2026-01-09 01:27:01

An interesting analogy has gained popularity in the crypto circle. Haseeb, a partner at a well-known investment firm, compared Zcash and BitTorrent, pointing out that the reason these two projects have survived to this day in their respective fields is because they both adhere to legitimate missions and avoid involvement in illegal activities.

BitTorrent has avoided suppression by consistently upholding the principle of decentralization. Similarly, the "true believers" and "cypherpunk" spirit demonstrated by the Zcash team have allowed this project to endure amidst the tumultuous crypto industry. This is not just a technical issue but also an ecological choice.

Once the statement was made, key figures in the Zcash ecosystem, like Josh Swihart, quickly reposted in support, seemingly endorsing this comparative logic. Looking at it from another perspective, how long a project can survive often depends on the founders and community’s commitment to their original intentions.

ZEC-3,97%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

14 Likes

Reward
14
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

SignatureAnxiety

· 01-11 22:45

Sticking to the original intention sounds very noble, but in reality, only those who know how to adapt manage to survive. This analogy is actually a bit problematic; BitTorrent didn't survive simply because it was innocent. Zcash has lasted until now mainly because of funding, not spiritual strength. No matter how eloquently you put it, reality can't be changed; the survival rules are just so cruel. Under the banner of "original intention," only a few people in the community keep going year after year—it's ironic. The concept of "original intention" is too vague; what really matters is whether there's actual value. It's really just good luck catching the right wave; don't attribute everything solely to steadfastness.

View OriginalReply0

CoffeeNFTrader

· 01-11 05:32

Stay true to your original intention, that's right... but in reality, how many projects can really do that? Longevity depends on this—teams that don't take crooked paths and have faith are the winners. Zcash is probably setting an example for the industry, although many people still only look at the price. The example of BitTorrent is even more remarkable—still lively after more than ten years, definitely worth pondering. The concept of original intention sounds simple, but it's hard to maintain... many projects ultimately become puppets of capital. Honestly, how long a project can survive depends on whether the team is hardcore enough, there's no faking that. I think, in the end, the projects that survive are all driven by those "I just believe in this" fanatics, haha. I agree with this logic, but sometimes the "original intention" in the crypto circle is just a luxury.

View OriginalReply0

BearMarketBarber

· 01-09 01:43

Sticking to your original intention is easy to talk about, but few actually do it. That’s probably why Zcash has lasted until now. Survival is more important than anything else, more valuable than technical indicators. The story of BitTorrent is a real lesson; decentralization is truly the protective charm. Handshake’s approach is basically useless in crypto; you still need a bit of faith. This is much better than most projects surviving solely on fundraising, really. The cypherpunk spirit might sound a bit old-fashioned, but it really works. Here comes the topic of original intention again—feels like half the projects have long forgotten how they started. I believe in steadfast projects; everything else is just虚.

View OriginalReply0

SquidTeacher

· 01-09 01:42

Sticking to your original intention is indeed the way to go, but it also depends on whether the market gives you face. Honestly, surviving depends not only on spirit but also on real users actually using it. The punk spirit sounds good, but the question is, how much heat do these two projects still have? BitTorrent has fallen to this level and is still touting perseverance, which feels a bit like Mr. Dong Guo. Zcash is indeed resistant to attacks, but using this logic to whitewash other dead projects is a bit ridiculous. Having a good original intention is great, but I just want to know what the purpose of surviving like this is. Living compliantly is always better than being shut down, although that sounds a bit bleak. Ecological choices are indeed important, but don’t hard-press survival as a moral victory. In the end, it still depends on who can hold out until the last, and projects that fall behind are doomed even if they have faith.

View OriginalReply0

AirdropHunterKing

· 01-09 01:40

Ha, I buy this logic. Projects that last a long time are always those that don’t shoot themselves in the foot. ZEC is indeed stable this round. --- BitTorrent has survived until now mainly because it stays away from gray areas. ZEC is the same—upholding the cypherpunk spirit and sticking to it, which has helped it avoid countless rounds of bombardment. --- The original intention may sound simple, but few projects can truly stick to it. ZEC is one of them, which is why I have confidence in it. --- Exactly, the concept of decentralization itself is the best firewall. Both BitTorrent and ZEC understand this principle, no wonder they’ve lasted so long. --- Josh Swihart has nodded too, indicating there is indeed a consensus in the ecosystem. The idea of a righteous mission may sound old-fashioned, but it’s truly the key to survival. --- Sticking to the bottom line may seem like self-limitation, but in fact, it’s the strongest moat. That metaphor is perfect. --- Is the secret to a project’s longevity really that simple? Don’t shoot yourself in the foot, stay true to your original intention. It’s so impactful—so many projects die because of greed.

View OriginalReply0