Not sure if I agree with that. I imagine that some token lockups are really useful to keep contributors motivated over a long period. To be honest, these people who are arguing for memecoin-ification are currently throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The problem has been described as staying private for too long and hence not leaving a profit opportunity for retail. One needs to wonder if private investors should anyways care. In their private investments eventually turn a profit, I highly doubt it matters whether retail found the project attractive in the first few months after token launch. You can look at existing DeFi projects which emitted their tokens over the last 3 years and the successful ones are now bought by retail despite opaque and plentiful emissions. Another problem that I have described is that retail will simply trend towards simpler investments, and if FDV and Mcap are misaligned, they'll keep searching for projects where emissions are easy to understand. That said, just because memecoins are worth more that usual right now, I don't think it is wise to suggest to not have any lockups at all suddenly. That's "New Paradigm" thinking. When a project is in its infancy, I'm pretty sure lock ups can actually be a good thing. At the end of the day, the tokens somehow have to be emitted over time. This is how it has worked for the most successful projects in the space, like ETH and BTC.