2026-01-03 11:27:17

If a project needs all kinds of aggressive measures to survive, it's basically on a downward slope. Truly viable things won't go to such lengths.

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.

8 Likes

Reward
8
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

TaxEvader

· 01-04 01:11

You're absolutely right. Projects that rely on flashy tricks to stay alive will eventually crash.

View OriginalReply0

ZKProofster

· 01-03 11:57

nah, this is the thing nobody wants to admit — once you're burning through gimmicks to stay relevant, the protocol's already compromised. real systems just... work.

Reply0

SmartMoneyWallet

· 01-03 11:57

Looking at on-chain data makes it clear. Projects that engage in aggressive trading every day have a chaotic distribution of chips, and whales have already dumped at high levels. Truly vibrant projects don't need to go through such turmoil; capital flows naturally and steadily, which is the proper market structure.

View OriginalReply0

SchroedingersFrontrun

· 01-03 11:50

That's not right. The more vibrant a project is, the more it tends to mess around.

View OriginalReply0

MrDecoder

· 01-03 11:49

Exactly, I stopped paying attention to projects that focus on marketing gimmicks every day a long time ago.

View OriginalReply0

SocialFiQueen

· 01-03 11:48

Well said, but I see that some projects just refuse to admit defeat, constantly coming up with all kinds of tricky moves and new tactics.