BONEUSDT
Bone / Tether USD
crypto Composite

I think the post has a genuinely interesting thesis, but it mixes a strong product idea with some assumptions about token economics that need more scrutiny.
What I like
1. “SHIB-first consumer app” is the right direction conceptually.
The strongest part is actually the idea of hiding the blockchain complexity from ordinary users:
user pays $25 → merchant gets dollars/stablecoin → settlement happens on Shibarium → rewards happen in the background
That is much more compelling than asking someone to become a crypto user just to use SHIB.
And the infrastructure for this isn't purely hypothetical. Shibarium is EVM-compatible, uses BONE as its gas/staking token, and Shib's documentation now includes gas-abstraction tooling through Shib Paymaster, which can sponsor gas or allow ERC-20-based gas payments.
2. The “demand → activity → burns” framework is much better than simply saying “burn more SHIB.”
That's an important distinction.
A sustainable token thesis would ideally look like:
Useful product → users → transactions → economic activity → token demand/fees → some value captured by SHIB → burns
rather than:
burn SHIB → hope scarcity → hope price rises
The latter isn't an economic engine by itself.
3. Building on Shibarium rather than creating another chain makes sense.
There's already infrastructure, wallets, developers, liquidity, and an ecosystem. Starting from scratch would add enormous friction.
Where I think the post is weakest
The biggest issue is this sentence:
“Make SHIB necessary.”
That's the hardest part by far.
A payment system could use SHIB in the background without requiring customers to hold SHIB. In fact, for a normal consumer, that's probably preferable.
And there is an important technical distinction the post glosses over: BONE is Shibarium's native gas/staking token, not SHIB.
So if someone says:
“More Shibarium transactions = more SHIB demand”
that doesn't automatically follow.
The existing burn architecture does connect Shibarium activity to SHIB burns: fees accumulate in BONE and are ultimately used to acquire/burn SHIB.
But burning SHIB and creating demand for SHIB are two different things.
That's an extremely important distinction.
The really interesting version
I'd modify the proposal from:
“Make people need SHIB.”
to:
“Make SHIB the economic asset that benefits from people using the ecosystem.”
For example:
Activity User sees SHIB ecosystem gets
Pay merchant Dollars/stablecoin Network activity
Hold SHIB Rewards/benefits SHIB demand
Use SHIB rewards Discounts/cashback More circulation
Merchant accepts SHIB Lower costs/rewards More utility
Game/app subscription Normal UX SHIB-based economic activity
Shibarium transaction Invisible blockchain Fee → burn mechanism
That is much more realistic.
And there's one major business problem
Payments are brutally competitive.
A SHIB payment app isn't competing only with other crypto projects. It's competing with:
Visa/Mastercard
Apple Pay/Google Pay
PayPal
Cash App
Venmo
bank transfers
stablecoins
So “it's cheaper on Shibarium” isn't sufficient.
The product would need to offer something users and merchants actually care about: better rewards, cheaper cross-border payments, loyalty, settlement speed, merchant economics, or some combination.
The UX should basically be:
“Pay normally. Get better rewards.”
not:
“Connect wallet → acquire BONE → bridge assets → select network → approve transaction → pay gas.”
The latter defeats the whole thesis.
One thing I'd definitely change
I'd also be careful with the idea that burns inherently create price appreciation.
They can reduce supply, but the economic effect depends on the size of the burn relative to supply and whether there is sufficient sustained demand. Even Shib's own recent explanatory material acknowledges that burns don't guarantee price increases.
So I'd view the burn as a value-capture mechanism, not the product itself.
My overall take: the post's product thesis is considerably more interesting than its “SHIB must become necessary” thesis.
If someone actually built a polished SHIB-powered Venmo/loyalty/payment ecosystem where the user never has to understand crypto, and where measurable economic activity feeds value back into the ecosystem, that would be a much more substantive proposition than simply increasing the burn rate.
The critical question I'd ask next is:
“Exactly where does $1 of economic activity enter the system, and how much of that $1 ultimately creates demand for—or removes supply of—SHIB?”
If you can answer that quantitatively, the idea becomes much easier to evaluate.

