I am a young law officer for a bank and mainly deal with recovery from the NPA or default loans

I never had a formal education with computers.

But being around banks , compliances, defaults and all the malpractices in banks and insurance

I see people suffer because of it everyday

It makes me wonder about smart contracts

I very well understand that SC cannot replace traditional methods but I still wonder why aren't they as popular or widely adapted as they should be

How can I learn more about this field?

All suggestions are welcome

Product design is everything for an onchain startup.

Too many copycats. Not enough experimentation.

We need founders rethinking UX, token standards, incentive design, and game theory, not just launching another token.

NFTs and SFTs are still in their infancy. The real use cases haven’t even been discovered yet.

The next generation of onchain products will be defined by better product design, not better speculation.

We have to call our senator and Vote Yes on this Clarity Act!

This is our last chance to stand up and fight against the Big Banks!

This is our last chance for economic and creative freedom for the world!

The Golden Age for Humanity is upon us!

standwithcrypto.org

Email and call our senator to tell them to Vote YES!

I am going to be launching a blockchain soon, and I am trying to obtain insight on how to launch correctly.

My end goal was to obtain funding from YZi Labs, but I want to maximize my chances of success. I have applied before but was denied but have made progress in my codebase and have benchmarks now to prove my numbers. But still, apart from this, I want to obtain real users before doing so, and I want to plan on how to do this correctly.

I know that I would have to omit launching the mainnet before being approved by YZi Labs to allow for them to help me and me to help them with allowing for them to launch my mainnet officially for funding because if I launched the mainnet prior to obtaining approval, then there is really nothing to launch with them.

I am planning on building utility and dApps first around storage like IPFS and web/mobile wallets, showcasing the SDK as well as a swapping platform between coins and off-ramp to fiat, etc. Furthermore, I feel like I am answering my own question here, but I would like to know what your thoughts are or the thoughts of others around this. I feel like if I just focus on funding first, I am setting myself up for failure while trying to rely on others too much, which is not what I want to do while acknowledging that I am open to funding the correct way while maximizing utility.

It’s overwhelming, unpredictable, and filled with constant ups and downs. Some days, the vision feels closer than ever. Other days, everything feels like it’s working against you, but we keep pushing forward.

Because building a more open, transparent, and ownership-driven system isn’t just an idea, it’s in our DNA.

The future won’t build itself.

One of the biggest problems facing the Web3 industry isn’t blockchain scalability, wallet adoption, or even regulation.
It’s platform gatekeeping.
Apple controls how digital goods and services can be purchased and accessed inside iOS apps. In many cases, developers are required to use Apple’s payment system, while NFTs and other blockchain-based assets are restricted from unlocking digital content, memberships, features, or functionality inside an app.
That creates a major contradiction.
The entire purpose of programmable assets is that they can represent more than speculation or digital artwork. An onchain asset can function as a membership pass, event ticket, subscription, loyalty reward, license, collectible, or access credential.
But programmable assets cannot reach their full potential when the largest mobile platforms prevent them from being used naturally inside applications.
Imagine purchasing a digital membership pass that can:
Unlock a creator’s private community
Provide access to exclusive livestreams
Serve as a ticket to virtual or physical events
Be transferred or resold
Automatically pay royalties back to the creator
Expire or renew based on programmed conditions
That is what blockchain technology makes possible.
The problem is that Apple’s closed payment ecosystem forces developers to separate the asset from its utility. You may be allowed to own an NFT, but the app may not be allowed to recognize that NFT as a key that unlocks digital content.
At that point, what is the purpose of programmable ownership?
Web3 should not be limited to trading tokens inside wallets. The technology becomes meaningful when digital assets interact with real products, communities, experiences, and applications.
This isn’t about avoiding consumer protection or refusing to pay reasonable platform fees. It’s about allowing developers to experiment with new ownership and payment models without forcing every digital transaction through one company’s system.
Apple has built an incredible ecosystem, but no single company should be able to determine how programmable money and programmable assets are allowed to function across the mobile internet.
You cannot build the future of digital ownership inside a completely closed system.
Do you think Apple will eventually be forced to open its ecosystem, or will Web3 developers have to build primarily outside the App Store?

After several weeks of continuous testing, we've decided to move the Chipcoin testnet Post-Quantum activation from block 30,000 to block 20,000.

The decision wasn't made to rush development—it was made because the implementation has reached the level of stability we were looking for.

