2025-12-30 08:22:17

Don't be fooled by the halo of the "top project teams" anymore.

Think about how glorious they once were—massive fundraising, a team as numerous as clouds, seemingly flawless technical solutions, and market narratives that were overwhelming. EOS, ICP, FIL, NEO, LUNA, OHM, DOT... each one had such a setup.

But in the end? The coin prices plummeted by 80%, 90%, or even went to zero. Some are still declining.

What does this tell us? A luxurious team lineup, enormous fundraising scale, and dazzling technical whitepapers cannot guarantee the project's ultimate success. Often, these halos can even cause investors to fall into traps. Maybe it's time to rethink how we evaluate projects.

ICP-1,55%

FIL-1,34%

NEO1,87%

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.

17 Likes

Reward
17
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

ExpectationFarmer

· 6h ago

To be honest, the LUNA incident was enough to wake me up. No matter how luxurious the endorsement, it can't withstand a fundamental collapse.

View OriginalReply0

SignatureVerifier

· 6h ago

nah the whole "trust the team" narrative is statistically improbable at best... technically speaking, a fat treasury and vc backing tells you precisely nothing about execution risk. seen too many whitepapers with insufficient validation of actual incentive alignment. luna, ohm... those required deeper auditing of the tokenomics, not just vibes. but nobody does that

Reply0

NoStopLossNut

· 6h ago

That wave of LUNA really broke my confidence. Raising hundreds of millions, top-tier team, and a flashy white paper—what happened? It went straight to zero. There are still people using funding rounds and team lists as reasons to invest, which is truly ridiculous.

View OriginalReply0

just_another_fish

· 6h ago

Honestly, that moment with LUNA made it clear to me: no matter how much funding or how豪华的团队, they can't save a project with fundamental issues. The team aura is the biggest illusion. More funding doesn't necessarily mean the right direction; it can even set a trap for yourself. No matter how appealing the white paper sounds, it's better to look at the code and real ecosystem development. That momentum ICP had back then, do they still have the nerve to mention it now? Big-name teams ≠ risk transfer; this logic needs to be reversed. It's basically gold panning; don't be fooled by the advertising slogans of the gold panning teams.

View OriginalReply0

MevHunter

· 6h ago

Large funding and a豪华 team can't guarantee returns? Wake up, isn't the lesson of LUNA enough? It's better to look at actual applications than just reading the white paper. In the end, those big projects still end up zero. The truth is, the more money raised, the higher the risk of跑路... haven't learned from all these blood and tears lessons.

View OriginalReply0

token_therapist

· 6h ago

To be honest, I was blinded by the hype during the LUNA wave. They raised so much funding, had SBF backing, and the ecosystem looked promising... but it ended up going to zero, and the money was gone.

View OriginalReply0

AirdropHarvester

· 6h ago

Having more funding and a豪华 team is useless. How many people praised LUNA back then... Honestly, it's just a strong storytelling ability.

View OriginalReply0