太空狗分流再掀骂战：meme币的「正统性」究竟谁说了算？

"Capital diversion" has always been a contentious topic, not just for meme coins, but for the entire cryptocurrency market.

The general player base is deeply frustrated with this phenomenon, mainly for the following reasons:

- It's not easy to establish a narrative angle large enough, especially in a market environment with poor liquidity where no meme coin has reached a market cap of over $1 billion for a long time. Diversification makes the market more chaotic and trading more difficult.

- In most cases, capital diversion is triggered by the vocal advocacy of certain influential individuals. In the eyes of retail investors, these influential people already have advantages in terms of capital and trading. They should join forces and concentrate their strength to push assets already on an upward trend to even higher levels, rather than refusing to "lift the sedan chair" because the entry price is already too high.

- During the process of capital diversion, it's almost inevitable for influential figures to engage in "praising one while disparaging another." While draining liquidity, this causes even greater harm to the original target asset.

Men will die for wealth, just as birds will die for food. For a long time, the debate surrounding "capital diversion" has been logical, but the ultimate output often takes the form of a "logical emotional expression." Retail investors, who are already in a passive position, often experience profit erosion or even losses due to capital diversion. It's completely understandable and reasonable for them to express their anger. But when we calm down and think about it, can the phenomenon of "capital diversion" ever be overcome? Can this endless debate within the crypto community ever reach a conclusion?

How do you define "Legitimacy"?

If we hope to one day put an end to "capital diversion," we first need to solve one problem – how exactly do we determine that a token possesses "legitimacy"?

Let's start with the recent "Space Dog capital diversion." This theme was considered the biggest meme coin opportunity recently because Elon Musk agreed to make the "Space Dog" Asteroid the official mascot for Space X. The diversion revolved around the two corresponding $ASTEROID meme coins on ETH and SOL:

- $ASTEROID ETH: The $ASTEROID on the ETH mainnet has been operational since September 2024. However, after March 2025, its official Twitter account became relatively inactive, with posts appearing only a few times a month. The official website linked in the account's bio is also no longer accessible. They previously donated 0.5% of the token supply to St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, the same beneficiary as all proceeds from the sale of Asteroid Shiba plush toys by creator Liv Perrotto, to fund childhood cancer treatment. But that was back in 2024. Nonetheless, their past charitable actions cannot be erased, and the market recognized the community's past efforts. The token had already broken through a market cap of $160 million before Musk tweeted about making Asteroid the new Space X mascot.

- $ASTEROID SOL: Liv Perrotto's mother, Rebecca Perrotto, claimed approximately 2,013 SOL in fee revenue from the $ASTEROID token on SOL. The token was launched via the Bags platform, and total fee revenue has now reached 2,291 SOL. Rebecca Perrotto has clearly stated that all revenue from the Bags platform will be used to establish a foundation in memory of Liv Perrotto.

From a trading perspective, both sides have valid points. Especially the $ASTEROID on ETH, which aligns more closely with the unwritten rule long used by veteran crypto players to determine "legitimacy" – recognize the OG, recognize the community.

But upon calm analysis, the root of the "capital diversion" lies in the action of Liv Perrotto's mother, Rebecca Perrotto. By claiming the fee revenue from SOL $ASTEROID and announcing plans to use it for a foundation in memory of Liv Perrotto, she provided an angle for the capital diversion.

After Liv Perrotto's passing, Rebecca Perrotto, as the current rights holder of the IP, her attitude sets the upper limit for this angle. She had previously expressed her attitude towards the ETH $ASTEROID in a reply under a post by Aster listing ETH $ASTEROID:

@AJamesMcCarthy stated that profiting from the creative design of a deceased little girl is despicable. Rebecca Perrotto replied, "This is just so disheartening."

The author refrains from making any subjective or emotional judgment on this attitude itself. I can only assume that, given Rebecca Perrotto's unfamiliarity with cryptocurrency, she may not be fully aware of the charitable acts previously performed by the ETH $ASTEROID project.

As for the SOL $ASTEROID, she can directly receive fee revenue from it, and there may have been some communication involved. When her Bags account was compromised, the Bags team members responded promptly:

The SOL $ASTEROID had already caught Rebecca Perrotto's attention when it was launched back in August last year. At that time, her attitude was to clarify the relationship with herself, and she did not make any further response regarding the fees:

You might ask, why does Rebecca Perrotto's attitude matter? The capital on the chain has already chosen the ETH $ASTEROID. She can say whatever she wants. Why can't we unite and avoid the diversion?

For short-term price fluctuations, it indeed doesn't matter. If Space X doesn't officially announce Asteroid as the new mascot on social media, neither the ETH nor SOL $ASTEROID is likely to break through to higher ceilings.

But if it does get officially announced, and the coin actually gets listed on exchanges, then who Rebecca Perrotto, as the IP rights holder, grants authorization to becomes very important.

Let's recall the final outcome of the Neiro (case-sensitive) dispute (quoted from @0xVeil):

"In April 2025, the Neiro CTO project reached its most milestone event in its development history: passing a collaboration with the decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) OwnTheDoge, officially obtaining the global exclusive intellectual property (IP) license for the Neiro name and image from Kabosu Mama herself, becoming the sole legitimate heir to the legendary Doge meme.

The most direct impact of this event was that the legal team of the Neiro CTO project sent copyright infringement notices to major trading platforms, demanding the delisting of all unauthorized 'Neiro' token contracts. The goal was essentially just one: NEIRO ETH. Although it wasn't listed on Binance spot, it was available on various other secondary exchanges, including Binance futures.

The major trading platforms responded swiftly, subsequently announcing the delisting of infringing Neiro perpetual contracts or spot trading pairs. With that, NEIRO ETH was completely finished."

Whoever holds the copyright can not only list their token on exchanges legitimately but also legitimately prevent other tokens with the same name and concept from being listed. Therefore, our discussion here on "how to define legitimacy" is not an attempt to rank the $ASTEROID tokens on ETH and SOL. This kind of legitimacy dispute over IP with an identifiable owner is actually not about the usual shouting matches for existing funds within the crypto circle. It's a "real-world problem that must be faced if the ceiling ever breaks open."

Whether it's the $ASTEROID on ETH or SOL, both should now seek to establish good communication with Rebecca Perrotto as soon as possible, explaining their operational strategies and philosophies. They don't necessarily have to buy the license, but at least they should establish a "tacit approval" like $PEPE did – indeed, $PEPE still hasn't received a license from Pepe IP creator Matt Furie, but Matt sold the $PEPE tokens gifted to him by the community for about $600,000. He has never publicly commented on $PEPE but hasn't taken any legal action either. It's worth noting that for other Pepe-related crypto assets, he successfully used DMCA takedown notices to force OpenSea to delist several unauthorized Pepe NFT projects (e.g., the Sad Frogs District in 2021, which had a trading volume of up to $4 million).

The former Sad Frogs District

Back to the title of this section: How to define "legitimacy"? Here, the author's first answer is not so much a definition as it is a suggestion – for meme coins with clear IP ownership, if someone is genuinely determined to build a $1 billion market cap meme coin that gets listed on Binance, please advocate for and assist the token community you support in negotiating IP-related matters.

How to define "Legitimacy" for Ownerless IP?

Many memes are actually "ownerless."

For example, Wojak is a quintessential anonymous internet meme with no single verifiable creator or legitimate copyright owner. Its origins can be traced back to the Polish imageboard Vichan around 2009, first appearing under the filename "ciepłatwarz.jpg" (warm face.jpg). It became popular on platforms like 4chan after being promoted by an anonymous user with the handle "Wojak" on Krautchan (a closed German imageboard) in 2010.

Because it was born from anonymous/pseudonymous imageboard culture, the image itself is a product of rapid community sharing and modification, with no formal author attribution, copyright registration, or public claim. Wikipedia, KnowYourMeme, and related analysis articles all clearly state: the original author is unknown, tracing the definitive copyright owner is difficult, and it essentially falls into the public domain. It's a public cultural heritage piece resulting from collective internet creation.

Another example is NEET, a typical descriptive term from public policy/sociology. The abbreviation was first coined in 1996 by a senior British Home Office civil servant to replace previously controversial terminology. Copyright laws in various countries explicitly exclude "ideas/facts/short phrases." No individual, company, or institution can assert exclusive intellectual property rights (copyright, trademark, etc.). It also essentially belongs to the public domain.

In such cases, just let the market decide who is "legitimate." In fact, if we look beyond meme coins, truly powerful crypto assets have never been afraid of "capital diversion":

- In the Blocksize War, the "OG" Bitcoin laughed last.

- Regarding Ethereum's rollback and transition to PoS, the "OG" Ethereum laughed last.

- Milady not only doesn't restrict derivative series on other chains but actively encourages this creativity to "plant flags" on various chains outside the ETH mainnet.

This leads us to another question – how do we establish a victory standard that convinces the market and gains widespread recognition?

Only by solving this problem can we fundamentally cure "capital diversion."

Exploring a Cure for "Capital Diversion"

Meme coins are not without value. We won't delve into the specific values of meme coins here, but rather consider another question – why has there always been a persistent claim that meme coins have no value?

Because, for so many years, we have failed to establish a value evaluation system for meme coins.

Although retail investors have some unwritten rules, such as recognizing OG coins, looking at community activity, and assessing cultural influence, these rules themselves are fragmented. Since pump.fun significantly lowered the cost of issuing meme coins, people have become accustomed to rapid in-and-out trading, and these unwritten rules are on the verge of becoming obsolete.

Murad proposed an excellent "meme coin supercycle" theory, but unfortunately, from the current perspective, this has only become a short-term "angle" rather than a consensus on trading logic like the price-to-earnings ratio or industry outlook for stocks.

Some launchpads have also taken corresponding measures to address the "capital diversion" issue, such as prohibiting the deployment of new coins with the same ticker within a certain timeframe. However, this is difficult to implement widely, as it neither suits the needs of bundlers launching new coins for price manipulation nor benefits the platform's profitability.

CEXs, being the largest liquidity hubs in the crypto world, are best positioned to lead the market in establishing a value evaluation system for meme coins. We've seen attempts at voting-based listings, but such measures face too many interfering factors.

By establishing a strict listing mechanism for meme coins, CEXs have the potential to guide meme coins towards becoming a serious market, exerting cultural influence to demonstrate their positive externalities from a consensus perspective.

Measures the author can think of include:

- For meme coins with clear IP ownership, CEXs should treat resolving IP ownership as a critical criterion for listing, especially when capital diversion occurs.

- For meme coins without IP ownership, set a sufficiently long observation period before listing, employing multi-dimensional criteria such as theme culture, social media data, and community activity for long-term tracking and observation.

- For all listed meme coins, publish a complete listing research report.

Developing a set of convincing value evaluation criteria for meme coins is the beginning of meme coins evolving into a serious track within the crypto world, and even a cultural industry.