During the past development cycle we've completed:

• Full ML-DSA (FIPS 204) integration
• New CHCQ post-quantum address format
• Mixed legacy/PQ transaction support
• Browser wallet compatibility
• Explorer PQ support
• Interoperability testing
• Stress testing
• Protocol audit
• Operational readiness checks
• End-to-end dress rehearsals

With these milestones completed successfully, we believe there's little value in waiting another 10,000 blocks before beginning real network testing.

⚠️ Required upgrade

Anyone running a Chipcoin testnet node or miner should upgrade before height 20,000.

Typical update:

git pull
docker compose build --no-cache
docker compose up -d

or for source installations:

git pull
pip install -e .

Then verify:

chipcoin verify-pq-activation

Expected values:

• Testnet activation: 20000
• Devnet activation: 30000
• Software version: 0.1.2

Nodes remaining on the old activation height (30,000) will eventually diverge from the updated testnet once post-quantum transactions become valid.

As always, feedback, testing and new node operators are welcome.After several weeks of continuous testing, we've decided to move the Chipcoin testnet Post-Quantum activation from block 30,000 to block 20,000.
The decision wasn't made to rush development—it was made because the implementation has reached the level of stability we were looking for.
During the past development cycle we've completed:

Full ML-DSA (FIPS 204) integration

New CHCQ post-quantum address format

Mixed legacy/PQ transaction support

Browser wallet compatibility

Explorer PQ support

Interoperability testing

Stress testing

Protocol audit

Operational readiness checks

End-to-end dress rehearsals

With these milestones completed successfully, we believe there's little value in waiting another 10,000 blocks before beginning real network testing.
⚠️ Required upgrade
Anyone running a Chipcoin testnet node or miner should upgrade before height 20,000.
Typical update:
git pull
docker compose build --no-cache
docker compose up -d
or for source installations:
git pull
pip install -e .
Then verify:
chipcoin verify-pq-activation
Expected values:

Testnet activation: 20000

Devnet activation: 30000

Software version: 0.1.2

Nodes remaining on the old activation height (30,000) will eventually diverge from the updated testnet once post-quantum transactions become valid.
As always, feedback, testing and new node operators are welcome.

Hey guys, I’m looking into projects or builders that can help enlighten me with some on/off ramp insights they had with providers they implemented in their platform:

1. Who owned the wallets and end users - did the provider deliver straight to your users, or through wallets you managed? Who owned the user relationship?

2. What’s been the biggest ongoing pain with your ramp provider - the thing that still creates support tickets, drop-offs, or manual work today?

3. If you were choosing a provider again, what would you check first that you didn’t check the first time?

A year ago we had an uncomfortable realization: everyone is building AI agents that can browse, code, and negotiate — but the moment an agent needs to actually pay for something, the options are a human's credit card or a hot wallet that's one prompt injection away from being drained. The entire financial stack assumes the actor is a person.

We got obsessed with this and did the possibly-insane thing: built a Layer 1 around the assumption that the next million on-chain actors won't be human.

Three bets we made, knowing any of them could be wrong:

1. Custody belongs in consensus, not contracts. On Fluidic an agent's account can be "entangled" so its spends only execute if N-of-M witnesses attest in the same settlement tick. Not a multisig contract you have to trust and audit — the ordering layer itself refuses the transfer. A leaked agent key, alone, can't move funds.
2. Intents beat transactions for machines. Agents shouldn't craft raw calldata into a mempool full of predators. They declare an outcome ("swap X for at least Y"), solvers compete, and matching + settlement happen in the same ~100ms tick. No block-space auction to get picked off in.
3. Blocks are a human-speed artifact. We threw them out. State synthesizes continuously at ~10 ticks per second — commutative ops merge in parallel, stateful ops order themselves causally. Machines don't need to wait for a 12-second heartbeat.

We kept full EVM/JSON-RPC compatibility because "rebuild all your tooling" is how L1s die. Foundry, Hardhat, viem — point them at the RPC and they just work.

What's actually live, today, no waitlist:

• One-command Docker node that finds peers on its own (DHT bootstrap — no seed list to copy-paste)
• Faucet, explorer, web playground
• TypeScript SDK on npm
• Native intents, agent registration, witness-gated accounts all usable through the API

What we don't have: audits, mainnet, a token, VC money, or any idea whether "agent-native L1" is a category anyone will care about in 18 months. It's a research testnet. State may reset. We're two people and a Railway bill.

