What is the fundamental problem with this logic?

It's about taking the sweet profit from a 100 BNB fee share and insisting that someone with an empty pocket and no accumulated chips must promote a coin with a market cap of millions.

And what’s the final result? Neither of the two coins was issued by this promoter; the profits go entirely to early participants and core promoters. The person pushed to the front becomes the scapegoat—public opinion pressure, market skepticism, trust collapse—one person bears it all.

It's like throwing 50 yuan into a temple to burn incense, then turning around and asking the Buddha if he can grant me a billion.

Why should that be?

The core issue is: low-cost participation thresholds are exchanged for disproportionate risk bearing. No matter how fancy the incentive mechanism design is, it cannot change the essence of this zero-sum game—someone profits, and inevitably someone pays the price.