Polygon Labs CEO Boiron: memecoin boom needs curation, not censorship

Polygon Labs CEO Marc Boiron continues to push back against investors’ and traders’ fixation on memecoins. In an interview with crypto.news, Boiron makes the case that the industry is rewarding volume over substance.

Commenting on Base creator Jesse Pollak’s praise for meme-driven onboarding, Boiron says he has no issue with memecoins themselves, rather the lack of reliable discovery is a problem. With more than a million tokens launched and only a few breaking through, he warns the industry is diverting capital and attention away from real infrastructure that is more deserving of capital.

His remedy is curation, not censorship: a decentralized “Google for crypto” that indexes everything while elevating tokens meeting transparent, on-chain criteria, such as liquidity, audits, usage, authentic communities, and more.

Meanwhile, Polygon is prioritizing what it believes to be superior sectors of the crypto industry. This includes payments, stablecoins, and real-world assets and not a memecoin economy.

“Polygon is not trying to be everything to everyone,” he said in the interview.

In the Q&A below, we challenge Boiron on whether the memecoin boom helps or harms the crypto industry, how discovery works without gatekeepers, and Polygon’s plans to reward substance over saturation.

crypto.news: Base’s Jesse Pollak has praised memecoins for sparking a “Cambrian explosion” of on-chain experiments and onboarding “millions more people” into crypto. In contrast, you’ve warned that the industry is overindulging in memecoins and prioritizing quantity over quality. Does this mean you see the current memecoin boom as doing more harm than good, and what do you say to those who view memecoins as a positive force for adoption?

Marc Boiron: The content of Web 3 is tokens. Memecoins are a great way of driving the creation of new tokens. However, just as with Web 2 where information is only valuable when it is high quality, we will, if we have not already, run into that same issue with memecoins. There are too many and deciphering the high quality, valuable ones from others is too difficult. This needs to be addressed. So, there is nothing negative about memecoins as long as they are just that–memecoins–and not pump and dump schemes run by creators of the memecoin. We need to have the right mechanisms to actually make them sustainable and valuable.

In Web3, tokens are at the center of everything, and memecoins have become a fun and popular way to create them. They bring energy, creativity, and even new people into the space. But just like in Web2, where not all information online is valuable, we are starting to see the same challenge with memecoins. There are so many of them that it is hard to know which ones actually have value.
That does not make memecoins a bad thing. They can be great as long as they remain what they are meant to be, a way for communities to have fun and experiment. The problem comes when they turn into pump and dump schemes that only benefit the creators. If memecoins are going to last and create real value, we need ways to separate the meaningful ones from the noise and make sure they are built to last.

CN: You’ve raised concerns about the sheer volume of new tokens being created. Over a million new tokens (many of them memecoins) were launched in just a few weeks this year. Do you believe this flood of tokens is slowing the industry’s progress? Do you believe the noise from countless low-effort coins is actively crowding out genuine innovation, and if so, can you explain how?

MB: With so many new tokens launching, it’s getting harder for legitimate projects to be noticed. All that noise pulls capital and developer attention away from teams that are building real infrastructure. This is not a problem with the creation of new tokens, which should be created as people wish. It is an issue with the discoverability mechanisms for those new tokens.
New innovations and impactful use cases can grow while memecoins exist. We see this from a payments perspective where growth of payments continues to accelerate at a significant pace even as memecoins continue to be created and traded. People will gravitate to the use cases that meet their needs, and it is clear that payments are doing that right now at a major scale.

CN: You’ve said the real problem isn’t memecoins themselves (noting that you trade them too), but the lack of filtering and discovery tools to find the worthwhile projects. Could you elaborate on what effective filtering or discovery might look like in a decentralized context? Are you essentially calling for a “Google of crypto” to index and rank tokens, and how could such a system be built without relying on centralized gatekeepers?

MB: There is a difference between discoverability and censorship. Discoverability, in the form of a “Google for crypto,” will index all tokens and make them discoverable, but the easiest to discover and those most highlighted would be the ones that meet certain criteria to be deemed “high quality.”

CN: You argue that curation is the next wave of crypto infrastructure. Critics might question how “curation” can occur without undermining the open, permissionless ethos of blockchain. Who (or what) should do the curating in a decentralized ecosystem? Can you outline how we can implement curation in a way that rewards substance without imposing censorship?

MB: Curation doesn’t have to mean censorship. In fact, I think of it more as a better discovery. The idea is not to block or prevent anyone from creating a token, but to make it easier for people to find the ones that actually have quality, utility, or strong communities behind them.

