By Alina Lee

In March 2025, Poppi made headlines with a $1.95 billion acquisition by PepsiCo that caught the attention of investors and media alike. The prebiotic soda brand, founded by Allison Ellsworth, began in 2018 as “Mother Beverage” — a homemade apple cider vinegar drink sold at farmers markets before landing a spot on Shark Tank.

For years, the soda industry has seen a steady decline, struggling to keep up with growing consumer demand for healthier options. Meanwhile, drinks like kombucha, wellness shots, and gut health supplements have a loyal niche following but are rarely fun or easy to love; most come with a vinegary taste, muted branding, and a vaguely clinical feel.

So how did Poppi manage to combine gut health and soda and turn them into a vibrant, viral brand with mass appeal, especially among Gen Z women? It leveraged the power of TikTok.

In 2021, Ellsworth posted a TikTok video sharing Poppi’s origin story. The video went viral, generating $100,000 in sales within 24 hours. From there, Poppi leaned all in on content. Recognizing the platform’s potential, the company hired a dedicated community manager, shifted a portion of its marketing budget to TikTok, and began experimenting with creator partnerships and trend-driven content. Soon, videos featuring organized fridge restocks, gut health Q&As, and wellness routines highlighting the brightly colored cans helped the brand build an organic following that blended seamlessly into Gen Z and millennial culture. Throughout 2023 and 2024, influencers like Alix Earle, Avery Woods, and Jackie Aina featured Poppi in their GRWM videos, placing the soda squarely alongside beauty staples like Glossier, Milk Makeup, and Laniege, positioning Poppi as just as essential to the daily routine. 

Poppi’s product delivered on its promise — a soda with prebiotic benefits, low sugar, and good flavor — but its brand appeal was just as important. Consumers weren’t just drinking it for the health benefits; they were opting into a lifestyle. The brand also blurred the line between consumer and creator. In 2024, Poppi gifted custom sweatsuits to social media creators as part of a Coachella partnership. Later that year, they launched a limited-edition Target apparel line featuring the drink’s iconic color palette. By capitalizing on the kind of exclusivity that influencer culture thrives on, the company turned its loyal following into a walking billboard for the brand, solidifying the theme of community that had characterized their entire advertising journey. Thanks to TikTok, when you drank Poppi, you didn’t just feel healthier; you felt like you were joining an exclusive club, now with its own merch. 

This “grassroots” influencer marketing approach extended to the brand’s college sorority partnerships, an ideal slice of Poppi’s target demographic. Sororities were already known to post coordinated, high-visibility content during the viral #RushTok recruitment season. By sponsoring events with banners, branded T-shirts, and product samples, Poppi inserted itself directly into that ecosystem and enabled sororities to do the content creation for them. 

As Poppi’s presence grew, so did its celebrity alignment. In June 2023, the brand became the official sponsor of the Miami Pickleball Club, co-owned by Naomi Osaka, Patrick Mahomes, Kygo, and others, tapping into one of Gen Z and Millennials’ fastest-growing sports. Less than one year later, in February 2024, Poppi dropped a Super Bowl commercial (its first-ever national commercial, and the most-watched ad of the game), capturing 29.1 million views. Then came their partnership with 7-Eleven, which they celebrated with an interactive 7-Eleven pop-up complete with slushies, merch, and Instagram-ready installations. Their earlier pop-ups — Hamptons houses, U.S. Open collabs, Bloomingdale’s with Marc Jacobs — had already been blurring the line between soda and lifestyle.

Now, in 2025, it’s clear that behind the aesthetics was a deliberate strategy. Poppi spent years building brand loyalty with a very specific audience in mind: Gen Z and Millennials, particularly Gen Z and Millennial women. From TikTok to Target shelves, every move was designed to meet that demographic where they already were and make them feel like the brand was built for them.

In the end, Poppi’s success didn’t come from simply creating a new category. Their ability to organically embed themselves within Gen Z internet behavior was a crisp execution of marketing fundamentals: know your audience, speak their language, and show up where it matters. Rather than chasing trends, Poppi positioned itself to become one, prioritizing community-building and continually reinforcing those bonds through relatable content and experiences. And in doing so, it showed what it takes to build the next generation of consumer brands. 

