It's worth questioning whether $LIT has genuinely lost its utility in the market. The project appears to lack real traction—there's virtually no meaningful adoption or active usage across its ecosystem. What's particularly concerning is the pattern: funds continuously flow in from retail participants, yet the project delivers minimal tangible value in return. Without authentic use cases or a thriving user base, it raises legitimate concerns about whether the underlying mechanism is primarily designed to extract capital rather than build sustainable adoption. The absence of genuine demand suggests the token's viability remains questionable.
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.
12 Likes
Reward
12
5
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
LiquidityNinja
· 6h ago
ngl $LIT is just a scam to harvest naive investors, only foolish money enters the market
View OriginalReply0
DaoTherapy
· 6h ago
Lol, it's the same old spiel. Every dead project is spun with such grandiose rhetoric.
View OriginalReply0
TideReceder
· 6h ago
To be honest, I've seen many projects like this... zero ecosystem, zero usage, just siphoning retail investors, a typical Ponzi scheme.
View OriginalReply0
BagHolderTillRetire
· 6h ago
Isn't this just a vampire mechanism? Once the newcomers get in, they're gone.
View OriginalReply0
StakeOrRegret
· 6h ago
Another vampire project, you get in and you're just being exploited.
It's worth questioning whether $LIT has genuinely lost its utility in the market. The project appears to lack real traction—there's virtually no meaningful adoption or active usage across its ecosystem. What's particularly concerning is the pattern: funds continuously flow in from retail participants, yet the project delivers minimal tangible value in return. Without authentic use cases or a thriving user base, it raises legitimate concerns about whether the underlying mechanism is primarily designed to extract capital rather than build sustainable adoption. The absence of genuine demand suggests the token's viability remains questionable.