memecoins are detrimental to the industry, according to him. However, he only supports those that focus on charity or community empowerment.   

Memecoins vs prediction markets

The memecoins narrative became overheated in 2023-2024 as the segment printed returns of up to +1000%. The catalyst? A rebellious crypto trend that boycotted “VC-tokens” being dumped on retail found solace in memecoins. 

New shiny memecoins like dogewifhat [WIF] and others popped up and saw massive upside before the steam ran out.  

In 2025, the DEX perps, prediction markets, privacy coins, and stablecoins become top narratives. With insufficient attention to the memecoins, the segment has underperformed in the past few months. 

From peak hype to decline

The total memecoin market cap has dropped nearly 3x from $130 billion+ to $50 billion on a year-on-year basis. 

Source: CoinMarketCap

Although prediction markets have become crucial data tools for risk management, the traders involved also have their fair share of struggles. 

According to Dune, over 85% of open positions were in the red, with only 15% showing profit. Similarly, like memecoin trading, a significant portion of retail investors appeared to be underwater in the prediction markets. 

The primary difference is that memecoin is often associated with rug pulls, whereas prediction markets allow you to express an opinion on an event. 

Next: Here’s why Ethereum could rally despite partial profit-taking

Source: https://ambcrypto.com/memecoins-are-toxic-vitalik-buterin-urges-crypto-to-shun-the-50b-hype/

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.
Share Insights

You May Also Like

Preliminary analysis of the Balancer V2 attack, which resulted in a loss of $120 million.

Preliminary analysis of the Balancer V2 attack, which resulted in a loss of $120 million.

On November 3, the Balancer V2 protocol and its fork projects were attacked on multiple chains, resulting in a serious loss of more than $120 million. BlockSec issued an early warning at the first opportunity [1] and gave a preliminary analysis conclusion [2]. This was a highly complex attack. Our preliminary analysis showed that the root cause was that the attacker manipulated the invariant, thereby distorting the calculation of the price of BPT (Balancer Pool Token) -- that is, the LP token of Balancer Pool -- so that it could profit in a stable pool through a batchSwap operation. Background Information 1. Scaling and Rounding To standardize the decimal places of different tokens, the Balancer contract will: upscale: Upscales the balance and amount to a uniform internal precision before performing the calculation; downscale: Reduces the result to its original precision and performs directional rounding (e.g., inputs are usually rounded up to ensure the pool is not under-filled; output paths are often truncated downwards). Conclusion: Within the same transaction, the asymmetrical rounding direction used in different stages can lead to a systematic slight deviation when executed repeatedly in very small steps. 2. Prices of D and BPT The Balancer V2 protocol’s Composable Stable Pool[3] and the fork protocol were affected by this attack. Stable Pool is used for assets that are expected to maintain a close 1:1 exchange ratio (or be exchanged at a known exchange rate), allowing large exchanges without causing significant price shocks, thereby greatly improving the efficiency of capital utilization between similar or related assets. The pool uses the Stable Math (a Curve-based StableSwap model), where the invariant D represents the pool's "virtual total value". The approximate price of BPT (Pool's LP Token) is: The formula above shows that if D is made smaller on paper (even if no funds are actually withdrawn), the price of BPT will be cheaper. BTP represents the pool share and is used to calculate how many pool reserves can be obtained when withdrawing liquidity. Therefore, if an attacker can obtain more BPT, they can profit when withdrawing liquidity. Attack Analysis Taking an attack transaction on Arbitrum as an example, the batchSwap operation can be divided into three stages: Phase 1: The attacker redeems BPT for the underlying asset to precisely adjust the balance of one of the tokens (cbETH) to a critical point (amount = 9) for rounding. This step sets the stage for the precision loss in the next phase. Phase Two: The attacker uses a carefully crafted quantity (= 8) to swap between another underlying asset (wstETH) and cbETH. Due to rounding down when scaling the token quantity, the calculated Δx is slightly smaller (from 8.918 to 8), causing Δy to be underestimated and the invariant D (derived from Curve's StableSwap model) to be smaller. Since BPT price = D / totalSupply, the BPT price is artificially suppressed. Phase 3: The attackers reverse-swap the underlying assets back to BPT, restoring the balance within the pool while profiting from the depressed price of BPT—acquiring more BPT tokens. Finally, the attacker used another profitable transaction to withdraw liquidity, thereby using the extra BPT to acquire other underlying assets (cbETH and wstETH) in the Pool and thus profit. Attacking the transaction: https://app.blocksec.com/explorer/tx/arbitrum/0x7da32ebc615d0f29a24cacf9d18254bea3a2c730084c690ee40238b1d8b55773 Profitable trades: https://app.blocksec.com/explorer/tx/arbitrum/0x4e5be713d986bcf4afb2ba7362525622acf9c95310bd77cd5911e7ef12d871a9 Reference: [1]https://x.com/Phalcon_xyz/status/1985262010347696312 [2]https://x.com/Phalcon_xyz/status/1985302779263643915 [3]https://docs-v2.balancer.fi/concepts/pools/composable-stable.html
Share
PANews2025/11/04 14:00