By Alex Yang

Imagine receiving $100 for your birthday. How would you decide to use it? Would you splurge on an extravagant meal, deposit it into a savings account, or put it towards monthly expenses? Behavioral economics suggests that you’re more likely to spend this money impulsively compared to money you earn through your salary.

This tendency is explained by a concept known as mental accounting, introduced by economist Richard Thaler. Mental accounting refers to the way individuals categorize and value financial transactions based on their source or intended use. Rather than viewing all money as fungible, people often divide it into mental “buckets”, such as expenses, savings, entertainment, or travel.

Sorting money into different mental accounts may seem like a sensible process, but mental accounting can drive individuals to make irrational, often arbitrary decisions. Take, for example, someone who maintains a savings account earning little to no interest while also carrying substantial credit card debt. Despite the high interest rates on credit cards, they may be reluctant to dip into their savings to alleviate their debt, ultimately reducing their net worth. Here, the money in savings is treated differently compared to the money used for repayment, despite the financial gains that may result from using the savings.

Thaler identifies three key components that form the basis for mental accounting, the first of which covers how individuals perceive outcomes. Thaler gives the example of his friend who went to buy a double-sized bedspread. The department store offered double, queen, and king-sized bedspreads priced at $200, $250, and $300, respectively, all discounted to $150 due to a sale. Although needing a double-sized bedspread, the woman ultimately chose to purchase the king-sized one, perceiving more value in the $150 discount than the $50 she would have otherwise “saved”. Her mental account weighed the deal more heavily than the fit or practicality of the item.

The second component involves how people assign finances. Expenditures are grouped into categories and assigned different mental accounts, with individuals placing more emphasis on some accounts than others. The earlier example of an individual juggling a savings account and a mountain of credit card debt illustrates this well. Having dedicated one portion of his funds to savings and another to repayment, this individual failed to recognize the financial benefits of using the savings to pay off his debt. A bias stemming from this is the windfall effect, or the tendency to spend unexpected income more impulsively. Case in point: Tax returns. Individuals often treat tax returns as “found money”, or funds that don’t fit into their financial plans, and spend them lavishly. Despite the fact that tax returns represent overpaid money returned to the taxpayer, many individuals treat the funds as disposable income, spending them on entertainment or travel instead of allocating them thoughtfully as they would regular income.

Additionally, mental accounting involves choice bracketing – how frequently people evaluate their mental accounts. These accounts can be assessed daily, weekly, or yearly, and can be defined narrowly or broadly. The scope at which an account is balanced can provide substantially different anchor points and significantly influence decisions. For instance, a college student buying a cup of coffee every day may consider the $5 spent per day as a negligible purchase. However, considering their yearly $1825 expense and thousands of extra calories consumed, the consequences are no longer so insignificant. 

Another important aspect of mental accounting is the pain of paying, which refers to the emotional responses associated with spending money. This pain varies depending on the timing and method of payment. For example, using cash tends to produce more psychological discomfort than swiping a credit card or using a digital wallet, which feels more abstract and less immediate. Additionally, many consumers experience less pain when a payment is separated from the moment of consumption, such as preordering an expensive product, making the item feel “free” when it is received. Similarly, subscription services reduce the pain of paying, as the cost is mentally written off after the initial payment, hiding any subsequent payments and undermining the true cost of the service. These dynamics highlight how mental accounting can influence not only what we buy, but how we feel when we buy it.

While mental accounting offers a useful lens for observing our everyday financial decisions, it may also distort perceptions and override logical decision-making. Understanding mental accounting is imperative to combating consumer biases and leads to a more rational approach to weighing financial decisions.  

By Ghazal Ismandar

Donald Trump’s return to the presidency marks a turning point for U.S. climate and energy policy — one defined by sweeping deregulation, fossil fuel revival, and a deliberate unraveling of the clean energy agenda. With his administration rapidly dismantling key initiatives from the Biden era, the future of America’s green economy — a sector that has emerged as a cornerstone of innovation, investment, and global competitiveness — now faces unprecedented uncertainty. The economic consequences of this reversal are profound, threatening to stall momentum, undercut job creation, and surrender U.S. leadership in the industries of tomorrow.

Trump’s second term has already seen sweeping actions. On his first day in office, he signed Executive Order 14162, withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement for a second time and terminating all related international climate finance commitments. He also declared a national energy emergency, lifting the moratorium on new liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals, ending the federal electric vehicle (EV) mandate, and accelerating fossil fuel infrastructure projects, including offshore drilling and pipeline expansion (Douglas, year).

