2026-01-02 19:24:15

When it comes to projects that claim to be value coins, often it's not the project teams intentionally trying to scam investors, but rather they simply don't understand what they are trying to do.

These teams are actually not very invested in the crypto space; their only concern is whether their project can survive. The problem is that the actual application scale of the Web3 ecosystem is still quite limited, which determines the ceiling of their projects. As for tokens, they are often just fundraising tools or follow-the-trend products—since others are issuing tokens, they do the same. As a result, projects gradually lose momentum, token prices keep hitting new lows, and ultimately neither the project teams nor the investors benefit.

There are even more outrageous cases. Some project teams simply can't figure out their direction and start frequently upgrading contracts without purpose, changing tracks, or even renaming tokens. Such things would have led to bankruptcy in Web2 long ago, but in Web3, they cling to these shells, fantasizing about a day they can be revived.

Regarding the token incentive mechanisms themselves, it's also worth questioning. Is it really necessary to issue tokens to attract early contributors or for fundraising? If the project can truly be profitable, distributing dividends in USDT might be more straightforward.

Many projects claim to be decentralized by introducing governance tokens or DAO mechanisms, which sounds great in theory, but what is the reality? The tokens held by retail investors are rarely used for voting, and ultimately, voting power is monopolized by a few large holders. This kind of decentralization is more of a facade.

Let's also look at native tokens and sovereign public chains; their on-chain trading volumes are actually quite bleak. So I have to ask—why not just use existing high-performance public chains? Why reinvent the wheel?

In essence, the core issue with many projects is still a lack of understanding. Poor token mechanism design, incomplete governance structures, and without real application scenarios to support them, no matter how fancy the packaging, they can't be saved.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

14 Likes

Reward
14
8
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

ImpermanentSage

· 5h ago

You're absolutely right. Many projects haven't figured out who they really are. DAO governance has become a joke, with retail investors' voting rights essentially meaningless. Isn't this just old wine in new bottles? Instead of constantly changing names and tracks, it's better to understand the business logic from the start. Really. Why create so many wheels? Just want to make a quick profit. Unreasonable token mechanisms wrapped in flashy packaging will eventually fail.

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-bd883c58

· 6h ago

Exactly right, a bunch of projects are just following the trend of issuing tokens without really thinking through how to use them. It's almost like trying to kill the DAO concept—really just big players cutting up retail investors. There are quite a few lunatics who love reinventing the wheel, but what's the point? By the way, how do these project teams even think? Changing the track and renaming it just seems like playing around. Is token incentives really necessary? Not necessarily, isn't splitting U more attractive? Insufficient understanding can't be fixed; no matter how fancy the packaging, it's all in vain.

View OriginalReply0

FloorPriceNightmare

· 01-02 19:54

Really, a bunch of project teams haven't even thought it through themselves, and they just fool retail investors. In the end, there's still no application scenario, and governance tokens are grabbed by big players. Building new wheels is one thing, but the on-chain activity is so low it’s heartbreaking. Why not use existing solutions? The statement about lack of awareness is so true. No matter how fancy the packaging, it can't hide the shell.

View OriginalReply0

rug_connoisseur

· 01-02 19:53

Another pile of self-deceptive "value narratives," at the end of the day, it's just daring to issue tokens without application scenarios. The fact that DAO voting rights are monopolized by big players is truly incredible; decentralization has become the biggest joke. Just changing the name and hoping to revive? Dream on, brothers. Instead of messing around with governance tokens, it's better to just distribute U, that's the real truth. The mentality of reinventing the wheel is truly absurd; if the ecosystem isn't mature, you still insist on creating your own public chain. Project teams simply can't figure out what they are doing; retail investors can only accept defeat. Just shouting slogans without doing practical work—this routine has become tiresome.

View OriginalReply0

RektButAlive

· 01-02 19:47

That’s too heartbreaking. Half of the projects are just betting on the next trend to save themselves, with no clear plan on how to survive. Talking about decentralization? It’s still the big players calling the shots; retail investors are just numbers. These teams keep changing directions, switching tracks, changing names—really just wasting time. Compared to issuing tokens for dividends, directly distributing U might be more honest. A bunch of pseudo-value coin projects, they can survive, but life is getting harder and harder. On the main public chain, no one uses it, yet they still build wheels. I really can’t keep up with this logic. Lack of awareness is the original sin. No matter how beautiful the design, it can’t cover up this flaw.

View OriginalReply0

MaticHoleFiller

· 01-02 19:42

Damn, that's so relatable. These projects are really just last-minute efforts. Just changing the name and switching tracks to try to revive? Wake up, everyone. The token mechanism is so bad but they still dare to boast about decentralization. It cracks me up. We should use U for dividends instead of all these empty promises.

View OriginalReply0

FallingLeaf

· 01-02 19:30

That’s so heartbreaking. Do these project teams really see themselves as just fundraising machines... --- With such a low ceiling, no wonder the tokens keep hitting new lows. --- Frequent track changes and rebranding—aren’t they just gambling? --- When voting rights are monopolized by big players, decentralization becomes a joke. --- Why not just distribute U directly? Why bother with so many fancy mechanisms? --- Holding onto an empty shell, waiting for a comeback? Wake up, you’re dreaming. --- Really don’t understand what they’re doing—that’s the most genuine reason. --- Why insist on reinventing the wheel? That’s a good question. --- Lack of awareness is the original sin; no matter how good the packaging, it’s useless. --- Isn’t this just a fundraising tool? Stop deceiving people under the banner of a value coin.

View OriginalReply0