After this thing launched, I observed it for a while—its design felt refreshingly different compared to other platforms that had become visually monotonous, and it seemed from the start to have secured backing from a group of overseas conspiracy networks eager to mine the first blocks, giving it a real shot at success. But after today’s announcement that no token will be issued, I feel the momentum is essentially gone. It might still survive, but it’s unlikely to become a phenomenon. The main issue is that it has severely disappointed a group of traders who specifically engaged in loss-making mining activities. No matter how well-reasoned the explanation, to them, this feels like a rug pull. Take @machibigbrother, for example—he’s been active since day one and has incurred $779,000 in trading losses, only recouping $390,000 in USDC and 636 million $Paper tokens. He originally expected to profit significantly from Paper’s launch and recoup his losses—but now those tokens have turned into play money. I wonder how he feels about it. Why am I less optimistic going forward? 1. While @papertrade_xyz still retains unique product advantages, its biggest draw—“token narrative + mining”—has been significantly weakened. 2. The token no longer carries external speculative premium, and the mining-to-cashout pathway is effectively shut. Compared to Hyperliquid, its market depth and product diversity are far behind. 3. This sudden change to a core rule has shaken community trust—how can anyone be sure there won’t be another surprise like this down the line?