In a decentralized ecosystem, that kind of curation could be driven by open criteria that are transparent and verifiable on-chain. For example, factors like liquidity, security audits, community engagement, or real usage could be used to highlight certain tokens. Anyone could still launch anything they want, but the tokens that meet those standards would naturally rise to the top of discovery tools.
Think of it like a “Google for crypto” where everything is indexed, but the most relevant and reliable results are surfaced first. The difference is that, instead of relying on a single centralized gatekeeper, the ranking and filtering could be built with decentralized protocols, open algorithms, and community input. That way, the system rewards substance and helps users cut through the noise without ever closing the door on experimentation or permissionless innovation.

CN: Following up from the prior question, What if anything is Polygon itself doing to support this shift toward better curation and quality in the crypto space? Are there specific tools, platforms, or partnerships in the Polygon ecosystem aimed at improving discovery of high-quality projects or filtering out scams and spam tokens? For example, is Polygon working on infrastructure upgrades, funding third-party innovators, or setting ecosystem standards to encourage projects that prioritize substance over hype?

MB: Polygon does not try to play a role in every vertical. As you’ll notice, Polygon does not have a memecoin economy because it is focused on payments and RWAs,which are the projects that we support. Our work around stablecoins and cross-border payments naturally attracts serious projects that are solving real problems. The Agglayer will also play an important role by creating a unified environment where legitimate projects can demonstrate their utility across chains.

Polygon is not trying to be everything to everyone. For example, you will not see a memecoin economy here because our focus is on payments and real-world assets. Those are the types of projects we support on Polygon. Our work with stablecoins and cross-border payments already brings in serious teams that are solving real problems. Agglayer will add to this by creating a connected environment where legitimate projects can show their value across different chains and some chains on Agglayer, like Katana, will choose to have robust memecoin economies.

CN: Despite the criticism, memecoins were one of if not the most profitable crypto narrative, and at the time of writing CoinGecko tracks over $76 billion in combined memecoin market cap which is up 9% over the past 24 hours alone! How do you reconcile the short-term success (and profits) of memecoins with the long-term health of the industry? Does the influx of capital and users via memecoins have any silver lining, or do you view it primarily as capital and attention diverted away from more productive use-cases?

MB: The top 20 memecoins are about $65 billion in market cap, which reflects a view consistent with a concentration of value in memecoins. With more than 10 million memecoins created, the noise to signal ratio is low. The amount of value lost because of the lack of discoverability of quality memecoins is quite high, which can be implied from 20 out of 10 million memecoins making up more than 85% of all memecoin value ever created.

There is no need to reconcile this dispersion because it is the natural outcome of a completely capitalistic gambling culture. It satisfies the desires of those gamblers and traders, while those who are uninterested can focus on other use cases.

While it does bring a certain amount of negative attention to the industry, it does allow for people to understand the basics of crypto and start exploring other areas that may fit their desires better.

The top 20 memecoins hold about 65 billion dollars in market cap, which shows how concentrated the real value is. Out of more than 10 million memecoins, just 20 make up more than 85 percent of all value ever created. That highlights how much noise there is compared to actual signal.

This does not need to be corrected because it is simply the natural result of a capitalistic, gambling-driven culture. It works for people who enjoy that kind of speculation, while others can focus on use cases that are more practical and meaningful.

While it can bring some negative attention to the industry, it also serves as an entry point. Many people start with memecoins, learn the basics of crypto, and then move on to areas that are a better fit for their interests.

CN: Memecoins, for all their flaws, have shown an ability to capture public imagination and build communities rapidly. Pollak noted “hundreds of sub-cultures” forming around these meme projects that bring “culture and energy” on-chain. What do you think serious projects can learn from memecoins in terms of community engagement and creativity?

MB: Memecoins have really mastered the art of community building and viral growth, and that is something every project can learn from. They create shared narratives and spark genuine enthusiasm. Too often, serious projects put all the focus on technical specs and overlook the human element. But technology adoption is just as much about community and culture as it is about code.

CN: And finally, as a follow up how can the industry channel that enthusiasm toward projects with real utility? Should legitimate projects be incorporating more meme culture or viral marketing, or will curation and education gradually shift user focus to more substantive innovation?

MB: Legitimate projects should absolutely embrace elements that make them more accessible and engaging. Just as important, we need to help memecoin communities see how DeFi, payments, and other utilities can actually enhance their experience. The best education comes through experience. Once users realize they can earn yield, send instant cross-border payments, or access financial services they never had before, they naturally start exploring these use cases. Curation and discovery tools will make this shift even faster by helping people find projects that combine strong communities with real utility.