In line with this agenda, the Department of Energy has canceled clean energy grants, including projects aimed at reducing emissions in low-income housing and expanding EV car-sharing programs (Knickmeyer, 2025). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), now staffed with oil, gas, and chemical industry lobbyists, has also granted polluters broad exemptions from rules limiting toxic emissions such as mercury and arsenic (McCormick, 2025). Meanwhile, the administration is reviewing the EPA’s endangerment finding — the scientific basis for regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act (Second Presidency of Donald Trump, 2025).
Trump’s offshore wind policy has been particularly aggressive. In January 2025, he signed an executive order halting new leasing and permitting for offshore wind projects and initiated a review of existing projects like New England Wind and Empire Wind, threatening their financial viability (Empire Wind, 2025).

These actions have already begun to chill investment in the clean energy sector. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), passed in 2022, had catalyzed over $200 billion in private investment by early 2024, offering tax credits and incentives for renewable energy, EVs, and domestic manufacturing (International Energy Agency, 2024). However, the Trump administration has paused disbursement of IRA funds and is attempting to claw back climate-related grants, including those from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (Second Presidency of Donald Trump, 2025).

Harvard economist James Stock’s warning remains prescient: “Green energy requires long-term certainty. The risk of regulatory whiplash alone can chill investment even if tax credits remain technically available” (Stock, 2025). These policy reversals are already affecting capital-intensive sectors like solar, wind, and battery storage.

Beyond investment, Trump’s second-term agenda is undermining the broader framework of environmental accountability. His administration is targeting ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) investing, with efforts to restrict its use in federal and state pension funds (Knickmeyer, 2025). Meanwhile, the rollback of pollution protections has raised alarms among scientists, including Gene Likens, who warns that weakened emissions standards could lead to the return of acid rain in the U.S. (Milman, 2025).
Internationally, the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and the slashing of climate finance commitments have weakened global cooperation on climate change. Analysts warn this could trigger a domino effect, encouraging other nations to scale back their own efforts (Setzer, 2025).

While Trump’s supporters argue that deregulation reduces costs and boosts energy independence, the long-term economic tradeoffs are becoming harder to ignore. The global clean energy market is projected to exceed $10 trillion by 2050, and countries like China, the EU, and Canada are aggressively investing to dominate future markets in green hydrogen, carbon capture, and electric transportation (Meyer, 2025). If the U.S. continues to reverse course, it risks ceding leadership in these high-growth sectors.

Trump’s second term is not merely reshaping the trajectory of the green economy — it is actively eroding the policy foundations and market confidence needed for its continued growth. The aggressive dismantling of climate protections, withdrawal from global agreements, and favoring of fossil fuel interests send a clear signal: the United States is retreating from its role as a leader in the clean energy transition. This political reversal may yield short-term economic gains for entrenched industries, but it risks long-term costs that will be far more difficult to recover from — lost investment, forfeited innovation, declining global competitiveness, and mounting environmental damage. In an era where climate leadership defines economic leadership, the choice to step back is not just a policy shift; it is a forfeiture of the future. The green economy, once positioned as a pillar of sustainable growth, now hangs in the balance — not for lack of potential, but for lack of political will.

Sources:
Douglas, Erin. (2025, January 20). Trump Declares Energy Emergency, Pushes LNG and Fossil Fuel Projects. Houston Chronicle. www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/article/trump-energy-emergency-texas-20045343.php. Accessed 29 Mar. 2025.
Empire Wind. (2025). Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_Wind. Accessed 29 Mar. 2025.
Executive Order 14162. (2025). Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_14162. Accessed 29 Mar. 2025.
U.S. Climate Policy and Investment Outlook. (2024). International Energy Agency. . Accessed 29 Mar. 2025.
Knickmeyer, Ellen. (2025, March 6). Trump’s DOE Cancels Clean Energy Grants.. apnews.com/article/cf1dff9ee771c566765e9ca3e3599d91. Accessed 29 Mar. 2025.
McCormick, Erin. (2025, March 27). Trump’s EPA Opens Door for Polluters. The Guardian. www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/mar/27/acid-rain-trump-epa. Accessed 29 Mar. 2025.
Meyer, Robinson. (2025). “What Trump’s Return Means for Climate.” Heatmap News. heatmap.news/politics/trump-climate-second-term. Accessed 29 Mar. 2025.
Second Presidency of Donald Trump. (2025). Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_presidency_of_Donald_Trump. Accessed 29 Mar. 2025.
Setzer, Joana. (2025). Global Climate Action in the Age of Trump. USALI Perspectives. usali.org/usali-perspectives-blog/implications-of-the-trump-presidency-for-global-climate-action. Accessed 29 Mar. 2025.
Stock, James. (2025). Quoted in Meyer, Robinson. “What Trump’s Return Means for Climate.” Heatmap News. heatmap.news/politics/trump-climate-second-term. Accessed 29 Mar. 2025.