I think the post has a genuinely interesting thesis, but it mixes a strong product idea with some assumptions about token economics that need more scrutiny.
What I like
1. “SHIB-first consumer app” is the right direction conceptually.
The strongest part is actually the idea of hiding the blockchain complexity from ordinary users:
user pays $25 → merchant gets dollars/stablecoin → settlement happens on Shibarium → rewards happen in the background
That is much more compelling than asking someone to become a crypto user just to use SHIB.
And the infrastructure for this isn't purely hypothetical. Shibarium is EVM-compatible, uses BONE as its gas/staking token, and Shib's documentation now includes gas-abstraction tooling through Shib Paymaster, which can sponsor gas or allow ERC-20-based gas payments.
2. The “demand → activity → burns” framework is much better than simply saying “burn more SHIB.”
That's an important distinction.
A sustainable token thesis would ideally look like:
Useful product → users → transactions → economic activity → token demand/fees → some value captured by SHIB → burns
rather than:
burn SHIB → hope scarcity → hope price rises
The latter isn't an economic engine by itself.
3. Building on Shibarium rather than creating another chain makes sense.
There's already infrastructure, wallets, developers, liquidity, and an ecosystem. Starting from scratch would add enormous friction.
Where I think the post is weakest
The biggest issue is this sentence:
“Make SHIB necessary.”
That's the hardest part by far.
A payment system could use SHIB in the background without requiring customers to hold SHIB. In fact, for a normal consumer, that's probably preferable.
And there is an important technical distinction the post glosses over: BONE is Shibarium's native gas/staking token, not SHIB.
So if someone says:
“More Shibarium transactions = more SHIB demand”
that doesn't automatically follow.
The existing burn architecture does connect Shibarium activity to SHIB burns: fees accumulate in BONE and are ultimately used to acquire/burn SHIB.
But burning SHIB and creating demand for SHIB are two different things.
That's an extremely important distinction.
The really interesting version
I'd modify the proposal from:
“Make people need SHIB.”
to:
“Make SHIB the economic asset that benefits from people using the ecosystem.”
For example:
Activity User sees SHIB ecosystem gets
Pay merchant Dollars/stablecoin Network activity
Hold SHIB Rewards/benefits SHIB demand
Use SHIB rewards Discounts/cashback More circulation
Merchant accepts SHIB Lower costs/rewards More utility
Game/app subscription Normal UX SHIB-based economic activity
Shibarium transaction Invisible blockchain Fee → burn mechanism
That is much more realistic.
And there's one major business problem
Payments are brutally competitive.
A SHIB payment app isn't competing only with other crypto projects. It's competing with:
Visa/Mastercard
Apple Pay/Google Pay
PayPal
Cash App
Venmo
bank transfers
stablecoins
So “it's cheaper on Shibarium” isn't sufficient.
The product would need to offer something users and merchants actually care about: better rewards, cheaper cross-border payments, loyalty, settlement speed, merchant economics, or some combination.
The UX should basically be:
“Pay normally. Get better rewards.”
not:
“Connect wallet → acquire BONE → bridge assets → select network → approve transaction → pay gas.”
The latter defeats the whole thesis.
One thing I'd definitely change
I'd also be careful with the idea that burns inherently create price appreciation.
They can reduce supply, but the economic effect depends on the size of the burn relative to supply and whether there is sufficient sustained demand. Even Shib's own recent explanatory material acknowledges that burns don't guarantee price increases.
So I'd view the burn as a value-capture mechanism, not the product itself.
My overall take: the post's product thesis is considerably more interesting than its “SHIB must become necessary” thesis.
If someone actually built a polished SHIB-powered Venmo/loyalty/payment ecosystem where the user never has to understand crypto, and where measurable economic activity feeds value back into the ecosystem, that would be a much more substantive proposition than simply increasing the burn rate.
The critical question I'd ask next is:
“Exactly where does $1 of economic activity enter the system, and how much of that $1 ultimately creates demand for—or removes supply of—SHIB?”
If you can answer that quantitatively, the idea becomes much easier to evaluate.

You wanna see a picture of MY BONE? loool sike

And don’t forget to load up on BONE and DOGE KILLER too. 😂
Because apparently one struggling dog token wasn’t enough — we needed the whole kennel.
SHIB, BONE, LEASH… sounds less like an investment ecosystem and more like somebody lost control at PetSmart.
“Utility is coming.”
“Burns are coming.”
“Mass adoption is coming.”
Meanwhile the portfolio looks like it got hit by animal control.
What a whopping success. 😂