Top "Head" That Once Made $30 Million Profit with Swarms is Now Heavily Investing in $BLINK

Author: SongShu, former member of the Swarms Foundation, founder of NexGen Venture

I am not betting on a fairer world.

I am betting that human nature will not change: people will follow winners, compete for early opportunities, showcase their positions, and use profits and losses to validate their perceptions.

In the past, these behaviors were scattered across KOL group chats, bot bundles, market-making funds, and various trading terminals. What truly deserves my research about Blink is not its call for "fairness," but its opportunity to compress these existing behaviors into a verifiable, distributable, chargeable, and repeatable product chain.

Let me clarify my position and biases.

Recently, I sold my $AI on the Long platform and also sold my $bStocks on BSC, redirecting my funds and attention to $BLINK. $bStocks continued to rise afterward, and I indeed sold too early.

This does not prove that I made the right switch, nor does it imply that I have paid a real opportunity cost for this judgment. But precisely because of this, this is not an observational article from the sidelines.

I currently hold over 2% of $BLINK. The following content is a thesis publicly stated by a heavy holder, not a promise of returns.

1. Lessons from Swarms: Seeing the Industry Right Does Not Mean Buying the Right Token

I once bet that AI Agents would achieve industrial-level implementation, which led me to buy into Swarms. I might have seen the big picture correctly, but I mistakenly assumed a causative chain that was too long:

Technological development → Product maturity → User adoption → Revenue generation → Token capturing value.

If any link does not occur on the same timeline, the token may be eliminated by the market before the product materializes.

At that time, I was betting on a series of "ifs."

This time, I study Blink not because it represents a distant technological future, but because the behaviors it attempts to organize already exist today:

Project issuance → Users competing for early participation rights → Participating through Fomo → Positions and Thesis made public → Social dissemination → More users and transactions → Fees and the next issuance.

This chain does not need to wait a decade. It can be observed today and can be falsified by data.

2. The Phenomenon in the Screenshot is Not Blink's Function, but the Industry's Malady

"Opening + market-making funds + KOL/FNF small groups" describes the real situation of many memecoin projects today: some provide funds, some provide fame, some organize attention, and then let later participants bear the exit liquidity.

This is not the script I hope Blink will replicate; rather, it is precisely why I believe the market needs a different issuance mechanism.

If Blink ultimately just replaces the bundler with a KOL whitelist and the advantages of bots with human connections, then it has failed.

A truly meaningful fair launch does not guarantee that everyone makes money, but rather makes the rules more transparent, makes it harder for a single group to control early chips, and allows real users rather than a group of hidden wallets to gain participation opportunities.

3. After Facebook and TikTok, Fomo is Attempting to Build a Speculation Graph

Facebook turned relationships into distribution; TikTok turned interests into distribution; Fomo is attempting to turn verifiable judgments into distribution.

In traditional social media, content can be deleted, losses can be hidden, and KOLs can only showcase successful cases. But when positions, transactions, Thesis, and PnL appear in the same account, "what I am optimistic about" can finally be tied to "what results I have borne for this judgment."

Portfolio becomes profile.

Trades become posts.

PnL becomes reputation.

Of course, a high-leverage profit does not equal credibility, and multiple wallets will not automatically disappear just because they are on-chain. A truly valuable speculation graph should look at long-term, risk-adjusted records and identities that are difficult to reset at will.

But the foundation already exists. The data disclosed by Fomo shows 625,000 users, over $4B in trading volume, and 110M social interactions; Profile, Thesis, leaderboards, follows, and transactions have also been integrated into the same product suite.

4. Fomo is the Main System, and Blink Should Become the Issuance and Customer Acquisition Entry

This must be clearly distinguished.

Fomo controls identity, funding entry, transaction execution, public performance, Thesis, Feed, leaderboards, and user retention. Blink should not replicate another Fomo but should fill in the upstream issuance layer that Fomo lacks.

The cycle I expect is:

External creators and communities issue on Blink

→ New users register and deposit into Fomo to participate in the window

→ Users gain relatively fair early participation opportunities through Fomo

→ Holdings and Thesis return to Fomo's public account

→ Feed, leaderboards, and follow relationships continue to distribute

→ Generate more content, users, and transactions

→ Attract the next batch of creators to issue.

Blink is not a substitute for Fomo. If this logic holds, Blink should become the issuance layer of Fomo's speculation graph; Fomo is the main network for identity, transactions, reputation, and distribution.

I cannot invest in Fomo's equity, so I am looking for adjacent infrastructure exposure that may benefit from the growth of the Fomo network. But buying $BLINK does not equal investing in Fomo, and Blink is not a project officially endorsed by Fomo.