By Nathan Balis

The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) — the $62 billion flagship project of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) — entered its second phase late last year, dubbed CPEC 2.0. Designed to connect Pakistan’s Gwadar and Karachi ports to China’s Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, CPEC has been one of Beijing’s most ambitious geoeconomic undertakings. For China, it offers strategic access to the Arabian Sea; for Pakistan, a potential route out of economic stagnation. This analysis examines how the launch of CPEC 2.0 signals China’s continued commitment to the project despite Pakistan’s rising political instability, economic fragility, and internal resistance — all of which test the corridor’s long-term sustainability.

Historical Background:

Few bilateral relationships rival the strategic depth of China and Pakistan’s. Islamabad was among the first to recognize the People’s Republic of China and one of only two nations to stand by Beijing after the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown. The two have consistently backed each other’s positions — from Kashmir and Xinjiang to Taiwan and Tibet — forging a political alignment that laid the groundwork for CPEC’s birth in April 2015.

This relationship provided the foundation for CPEC’s inception, when Chinese President Xi Jinping unveiled his “1+4” vision for Pakistan, focusing on improving Gwadar Port, energy and transportation infrastructure, and industrial cooperation. These initiatives directly addressed Pakistan’s chronic energy shortages and sought to improve highway access to its ports, particularly from Pakistan’s underdeveloped western regions. Key achievements thus far have included the development and construction of Gwadar’s seaport and airport, over 8,000 megawatts of additional power capacity through multiple power plants, and an extensive road network spanning nearly 1,000 kilometers.

CPEC 1.0 and Its Strategic Logic

CPEC serves multiple strategic aims for China. First and foremost, it provides a shorter, land-based alternative to import oil from the Middle East via Gwadar Port, reducing China’s dependency on the Strait of Malacca — a vulnerable chokepoint that sees 80% of its energy imports and could be blockaded in a potential conflict with the U.S. or India. Known as the “Malacca Dilemma,” this dependency has long troubled Chinese strategists.

The corridor also advances China’s internal goals. Economic integration of the Xinjiang region via CPEC is seen as a soft power method to stabilize it and reduce separatist sentiments. Externally, CPEC enhances China’s commercial and naval reach into the Indian Ocean. It supports China’s broader String of Pearls strategy — building a network of commercial and military assets across the Indian Ocean to project power and secure sea lanes.

For Pakistan, CPEC has been marketed as an economic game-changer. It has improved infrastructure, addressed electricity shortages, created hundreds of thousands of jobs, and expanded regional connectivity with Central Asia. Yet concerns remain. Beijing has grown wary of the Pakistan Army’s increasing control over CPEC execution, which raises fears of militarized economic policy. Moreover, insurgents in the Pakistani province of Balochistan have attacked Chinese assets, viewing the project as neo-colonial and exploitative. Financially, Pakistan’s mounting debt burden, of which China is the largest bilateral creditor, has raised alarms. As of 2024, approximately 22% of Pakistan’s $131 billion external debt is owed to China, according to the IMF. Although both governments deny it, Pakistan’s financial dependence has fueled accusations of Chinese debt-trap diplomacy, where opaque loans and economic leverage provide Beijing with disproportionate strategic influence.

CPEC 2.0: New Goals, Same Stakes

Despite these challenges, China is doubling down. CPEC 2.0 marks a strategic pivot from basic infrastructure development to higher-value economic integration through:

–   Developing Special Economic Zones (SEZs) to boost manufacturing, exports, and attract foreign direct investment (FDI) into Pakistan.

