Why does it seem like people promoting shitcoins are better rewarded than those working on Bitcoin adoption?
Most shitcoins have something Bitcoin doesn't: a marketing budget.
When a project controls a large supply of its own tokens, it can afford to pay influencers, ambassadors, and marketers to spread the word. The incentives are built into the project.
Bitcoin has no company, no ICO, no premine, and no central treasury paying people to promote it.
That means many Bitcoin educators, open-source contributors, merchant onboarding teams, community organizers, and grassroots builders are funded by donations, grants, their own businesses—or simply volunteer their time.
It's an uneven playing field. One side spends money to acquire users. The other spends time building an open monetary network.
Perhaps that's why it's easy to find someone willing to shill the latest token, but much harder to find someone willing to dedicate years to teaching self-custody, running a node, onboarding merchants, or educating their community about Bitcoin.
If we want more people building on Bitcoin instead of chasing the next token incentive, should we be doing more to support Bitcoin educators and grassroots builders?
the same for bet companies, fucked people are looking for easy fiat instead of look for real wealth education, bitcoin education is for freedom and real wealth, not to earn and spend your money with shit.
Scams are profitable for a few insider.
Another point in this is: a bitcoin educator is not primarily focused on earning sats from his "teaching bitcoin", sometimes they have a side job.
Also by teaching more people about Bitcoin, will make them use more bitcoin, that means it make Bitcoin stronger.
Meanwhile shitcoiners are focused only on earning yield immediately and swap to fiat. That means the shitcoin will not get stronger but is just a "passing by" ramp.
The whole strength of Bitcoin stays in creating circular economies, where people demand to be paid in sats and spend in sats only.