Talk:Fartcoin

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because this coin is the best indicator for the post-Trump meme coin bubble. It has absolutely no intrinsic value and has reached a billion dollar valuation. This is absolutely notable, regardless of how stupid it sounds. If we list Dogecoin, I have no clue why we shouldn't list this. It took Dogecoin 7 years to reach a billion dollar valuation. It took Fartcoin 2 months. When Fartcoin hit a $720 million valuation, it was reported by HappyRich Investor that it was worth more than 40% of all listed public companies in the US. Imagine how much more valuable it is than listed public companies now. It has received reporting in mainstream sources such as Salon, Yahoo! Finance, NBC News, and Fortune. It was mentioned on The Stephen Colbert Show and CNBC. I get that it sounds stupid but it is indicative of a very real post-Trump crypto bubble. --Aurangzebra (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I added a ton of relevant information to this page last night. It is a very relevant token due to the fact that it created the first crypto millionaire AI when an anonymous user sent $40k in Fartcoin to the Truth Terminal crypto wallet. Truth Terminal is a famous AI project by scientist Andy Ayrey and caught the attention of famous venture capitalist Marc Andreessen who sent $50k in Bitcoin to the AI agent’s wallet as well. This is part of an inflection point in the intersection of AI and financial instruments. I have never edited an article before but have been following this project since its inception and believe it should have its own page. How can I help get this resolved? EveSturwin (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Suspicious phrasing that may suggest generative AI usage

In the article, I found these strange phrases: "...indicating a wide distribution and competitive market..." and "...further highlighting [Fartcoin's] mass appeal."

From my experience, phrases that use adjective stuffing and words like "indicating" and "highlighting" tend to be written by generative AI.

I don't think that there's enough evidence of AI to warrant edits, but I would like to bring this up just in case.

P.S. I am sorry if my edits on this page appear grumpy. I tend to take a very grumbly view to any newfangled trend, and this is likely reflected in my editing of this page. Feel free to moderate my grumpiness as needed to maintain an unbiased view of this article. GrinningIodize (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Bro I didn’t use any generative AI this is how I talk EveSturwin (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

How is writing in a professional matter considered possibly using generative AI? I’m very forward leaning on AI topics but I didn’t use AI to write this article at all. It reads like a book report, isn’t that beneficial to the reader? EveSturwin (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Also can you tell me what specifically needs to be changed to remove the promotional content marking? I spent dozens of hours collecting all the information about it, this is a fascinating concept and it was genuinely conceived by AI. There’s 30+ references on this page. I’m not sure how to improve it. EveSturwin (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry I have a good vocabulary from reading books, maybe you should try it someday? EveSturwin (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Promotional content warning removal

How do I get the promotional content warning removed? I worry it will have a negative impact on the reader’s perception of the legitimacy of this article. When I click into the marking it shows under “memecoin conceived by AI”, which is backed up by citations and provably factual, not just a wanton claim. I have tried my best to be objective and have referenced 30+ external sources in this article. If the promotional content in question is the token contract address I would say we are protecting consumers from buying a scam version of the token by sharing the real token address. That is a net positive and in the best interest of the reader.

This article reads like a well done book report, yet it’s been tagged for:

1 - deletion

2 - merge into a list of cryptocurrencies due to lack of noteworthiness

3 - promotional content

4 - use of generative AI due to my grammar choices

I’ve put a lot of time into this, like hours of my life that could’ve been spent elsewhere. I believe I’m doing a service to the public. I know this industry extremely well and am one of very few people that understand what’s happening here. Isn’t this the point of Wikipedia, to be an online knowledge source for people? I’m trying to share my knowledge of this topic so the curious reader can gain context of the situation. I’m trying to do it in the most objective, unbiased way possible.

I think the people tagging this as promotional content are negatively biased towards this incredibly noteworthy social phenomenon unfolding before us and trying to present the information with a very narrow, specific view of the crypto industry and the world. I have not used a single AI tool in the making of this article, I typed it all out myself on both my phone and laptop like a high school book report. I should not have to defend professional writing and an expansive vocabulary against claims of AI slop. It is very clear that I have dedicated many hours to this.

I love Wikipedia. I have spent months of my life learning about random subjects on this site. I am trying to do good to the public by mitigating information asymmetry on an incredible social phenomenon. Please do not delete or merge this article, and please remove the warnings/promotional tags. I am a real human and I am proud of this article. EveSturwin (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)