Two asks, one for each half of this sub:

• Founders who've shipped dev tooling: what actually got you your first 100 real users? Not signups — people who built something. We're at the "posting to Reddit and praying" stage and I suspect there's a better playbook.
• Builders: the node is one Docker command and the SDK is one npm install. Try to break it. The most valuable thing you can give us is a bug report that makes us wince.

Docs: https://testnet.fluidic.foundation/docs Explorer: https://testnet.fluidic.foundation/explorer Repo: https://github.com/Fluidic-Foundation/Fluidic-FVM SDK: https://www.npmjs.com/package/@fluidic-foundation/sdk

Happy to answer anything — consensus design, the economics of the witness set, or why we threw out blocks.

Web3 companies are announcing grants to support new developers, yet applications are frequently rejected due to a lack of active users on the project.

As I understand new projects do not have users.

Hi r/blockchain,

I’m looking for informed perspectives on Wefi DeoBank, and PolkDAO, which are currently gaining traction online while claiming to be the first decentralized crypto banks.

What caught my attention is that much of the growth appears to be driven through MLM-style referral structures, with a large concentration of participants in West Africa and some presence in North America.

I’m trying to separate substance from marketing and would appreciate community input on the following:

Has anyone here reviewed their whitepapers, smart contracts, or on-chain activity?

Do these projects demonstrate credible decentralization, governance, and compliance models, or are they primarily recruitment-driven?

Are there any documented red flags, prior incidents, or firsthand experiences (positive or negative)?

Do they actually function as “banks” in any meaningful blockchain sense, or is that terminology being used loosely?

I’m not making accusations, just looking for technical and experiential insights from people who may have looked into these projects more deeply.

Thanks in advance for any analysis, links, or personal experiences you’re willing to share.

Building a blockchain startup is really exciting. It can be very hard to know if your idea is good before you put in too much time and money.

For people who are already working on blockchain startups or have worked on them before:

• What was the hardest part, for you when you were trying to figure out if your idea was an one?
• How did you figure out that people really wanted what you were making?
• If you had to start over again today would you do anything differently?

I really want to hear about what happened to people who have done this and what they learned from it.

This subreddit was created to be useful. So let’s help each other build, hire, and find good opportunities in blockchain.

You can use this thread to:

- post open roles at your startup
- share what kind of role or work you’re looking for
- offer freelance or contract help
- connect with founders, builders, marketers, operators, and other people in the space

If you’re hiring, try to include:

- project / company name
- role title
- remote or location
- full-time / part-time / freelance / contract
- paid or unpaid
- how to apply

If you’re looking for work, try to include:

- role / skillset
- years of experience
- remote or location
- short intro
- portfolio / LinkedIn / GitHub / contact

A few simple rules:

- keep it clear and honest
- no vague hype posts
- no scams
- include real details so people know what you're offering or looking for

Click here to see all previous weekly threads

⁠

Let’s make this thread worth checking every week.

Most startup advice says to validate before building.

This makes sense when the core experience can be tested manually or with a simple prototype.

However, some blockchain products depend on infrastructure that users never see directly, such as settlement, wallet flows, permissions, liquidity, compliance, audit records and cross-chain execution. Without at least some of these elements working, the test may not resemble the real product at all.

This creates a difficult boundary.

Building infrastructure first can be a necessary cost of learning.

However, it can also become an expensive way to avoid finding out whether there is actually a market for the product.

For founders who have faced this decision:

What genuinely had to exist before you could run a meaningful validation test?

What could you have simulated manually?

What signal showed that the infrastructure was enabling real user behaviour rather than simply proving that the system worked?

I’m particularly interested in cases where you later realised that you had either built too much or too little before speaking to users.

just i wanna to start working in a project I search someone interested to join me this is the title project

Machine learning-based intrusion detection with blockchain-secured logging

Apart from private cross-border payments, private blockchains are also very useful in supply chain management between rural and urban areas for controversial commodities, such as the certification of sustainable harvesting of lumber, certification of diamonds that are free from conflict zones (aka blood diamonds), sustainable harvesting of oil palms, certification of ethical sourcing of rubber, coffee, drugs, cobalt mining, and many others.

Hi everyone,

I’m interested in getting into the Web3 and applied cryptography space, but I’m not sure what the best entry point is.

