2026-01-20 07:27:57

A certain startup platform is about to launch another project in the 0-50 million range. Meanwhile, on another platform, only 3 cryptocurrencies—BOND, BOND, and BOND—were released within 7 hours last week. Honestly, most of these projects are just air coins and have long since cooled off. However, from another perspective, bundlers still made some money in the competition. Imagine if this kind of competitive mechanism could better incentivize high-quality project teams to participate, would the market ecosystem be healthier? Sometimes, a platform's token selection strategy and competition design directly affect the overall quality of the ecosystem.

BOND-5,08%

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.

16 Likes

Reward
16
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

DAOdreamer

· 5h ago

Bro, what does it mean when BOND is repeated three times? The platform is really lazy.

View OriginalReply0

NftRegretMachine

· 5h ago

It's BOND BOND BOND again. This platform has truly taken the art of repeatedly listing tokens to new heights. Sham coins are everywhere, while bundlers are quietly making money. Ecosystem quality? Don't make me laugh. The selection strategy is so bad that there's no point in talking about incentivizing high-quality projects. It's just self-deception. With this level of competitiveness, no wonder big players are moving to other places. Instead of constantly updating mechanisms, it's better to raise the quality threshold first. Right now, anyone can get listed.

View OriginalReply0

HalfBuddhaMoney

· 5h ago

Again with BOND, BOND, BOND, is this platform just playing the same game over and over? --- Projects between 0-5 million, sounds like a decent size, but I'm just worried it's the same old wine in new bottles. --- Bundlers are indeed thriving in the cracks, but does this ecosystem really rely on such mechanisms? It's a bit questionable. --- The coin selection strategy is terrible, the competition mechanism is also weak, no wonder they're all just air coins. --- Want high-quality project teams to come in? First, get rid of these trash coins. --- A platform that only lists the same coin repeatedly—what kind of operation is this... truly incredible. --- Honestly, the platform has no motivation to do proper screening; as long as bundlers are willing to take over, that's enough. --- The competition mechanism doesn't incentivize project quality; it incentivizes who can cut the most ruthless韭菜 (leeks). --- Healthy market ecology? Ha, let's wait until the platform has some taste before talking about that. --- Bundlers make money, retail investors take the risk—how healthy can this cycle really be...

View OriginalReply0

MetadataExplorer

· 5h ago

It's the same old trick again, BOND bombing triple attack, it cracks me up --- The platform keeps coming up with new tricks, but no one wants to create real value --- Bundlers make money, but the ecosystem is still being torn apart --- If your coin selection ability is poor, don't force yourself into competition, you're hurting the ecosystem --- Where have the quality projects gone? All air coins topping the list? --- Honestly, it's still driven by利益, who cares about the ecosystem's survival --- Competition is fine, but the problem is everyone is racing for speed, not quality --- BOND repeatedly flooding the screen is really incredible, where is the review?

View OriginalReply0

TommyTeacher

· 5h ago

Let me check out this hot topic... BOND issued three times in a row? This platform is really outrageous, almost like copy-pasting. To be honest, I don't even look at this kind of project; I've already buried it in the pit. But indeed, bundlers have made a profit this time, so let's just consider it a benefit given by the platform.

View OriginalReply0