5. "Fairness" Only Becomes a Growth Mechanism When It Is Not Idealism

If Blink can only talk about fairness, it remains idealism.

The reason it may truly hold is that relative fairness can produce economic results:

• Users want to reduce the probability of being harvested by bundlers, sniper bots, and hidden associated wallets;

• Creators need better issuance, distribution, and sustainable income;

• Fomo needs new external users, deposits, content, and transactions;

• Blink needs project supply, trading volume, and fees.

Each party is pursuing its own interests, and no one needs to suddenly become noble.

Fairness here is not a moral endpoint but a product constraint that reduces adverse selection, expands real participation, lowers customer acquisition costs, and improves retention.

In the future, Blink can further utilize the signals already existing in Fomo—verified accounts, public Thesis, historical participation records, and anti-witch proof—to convert verifiable judgments into early participation qualifications. But this is my suggestion and expectation for the product, not a feature that is already online.

6. Launchpad Code is Not a Barrier; Distribution, Trust, Data, and Closed Loops Are

Achieving basic bonding curves, token deployment, and DEX migration is not the most difficult or expensive part today.

What is truly expensive is production-grade security and auditing, data indexing, wallet and terminal integration, anti-bot measures, liquidity, creator supply, user trust, and long-term distribution.

So my judgment is not that "launchpad costs are low, so success is guaranteed," but rather: basic products can iterate quickly, but the ultimate outcome depends on who can establish a distribution and value closed loop that is difficult to replicate.

Flap on BSC is a case worth observing. Four.meme's cumulative scale still leads, and it has already accessed the official distribution entry of Binance Wallet; but this does not mean that other platforms lack space.

As of August 13, 2026, DeFiLlama's same-chain data shows: Flap's trading volume on BSC in the last 30 days is approximately $872.15M, while Four.meme is about $200.33M; Flap is about 4.35 times that. During the same period, protocol revenue was approximately $5.02M compared to $856K, about 5.86 times.

This does not prove that Flap has permanently won—Four.meme's cumulative scale still leads—but it is enough to demonstrate that the advantage of official entry is very important, yet not the conclusion. Flap has found its independent demand through tax/non-tax tokens, creator income, and programmable Vaults.

This is also how I view Blink. It cannot just replicate a token issuance page; it must combine Fomo's identity, Thesis, real user distribution, and transaction retention into a system that competitors find difficult to replicate directly.

7. How This Thesis Can Be Falsified

"Low market cap," "high controversy," or "already destroyed" cannot individually prove value. A low market cap will simultaneously amplify both upside potential and zero risk; destruction is merely value capture after demand occurs, not demand itself.

What I will truly observe is:

• How many net new deposit users Blink can bring to Fomo;

• How many real independent accounts are among the participants, rather than multiple wallets disguising themselves;

• Whether users continue to stay in Fomo after the first launch;

• Whether creators are willing to issue repeatedly;

• Whether the project still has liquidity, transactions, and community after 7 days and 30 days;

• Whether the conversion rate of Thesis to follows, deposits, and transactions has improved;

• Whether fees and token value capture are transparent, sustainable, and verifiable.

If bots and multiple wallets can easily circumvent the rules, if projects die entirely once they leave the blink window, if Blink cannot bring new users and retention to Fomo, then my thesis is wrong.

Conclusion

I have sold $bStocks too early and have previously incurred significant losses due to believing in a grand technological direction. So this time, I do not want to convince myself with "the future will definitely happen."

I am optimistic about Blink, not because I believe the market will suddenly become kind, but because I believe human nature will not change: people will always compete for early opportunities, follow verifiable winners, and invest capital, attention, and identity into judgments they truly believe in.

Fomo is turning transactions into content and performance into reputation. Blink's opportunity is to further transform this reputation and distribution into issuance participation rights while bringing external users back to Fomo.

This is not a completed product, nor is it an investment without risks. It still needs to prove anti-bot measures, real distribution, creator repurchase, user retention, and value capture.

But it at least no longer requires me to believe in a distant technological miracle.

It only requires proving one thing: can this chain that has already begun to operate become stronger?

Disclosure: I hold over 2% of $BLINK and have a clear interest relationship. This article is a personal thesis and does not constitute investment advice. Fomo and Blink are independent platforms, and the product logic described in this article belongs to personal suggestions, not features that are already online or official cooperation commitments.

This content is provided for general informational purposes only and doesn't constitute financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Any events, rewards, online promotions, or related information mentioned herein should not be considered a recommendation, solicitation, or invitation to purchase, sell, trade, or otherwise deal in any crypto assets. Crypto assets are highly volatile and may result in loss. The availability of WEEX services, products, and related events may vary by region. You are responsible for ensuring that your participation is in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations.