Ever since the Pumpfun saga, before the market went into a six-month consolidation, the term “PPP” has really taken off within the community.
“PPP,” or “Player Pump Player,” as coined by @meow , has become a common phrase, often bringing a positive vibe to conversations. It encourages Cadets to watch out for each other—a spirit of support and community that the world could certainly use more of.
That said, I think some of the underlying principles of how PPP works—or how it should work—might be getting lost, and I feel a discussion could help clarify things and get us all on the same page.
With that in mind, I’ll share my understanding of PPP and its real-world application, and I’d love to hear your interpretations as well. Together, we can enrich our collective understanding of what this term really means.
To better understand PPP, let’s first talk about the market itself. In a capitalist society, market participants naturally lean toward decisions that benefit themselves. While this can sometimes be seen as selfish, it’s important to remember that people often have valid reasons for prioritizing their own well-being or that of their loved ones.
Take a food supplier, for example. Investors might put money into the company for their own gain, but that investment could help the company bring food to more communities. The company is acting in its own interest, yet it also improves food access for its customers. These customers, in turn, are thinking about their own needs, but by purchasing from the company, they keep the PPP cycle going—benefiting investors through dividends, the company, and themselves. This is a natural, unforced PPP.
Now, if we were to ask any of these participants to prioritize someone else at their own expense, forgetting their own needs and the future of their loved ones, they’d probably laugh. That would be a PVP situation—where one player loses to lift up another. Forcing PPP in such a scenario; it’s a nice idea in theory, but if it were realistic, we wouldn’t have the issues we see today like wars, hunger, or conflicts.
I’m really looking forward to hearing your thoughts and insights, and hopefully apply it to the concept of Jupuary as well to see if it fits into the idea of PPP or PVP. Additionally, it might be worthwhile to discuss if proper transparency would help the market better understand the alignment with the given proposals.
tldr:
- Investors do things that they believe would benefit the investors.
- Company/Service Providers do things they believe would benefit the company.
- Users do things they believe would benefit the users.
- PPP requires alignment between the participants for it to be possible.
- Bad proposals could possibly create a PVP scenario.
- Is the current concept of Jupuary PPP or PVP, and why?