–   Facilitating technology transfer to modernize Pakistan’s agricultural sector and increase value-added exports to China.

–   Expanding fiber-optic and digital infrastructure to link Pakistan to China’s Digital Silk Road.

–   Introducing public-private partnerships (PPPs) and local financing to reduce debt dependence on Chinese state loans.

This shift mirrors China’s evolving geoeconomic toolkit: rather than just building infrastructure, it now seeks to shape entire ecosystems of industrial and technological development. As of 2023, bilateral trade between China and Pakistan stood at $23 billion, with China as Pakistan’s largest trading partner and biggest source of imports — further deepening economic interdependence.

However, major questions remain. Pakistan’s political system, being plagued by military dominance and bureaucratic inefficiency, has historically struggled to manage complex reforms. Whether it can effectively oversee SEZs under CPEC 2.0 remains doubtful. Past efforts have faltered due to land disputes, bureaucratic gridlock, and lack of local buy-in. Likewise, the promise of genuine tech transfer often falls short in China’s BRI projects, raising doubts about the long-term industrial benefit for Pakistan.

Regional Implications

By committing to CPEC’s second phase, Beijing has signaled that it views the corridor as a critical geoeconomic opportunity with far-reaching regional implications:

1. Mitigating the Malacca Dilemma

China has thus far been unable to effectively solve its Malacca Dilemma, where rising tensions in Taiwan and the South China Sea have only emphasized the chokepoint’s importance. CPEC 2.0 demonstrates the premium Chinese strategists place on diversifying trade, military, and logistical routes through friendly territory.

CPEC’s significance is further elevated when compared to other faltering alternatives. While the China–Myanmar Economic Corridor (CMEC) once offered a similar path, Myanmar’s 2021 military coup and subsequent instability have slowed progress dramatically. In contrast, despite Pakistan’s volatility, CPEC now stands as China’s most viable westward corridor, offering strategic redundancy and trade security. It demonstrates the increasing importance the CCP places on solving the Malacca Dilemma and developing alternative economic networks.

2. Check on India

India views CPEC as a violation of its sovereignty, since parts of the corridor pass through Gilgit-Baltistan, a disputed region in Jammu and Kashmir. China’s persistent development in this area reinforces Pakistan’s territorial claims, undermines India’s position in bilateral and multilateral forums, and forces India to militarize its northern frontiers, draining strategic bandwidth.

Furthermore, China’s deepening stake in Pakistan’s economy gives Beijing a veto-like influence over Islamabad’s India policy. CPEC 2.0 thus emphasizes its function as a geopolitical buffer zone, constraining India’s freedom of maneuver both regionally and globally.

3. Countering the U.S. Indo-Pacific Strategy

CPEC is also China’s counterweight to the U.S. Indo-Pacific Strategy (IPS), the Quad alliance, and the newly announced India–Middle East–Europe Corridor (IMEC). China aims to promote a regional China-centric trade and logistics network that challenges the dominance of U.S.-backed trade corridors, while its Digital Silk Road initiatives divert countries from U.S.-led tech ecosystems.

Finally, the continuing development of Gwadar Port further raises U.S. concerns over the potential future logistics or dual-use naval base for the Chinese navy (PLAN). This would give China a strategic node in the Indian Ocean that would directly challenge the U.S. 5th Fleet based in Bahrain and Diego Garcia — particularly given its proximity to the Strait of Hormuz, another vital choke point of global shipping.

Conclusion

While CPEC has thus far exemplified the CCP’s geoeconomic strategy through the BRI, the launch of its second phase in 2024 underscores a renewed and evolving set of strategic objectives. Its renewed momentum quashes speculation of Chinese retreat and underscores Beijing’s strategic calculus in the region: to secure access to the Arabian Sea, check Indian influence, and counter the U.S.’s presence in the region.

CPEC has already delivered tangible economic gains for Pakistan — from power generation to port development — and shows no signs of slowing, despite mounting debt concerns and local unrest. In fact, China’s willingness to continue investing amid instability may reflect the very logic of its so-called debt-trap diplomacy: creating long-term political leverage through economic dependency.

Understanding China’s evolving relationship with Pakistan — and the deeper logic behind CPEC’s expansion — is essential for evaluating both regional dynamics and the future of geoeconomic competition across Asia.

