My point is that there's clear winners and clear runners up in bridge/cross chain. If cross chain was equally benefital then why doesn't Hive or Leo automatically grow users once they bridge over to the other chain? That's why it's clear they saw farming as a better product then their twitter clone.

I completely disagree on that. A cross-chain bridge connecting two chains will improve the utility of both blockchains. We are so early in the development of the space that there is massive room for expansion and adoption. None of the blockchain projects out there are eating each other's lunches. None. For example, BSC or Cardano have much lower fees than Ethereum and are thus more likely to attract a larger number of users than Ethereum. Is this a loss for Ethereum? Not likely because Ethereum is a PoW chain and thus has higher security than either of the two and thus more suitable for much higher-value transactions. Some of the new people adopting BSC or Cardano will become wealthy enough not to be bothered by the high fees on Ethereum.

So it's riding YIELD CRAZE coat tails and putting big hope on users taking notice of Leo. When (imo) the Twitter clone would be the right product for that. So in the end the money game is the money game but the winner chain is Binance.

The introduction CubFinance was quickly followed by the price of LEO jumping 40%. That's most likely because the deposit fees paid by the liquidity providers to some of the pools are used to buy CUB and bLEO and subsequently burned.

The ERC20-BEP20 bridge which is to be launched soon (possibly today) will an easier way to swap ERC20 and BEP20 tokens than anything on the market. The 0.25% fee on each swap will be used to buy and burn CUB and LEO. That will provide a sink for CUB (and LEO) thus creating upward pressure on their prices. The team is planning to introduce other assets and services on CubFinance such as synthetic assets and lending.

Since Hive or Leo doesn't really offer anything unique or significant for the users of Binance to jump over here then I can't help see Leo as somewhat hypocritical.

Hive and Leo offer anyone the ability to monetize their content creation MUCH more easily than on any other platform that has ever existed. On YouTube, you need 4000 hours of your videos played and 1000 subscribers before you can earn a single cent. It's extremely difficult because the competition is stiff. Earning something on Hive/Leo is a piece of cake compared to that. So far, Hive (and Leo) have been novelties on a conceptual level as well as technically more challenging to use than legacy platforms. It is not surprising that they haven't caught on on a large scale. But what that means for us the early adopters that we've been able to grow massively without much competition.

If you like discussing anything with other people - like your trades, why not haul your ass here where they can reward you for great comments monetarily? You have to be brain dead not to get that extremely simple concept. There is no catch. Just ditch Web 2.0 social media platforms where you are being farmed by the companies that own them and start earning on your normal activities here.

The yield craze seems to be their only focus now.

I don't think they've had the same people working on ProjectBlank and CubFinance. It's possible that the former is just delayed for some reason. That would be nothing unheard of in software development. The goal of the team is to build everything.

What is CUB meant to be anyway, outside of a game of money with clear unsustainability. What does LeoFinance have planned for it long term.. farms and Dens can't be it can't it?

I've already talked about the Bridge.

See the roadmap: https://docs.cubdefi.com/roadmap