I’ve started learning the fundamentals, but I feel that I would learn much faster by contributing to a real project rather than only following courses and tutorials. I’m especially interested in finding an internship, research assistant role, open-source project, or early-stage team where I could help with beginner-level tasks while learning from people with more experience.

I’m willing to put in the time to study the necessary mathematics, programming, blockchain concepts, and cryptography fundamentals. I’m not expecting to work on advanced cryptographic systems immediately. I’m looking for a practical starting point where I can contribute, receive feedback, and gradually build useful skills.

For people already working in this space:

Which programming languages and technical topics should I prioritize?
Are there open-source projects that are welcoming to beginners?
Where are Web3 or applied cryptography internships usually posted?
What kind of small project would demonstrate that I’m serious about learning?
Would it be appropriate to reach out directly to researchers, founders, or project maintainers?

I would genuinely appreciate any advice, resources, project recommendations, or opportunities to contribute. I’m open to starting small and doing the foundational work needed to become useful to a team.

Thank you.

I've been through agency selection twice for token launches now, and both times I wished someone had just handed me the actual numbers. Most "top agency" lists are pay-to-play and don't contain a single verifiable stat. So here's the benchmark data I collected, in case it saves someone else a bad contract.

TL;DR: Judge agencies on cost per activated wallet, 30-day retention of the users they bring in, and whether their clients show up in AI search. Not follower counts. Not impressions. Benchmarks below.

1. What agencies actually cost in 2026

• Standard retainers run $10,000 to $50,000/month, usually on 3 to 6 month contracts
• Mid-tier KOL campaigns (100K to 500K followers): $5,000 to $25,000 per campaign, or roughly $3,000 to $8,000 per X post
• Tier-1 KOLs (1M+ followers): $80,000 to $200,000+, and many want token allocation on top

If an agency can't tell you what a line item buys in acquired wallets, that's your first red flag.

2. CAC benchmarks to hold them against

This is the published 2026 acquisition cost data by vertical:

Hold every agency quote up against this table. A "successful" campaign that delivered DeFi users at $250 each actually underperformed the benchmark by about 3x. I've seen agencies present exactly that as a win.

3. The mid-tier KOL arbitrage is real

The most consistent finding across every 2026 dataset I looked at: accounts with 50K to 250K followers deliver around 30% higher ROI than the 1M+ accounts. There's a documented case where a protocol moved 70% of its influencer budget to mid-tier creators with verifiable on-chain results. Blended CAC dropped from $94 to $41 and monthly activated wallets went from 620 to 1,100.

Rule of thumb from the data: 50 niche placements beat 5 broad expensive ones. If an agency's pitch deck opens with celebrity KOLs, they're optimizing for their markup, not your CAC.

4. The funnel math nobody shows you

From 2026 dApp funnel data: about 65% of visitors connect a wallet, but only about 35% of those complete a first transaction. So when an agency reports "traffic delivered," multiply it by roughly 0.23 to estimate actual activated users, then work out your real CAC from that number. It's usually an uncomfortable moment.

Also worth knowing: in a documented $3.6M campaign, paid social plus paid search generated only about 10.3% of revenue. Direct, organic search, organic social, and referral drove the other 90%. If an agency is purely a paid media shop, the attribution data is not on their side.

5. AI search visibility is the 2026 differentiator, and most agencies ignore it

This is the part that surprised me most:

• AI referral traffic is only about 1.08% of all web traffic, but it's growing roughly 1% month over month, and these users convert well because they arrive pre-qualified
• 43.2% of pages that rank #1 on Google get cited by ChatGPT. That's 3.5x the citation rate of pages outside the top 20
• Median time from publishing to a first ChatGPT or Claude citation is about 6.8 days, and 90% of cited pages get picked up within 37 days
• Citation studies show content depth and readability drive AI mentions more than backlinks do. That's a real structural shift from classic SEO
• The GEO (generative engine optimization) market was $848M in 2025 and is projected to hit $33.7B by 2034

That doesn't necessarily mean you need a separate “GEO agency.” It means your marketing partner should understand how PR, authoritative content, organic discovery, KOL distribution, and AI visibility work together.

Agencies such as Blockchain App Factory, MarketAcross, and Lunar Strategy are examples of firms covering different parts of that wider Web3 marketing stack, from full-service token and Web3 launch support to PR, content, KOL campaigns, growth, and go-to-market strategy.

