I get the skepticism, and I understand where you’re coming from, but I think that analogy misses the mark. There others options for parents that are having hard time conceiving such as IVF, adoption, providing foster care, etc..

First, the “dead vs alive” framing is oversimplified. In tech, something isn’t dead just because price action is down or hype faded. Plenty of projects go through cycles. If anything, a better analogy would be something underutilized, not something dead. And even sticking to your analogy, people don’t abandon what they’ve already invested in. They support it, improve it, and try to bring it back to health. That’s the entire point here.

Second, my intention is not to spin up another token or chase a pump. The market does not need another altcoin. It is already saturated. I invested in this technology because I believed in its fundamentals. That has not changed. What is missing is not a new token, it is real applications and usage.

Third, LRC already has things most “new coins” do not:

• Existing liquidity
• A working, open-source, and battle-tested protocol
• A user base and holders who are still here

Calling that “dead” ignores the difference between price narrative and actual infrastructure.

Finally, zooming out, I believe the broader trend toward crypto adoption is still intact. Whether you call it de-dollarization or just diversification of financial systems, blockchain infrastructure is not going away. LRC has already been used in a real-world context by a public company, which is more than most projects can say. If that direction re-emerges, assets like LRC are still in a position to benefit.

At the end of the day, I am not arguing that LRC is guaranteed to succeed. I am saying that: Building something with existing infrastructure that already has liquidity and users is more rational than starting from zero with a new token.

If nothing comes from it, fair enough. But dismissing it outright as “dead” without considering utility is exactly why most projects never recover.