Except crypto natives, there are many people in the market who are sometimes be defined by the public as “market absolutists”. They have their own recognized truths, and together with other genres, they form a diverse market.
Market absolutist is actually more of a pragmatism: they believe every existence is reasonable, therefore, they do not think decentralization is important and significant. As they are not so obsessed with innovation, the marketeers even fork a lot of projects and may do very well. For example, AAVE was a peer-to-peer lending project, and it performed not well in the bear market. However, it forked the emerging lending protocol Compound afterwards, and surprisingly performed nearly as good as Compound. In the view of the marketeers, what's valuable is the user base and the user demand for the project. What is valuable in the marketeers is the user base and the users’ demand for the project. As for whether it's an exchange or Bitcoin or DeFi, they don't care much. They will go where the demand is. Moreover, market absolutists don't necessarily accept a "law", they feel it's too dogmatic or too far away to be as real as survival. The market absolutists have adopted various means to promote the popularity of users and keep lowering the cognitive threshold of the blockchain world, eventually attracting many laymen and participants from the traditional world.
For example, the explosion of NFT is basically driven by the market absolutists. Since NFT doesn't need to trace much of the principle behind blockchain, just mention the phrase "immutable" and people can make a big fuss about JPG\TXT and make it a hype. In fact, some people even sell it to their own people to increase the volume of transactions and attract more people to play with it, but it has created a craze in the blockchain world.
It can be said that the crypto natives have taken something from 0 to 1, while the market absolutists have taken it from 1 to 100. They have done a lot to try and contribute to the promotion of the blockchain world. However, there are some shortcomings in the market absolutists. Too often, they make concessions to their principles for the sake of immediate "survival," and this kills the possibility of long-term success. Or rather, they don't realize what the blockchain is really doing. However, the fundamental difference between the valuation models of blockchain projects and the traditional internet companies makes it possible for them to eventually exit the stage of history quietly. We think EOS is a typical example. For better user performance. It dissipated its insistence on decentralization and eventually made a pseudo-blockchain project. Although EOS was once so prosperous that it reached half of the market value of ETH, it has since fallen to less than 1%.
Market absolutists fail to realize that blockchain is not reaching a local equilibrium, not solving uncertainty for a specific group of people, but creating a general equilibrium, solving uncertainty at the human system level, just like what NEST is doing. NEST believes solving human trustworthiness is far more valuable than solving the availability of some people. For instance, Bitcoin hasn't spent a dime on usability in a decade, yet it invests tens of billions a year to improve trustworthiness, and that hasn't seen any project designed specifically to address this weakness take its place. On the other hand, the fork coin BCH, which was designed to solve the usability of the block, ended up losing from 40% of its market value to less than 1%, which is really a lesson for the market absolutists.