By Owen Miller

On Jan. 17, 2025, three days before Inauguration Day, U.S. President Donald Trump released a cryptocurrency called the Trump meme coin, which trades under the ticker symbol $TRUMP. Within two days, its market capitalization soared to $15 billion, making the coin more valuable than companies such as Dollar Tree, Logitech, and Moderna. 

Two days after the successful launch of the $TRUMP coin, the first lady released her own $MELANIA coin. Within a few hours, $MELANIA surpassed a market capitalization of $2 billion. 

These “meme coins” demonstrate a fundamental problem within the cryptocurrency market: The price at which a cryptocurrency trades often has little correlation with its intrinsic value or long-term viability as an investment. Unlike traditional investments that generate cash flow and earnings, cryptocurrencies rely solely on perception and speculation. 

“Meme coins” are generally defined as cryptocurrencies created primarily for entertainment value, with limited real-world utility. Outside of $TRUMP and $MELANIA, notable examples include Dogecoin, which has a market capitalization of $53 billion*, and Fartcoin, which represents a measly $1.5 billion* market capitalization. While these names seem comical, the reality is that billions of dollars are riding on their success. Somewhere, someone is anxiously watching Fartcoin’s price action, hoping for life-changing returns. 

Many investors dismiss meme coins as speculative nonsense while simultaneously viewing more established cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, as legitimate assets. Bitcoin, with an immense valuation of $2.1 trillion*, is widely considered to be a safe investment. It is often referred to as “digital gold.” Major companies, like Tesla, and even governments such as El Salvador, hold Bitcoin reserves. 

Bitcoin’s market dominance, however, is built on a paradox. According to popular thought, Bitcoin has real-world utility and is a legitimate store of value. Bitcoin investors claim it is a quick and efficient way to make payments online without a third-party intermediary, such as a bank. Furthermore, since the supply of Bitcoins is capped at 21 million coins, they claim it will act as a natural hedge against inflation. 

However, these two arguments directly contradict each other. One cannot have a means of exchange that is used for everyday purchases but is also meant to be an inflation hedge and speculative asset. With a limited supply, Bitcoin is inherently deflationary. 

Over time, the demand for Bitcoin will theoretically go up forever as productivity and production increase in the underlying economy. However, since its supply is finite, this continuous increase in demand for the currency will also push the price of Bitcoin upward forever. In this scenario, holders would be discouraged from spending their coins today, as holding onto them promises greater value tomorrow. This deflationary nature undermines Bitcoin’s legitimacy as a practical medium of exchange. Government-backed currencies, by contrast, incorporate inflation precisely to encourage spending and other economic activity. The way Bitcoin is structured makes it highly unlikely to be used as a medium of exchange in the future. 

So, with Bitcoin’s value being based largely on perception, how is it any different from $TRUMP, $MELANIA or even $FARTCOIN? Fundamentally, these coins share key characteristics. They are built on blockchain technology, have a fixed supply, and can be transacted while being decentralized. Yet, Bitcoin is seen as a legitimate investment, while meme coins are dismissed as speculation. This distinction is steeped in market perception rather than objective utility. If enough people suddenly decide that $FARTCOIN is as legitimate as Bitcoin, who’s to say it couldn’t surpass Bitcoin’s market cap? Maybe, in the future, we will be paying for gas bills in $FARTCOIN and groceries in Bitcoin. 

The reality is that cryptocurrency investing resembles a popularity contest more than a rational market. Bitcoin leads not because of its inherent supremacy but because it has the most credibility with investors. Bitcoin is the modern-day version of tulips, while meme coins are the weeds. Investors flock to the shinier option, reinforcing its dominance, but that dominance lasts only as long as collective perception sustains it. 

As $TRUMP and $MELANIA have demonstrated, the underlying nature of the cryptocurrency market is concerning. There is little inherent value in any cryptocurrency, from $TRUMP to $BTC. $TRUMP had just as much of a right to be worth $15 billion at its peak as Bitcoin has in its current valuation of $2.1 trillion. Ignoring the mania around these coins, future use cases of crypto do not look bright. Buyers of cryptocurrencies are not investors, but rather speculators, hoping to offload their holdings to someone willing to pay more in the future. The release of recent meme coins has painfully proven that cryptocurrency prices are not driven by real-world utility, but merely the shininess of their appearance.

*All pricing information is accurate as of Feb. 9, 2025