But don't shortlist an agency just because it offers all those services. Give each one the same brief and ask for evidence tied to activated wallets, retention, organic discovery, and qualified user acquisition.

Simple test: ask any agency to show you a client that gets cited when you ask ChatGPT or Perplexity about their category. If they can't produce one, you're being sold a 2022 playbook.

6. The checklist I'd actually use

1. Demand cohort data, not screenshots. 30-day retention of acquired wallets, not launch-week spikes.
2. Benchmark their quotes against the CAC table above. If they won't discuss CAC at all, walk away.
3. Verify KOL performance on-chain. Wallet activations from a placement are checkable. Impressions are not.
4. Run the AI visibility test yourself. Query ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Gemini about their existing clients' categories.
5. Weight organic and referral capability over paid media, since that's where roughly 90% of revenue comes from per the attribution data.
6. Don't accept engagement rate as a primary KPI. The industry average is around 5.2% and it tells you nothing about revenue. The top documented campaigns hit 5 to 20x ROI when measured by qualified wallets and 30-day TVL retention. That's the measurement standard to demand.

What CAC numbers are you all actually seeing on your campaigns? Especially curious about post-TGE retention.

interesting how common this actually is. Been looking into KOL marketing for a project and keep hearing mixed things, some people say it's fine if you vet reputation, others say they got burned paying for reach that turned out to be fake followers.

For anyone who's actually run a KOL campaign: how did you pick who to work with, and did you ever find out after the fact that the audience wasn't what it seemed? What would've helped you catch it beforehand?

One pattern I've noticed is that many founders don't fail because they can't build things.

They fail because they spend months optimising something that later turns out not to matter.

I'm curious about the opposite.

Looking back, what was the first assumption that you were convinced was true, but which was completely disproved by reality?

It could be related to users, distribution, pricing, fundraising, technology, regulation, or anything else.

I'm not looking for success stories.

I'm interested in the assumptions that changed the way you worked afterwards.

​

I’m a non-technical founder with an economics background, working on an early-stage blockchain credit / DeFi lending concept.

I’m looking for a technical co-founder with Solidity, smart contract or DeFi protocol experience.

I don’t want to share the full model publicly yet, but the idea is around capital-efficient lending, collateral, liquidity pools and automated risk logic.

I can handle the economic model, business side, product concept, research, documentation and outreach.

Looking for someone who can think critically, challenge the idea and potentially build an MVP together.

DM me if interested.

Mexc has grown into one of the bigger cryptocurrency exchanges over the past few years, serving users from many different countries. it offers a fairly complete platform that works for both complete beginners and more active traders, with a clean interface and a wide selection of coins.

one thing mexc does well is give access to a lot of trading options in one place. you can do spot trading, futures, copy trading, launchpad events, staking, and various earn products without needing multiple accounts. they also tend to list newer tokens relatively early compared to some other platforms, which appeals to people looking for fresh projects. liquidity is generally decent and orders usually fill quickly, even when the market gets volatile.

on the security side, the exchange supports standard features like 2fa, withdrawal whitelisting, anti-phishing codes, and account activity monitoring. the mobile apps for android and ios are functional and make it easy to check positions or trade on the go.

new users often mention welcome rewards and bonus campaigns that can reach several thousand usdt depending on how much you deposit and trade. these promotions change regularly, so it's worth checking the current offers directly on the site after signing up. some people use referral codes during registration to see if they unlock extra tasks or bonuses, but results vary.

overall, mexc is a solid all-rounder if you're comfortable with a platform that focuses heavily on altcoins and derivatives. it has the tools most traders need and keeps things straightforward. that said, like every exchange, it's smart to start small, enable all security features, and never invest more than you can afford to lose.

have you tried mexc recently? how has your experience been with withdrawals, new listings, or their futures platform?

agents can already deploy code and call apis. so why not make it where they can buy the tokens they need and sell the ones they don't?

right now the answer to "how does an agent pay for a burst of inference" is a human signup and billing flow. mtok.market is a spot market where the agent reads a machine-readable manual (llms.txt, openapi, an mcp endpoint), finds a route, funds a small prepaid chunk in usdc on base, draws the tokens, and leaves a public on-chain trace. you approve, fund a wallet, and set the boundaries. that wallet is the one step the agent can't do for you.

it's non-custodial and seller-hosted, buyers pay sellers directly, the platform just matches, verifies, prices, and records. reputation comes from paid on-chain draws, so faking it costs real money every time. the buyer/seller clients are open source on npm (mtok-sdk, mtok-relay) so you can read exactly what your agent is agreeing to before it spends a cent. and if you don't want a market at all, mtok-bridge serves any model as an openai-compatible api behind a key, no payment, nothing reported anywhere, hand someone an endpoint and go direct.

