Of course, you are defining Dogecoin's success by how much capital people deposit into DeFi protocols, which introduce varying degrees of additional risk for their users. And, of course, that happens to be exactly the business your company wants to build. Dogecoin was never meant to be Ethereum or Solana. It grew up (for some) with the promise of being a funny decentralized, permissionless currency. Others, saw (and still see it) as something worth hoarding. But in the end, simplicity is one of its greatest strengths, not a deficiency. That's also what attracted some of your own heroes to it in the first place. Also, TVL is certainly not a measure of how good a currency is. Locking more $DOGE into two thousand crappy, poorly maintained financial apps like those on ETH or SOL (each risky in its own way for users, now more than ever, because transferring risk onto uninformed users is one of the most profitable business models in crypto) doesn't automatically make it more useful or more valuable for the average user. Of course, I know it's the wet dream of many crypto entrepreneurs, eager, if not seemingly desperate, to get their hands on all that liquidity that ordinary people are holding. Build whatever commercial products you want around Dogecoin, with your owners and colleagues. If they are good, transparent, and worth the risks they introduce, people will use them. Heck, actually people will use them even if they are not good and totally immoral schemes but they create addiction - this is the pumpfun/meme token business model I suspect you enjoy too and that you hope your users will enjoy. Just, don't present your company's business model as something Dogecoin itself NEEDS. That marketing blabbering has no power on many people, including on the billionaires you desperately try to gravitate around.
— Mishaboar (@mishaboar) October 28, 2026
To explain his point, BuidrJ cited that $DOGE has a $12.3 billion market cap and almost none of it is put to work on-chain compared with Ethereum, which has $46.4 billion in DeFi, about 16% of its market cap, and Solana, which has $5.7 billion in DeFi, about 10% of its market cap, while Dogecoin has about $11 million, under 0.1% of its market cap.
BuidrJ stated this is a 100x gap, saying "we are 100x behind other blue chips," adding that "It's not that $DOGE holders don't want to deploy on chain, it's that $DOGE has never had on-chain utility that reinforces TVL growth. That's reflected in the price of all 3 assets."
Mishaboar disagreed with this claim, challenging the idea that DeFi capital defines Dogecoin's success: "Of course, you are defining Dogecoin's success by how much capital people deposit into DeFi protocols, which introduce varying degrees of additional risk for their users."
Dogecoin was never meant to be Ethereum
"Dogecoin was never meant to be Ethereum or Solana," Mishaboar wrote, adding that $DOGE "grew up (for some) with the promise of being a funny decentralized, permissionless currency. Others saw (and still see it) as something worth hoarding."
Mishaboar noted that Dogecoin's simplicity remains one of its greatest strengths: "But in the end, simplicity is one of its greatest strengths, not a deficiency. That's also what attracted some of your own heroes to it in the first place."
"Also, TVL is certainly not a measure of how good a currency is," Mishaboar stated. He also noted that locking Dogecoin in DeFi apps doesn't automatically make it more useful or more valuable for the average user.
Mishaboar highlighted the current need for rigorous code review and security research for Dogecoin. "It also needs more open-source node implementations, open-source private and trust-minimized lightweight wallets reviewed by highly capable engineers, and friendly interfaces to the network that do not try at every step to undermine a user's privacy or the safety of their money," he added.
u.today
