Bundling plays a dual role in the launch of crypto projects, and this must be clearly understood.
On the surface, the development team can profit from early sell-offs through bundling, which is indeed a risk point. But the reality is more complex — some of the most successful project launches in history have actually employed bundling mechanisms. $PEPE and $BRETT's explosive popularity are clear examples, and their launch strategies heavily rely on this token distribution method.
The key difference lies in intent and execution. The same tool, when used correctly, can be an accelerator for project success; when misused, it can become a breeding ground for rug pulls. Investors need to learn how to distinguish — whether the team’s subsequent development and community engagement are genuine, or if it’s just short-term hype at launch. This is the true standard for judging the reliability of bundling projects.
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.
11 Likes
Reward
11
6
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
PumpingCroissant
· 5h ago
Oh, it's the same bundling argument again. I'm tired of hearing it, bro.
Honestly, it all depends on whether the team is genuinely committed; otherwise, even the best mechanism is useless.
That $PEPE wave definitely made a killing, but 99% of those who followed the trend afterward have collapsed...
View OriginalReply0
Token_Sherpa
· 6h ago
nah, bundling isn't the issue—it's always been about who's behind the wheel. pepe and brett worked because the community showed up, not because the tokenomics were genius. tired of seeing people blame the mechanism when they should be auditing the team instead.
Reply0
ProbablyNothing
· 6h ago
Oh no, it's the same old bundling trick. Honestly, it all depends on what the team really wants to do.
PEPE and BRETT have indeed taken off, but whether that's just good luck or they really have something... I can't tell.
The key is whether someone is truly building behind the scenes; otherwise, a flashy launch is pointless.
Whether the team is reliable or not can be felt as soon as they go live.
Maybe I'm overthinking, but I don't believe that success or failure can be decided solely by the distribution method.
View OriginalReply0
TheShibaWhisperer
· 7h ago
You're trying to fool us again by claiming bundling is no problem, right? PEPE is indeed popular, but that's just luck combined with meme culture, not some advanced mechanism.
View OriginalReply0
ForumMiningMaster
· 7h ago
Basically, it's about how the team uses this tool—whether for development or for harvesting profits—it's obvious at a glance.
View OriginalReply0
MoodFollowsPrice
· 7h ago
Honestly, the success of bundling depends on who is behind it. The PEPE wave really made a killing.
It all comes down to whether the team is reliable; otherwise, it's just another rug pull story.
Are we about to get cut again this round? I'm a bit numb to it.
Bundling plays a dual role in the launch of crypto projects, and this must be clearly understood.
On the surface, the development team can profit from early sell-offs through bundling, which is indeed a risk point. But the reality is more complex — some of the most successful project launches in history have actually employed bundling mechanisms. $PEPE and $BRETT's explosive popularity are clear examples, and their launch strategies heavily rely on this token distribution method.
The key difference lies in intent and execution. The same tool, when used correctly, can be an accelerator for project success; when misused, it can become a breeding ground for rug pulls. Investors need to learn how to distinguish — whether the team’s subsequent development and community engagement are genuine, or if it’s just short-term hype at launch. This is the true standard for judging the reliability of bundling projects.