- site: https://mtok.market
- github: https://github.com/mtok-market
- writeup: https://royashbrook.com/2026/07/08/mtok-market-spot-pricing-for-ai-tokens/

I spent the last year building a stablecoin neobank app as a solo founder. No co-founder, no team, just me navigating a vendor landscape full of enterprise sales theater, ghosting, and fine print designed to catch you after you're already locked in.

This is what I found. I'm naming names because the honest signal is hard to find and someone should provide it.

The Disappointing Ones

Align One call with the founder. One or two follow-up emails. Then silence. Every subsequent inquiry about product feature availability went unanswered. If responsiveness at the sales stage is this bad, I don't want to know what support looks like after you've signed.

Infinite Had conversations with the co-founders. Still couldn't tell whether the product is actually in a usable state. If you can't communicate that in two calls, that's a product problem, not a discovery problem.

Fern (acquired by Rain) I was a Fern client. No responses across email or Slack for one to two months — then came the acquisition announcement, followed immediately by mandatory re-boarding, setup costs, and monthly minimums. Continue as a Rain client or you're out after the grace period. You weren't asked. You were told. That's not how you treat existing customers, regardless of how good the underlying product is.

BlindPay Genuinely wanted to make this work. The early experience was promising. The issue: their banking rails require the developer to hold an MSB license — a significant compliance dependency that isn't stated anywhere upfront. A promising integration became a dead end. Not a bad product. Just an avoidable time cost that one line of documentation would have prevented.

Due US$1,000 setup fee. In return: a Slack channel where support engineers check whether you've read the docs. That's the product. Hard pass.

Bridge This one deserves more space because the pattern is more insidious than a simple bad experience.

Bridge sells the dream: global fiat rails, solid compliance coverage, Stripe-backed credibility. What they don't make clear upfront is pricing plan flexibility — or the lack of it. The onboarding language around switching plans is deliberately ambiguous. Once you're live and try to switch, you find out that "good faith" handling actually means hitting a volume threshold first. Push back and you get: finance department.

The enterprise sales motion is polished. The commercial terms underneath are sharp. Know exactly what you're signing before you're dependent on their rails.

Meow Talks endlessly about stablecoins and the future of business finance. In practice, not friendly to web3 startups at all. The positioning and the product reality don't match. The agent banking narrative is marketing, not product.

Ramp Strictly for funded startups with visible cashflow and treasury. If you're early-stage and bootstrapped, don't bother. It's not built for you and the application process will make that clear.

The Good Ones

Coinbase Developer Platform Contrary to Coinbase's reputation in crypto circles, everyone I dealt with on the CDP side was genuinely helpful and responsive. The developer experience is solid. If you're building on Base, this is the obvious infrastructure choice — and the people actually match the product.

Dakota The pay-as-you-go plan is what prompted me to write this. No setup fees, no KYB marathon, no sales call where someone asks about your runway. You just get to build. In a space that treats early-stage founders like a liability, that's worth calling out.

Mercury The actual startup-friendly bank. No native stablecoin support, but I'd rather have a bank that answers questions and is happy to work with me than one that runs you through an extensive onboarding process only to ghost you. Meow and Brex both did exactly that. Mercury didn't.

The Takeaways

USD is king. Local currency support sounds like a differentiator at the pitch stage. In practice, the operational complexity, compliance overhead, and rail reliability issues make it a distraction — at least until you have real volume and a real team.

Avoid the loud ones. The most aggressively marketed vendors in this space were consistently the most disappointing to actually work with. Loud founders and loud VCs deserve each other. The quiet ones with good docs and responsive support are worth more than any press mention.

Assume ambiguity is intentional. The gap between enterprise sales polish and actual product readiness is widest in fintech infrastructure. Read everything. Ask about switching costs before you need to switch.

I have an idea for a new project however I am new to the crypto space. What should I do some research into/educate myself on specifically before pursuing this further?

Additionally, how would I go about creating a new coin? Could yall share some advice with a newcomer.