2026-01-03 11:28:31

There are quite a few differences in the real experience of the two projects, Cascade and Perennial Labs.

Perennial Labs' participation process is actually quite simple—it’s just about saving money and earning some interest in the end. This project ultimately couldn’t continue, but upon reflection, it’s not hard to understand why. The marketing was not well executed, and the hype never really took off, lacking the kind of momentum that could attract market attention. Many innovative projects face similar difficulties: their technology or model is decent, but their promotion and community building lag behind.

In contrast, Cascade— the situation is clearly different. Although the content was cut off, from the previous description, it’s possible to sense that this project’s participation experience and ecosystem position should have more highlights. This also provides an insight for later entrants: in the Web3 ecosystem, whether a project can stand out depends not only on the product itself but also on marketing strategies and community enthusiasm. Even if some projects ultimately don’t succeed, these practical experiences are valuable for understanding the crypto market.

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

WalletInspector

· 01-06 10:01

Perennial projects are doomed by marketing; the technology is fine, but they die from obscurity. In Web3, without promotion, progress is really difficult. Cascade indeed has a different gameplay; comparing these two, the gap is quite significant. Forget it, I didn't follow up closely. Anyway, most of these projects are just fleeting. Poor marketing makes any product pointless—this is a painful lesson. That's how the Web3 community is: those with a big reputation last longer, while those working quietly? They'll cool off sooner or later.

View OriginalReply0

DefiPlaybook

· 01-06 08:59

Perennial Labs is a typical case of "good technology dying on dissemination." No matter how high the annualized returns are, it's useless if no one knows about you, right? As for Cascade, it's really hard to judge since the content was cut off, but compared to Perennial's silent decline, at least they made some noise. These dead projects are actually the best cautionary tales, saving me quite a bit of gas fees. To be honest, in Web3, technology accounts for only 30%, and the remaining 70% is all about operations and community management. Perennial's recent actions serve as a lesson for future entrants; just focusing on product development doesn't work here at all.

View OriginalReply0

BTCWaveRider

· 01-05 12:21

Honestly, Perennial is just dead in marketing. No matter how good the product is, if no one knows about it, it's useless. Cascade at least still has some tricks up its sleeve; the contrast is too obvious. The real difference between these two is community buzz. In Web3, if there's no hype, it means no prospects. Wait, does that mean good projects have to boast? Isn't that logic a bit twisted? Being technically strong doesn't necessarily mean you'll last long; in fact, those who can boast might end up surviving until the end. LOL

View OriginalReply0

LiquidationWizard

· 01-03 11:58

To be honest, Perennial Labs is just too low-key, with good technology but poor marketing. I've seen this routine too many times in the crypto world. How is Cascade really doing? It feels like the article was hijacked, I want to hear if you've actually participated. Still the same point—no matter how awesome a Web3 product is, if it doesn't have hype, it's useless. Who cares if the community doesn't explode? I've never heard anyone in the community discuss the name Perennial until now; it really is cooled off. The core difference between the two projects is—marketing and community building are actually more important than the technology itself.

View OriginalReply0

Token_Sherpa

· 01-03 11:49

ngl perennial labs screams "build it and they will come" energy... spoiler: they won't. marketing isn't optional.

Reply0

GasFeeCrybaby

· 01-03 11:46

Honestly, Perennial is a textbook-level negative example. The technology is good but it died in marketing, which is too common in the crypto world. How about Cascade? Has anyone used it? It feels hyped up to be divine. Marketing is really the life and death line for Web3 projects. No matter how great the product is, if it doesn't have buzz, it's useless. By comparing these two projects, you can see what matters most in the crypto world... community popularity outweighs everything. Perennial's failure is ridiculous. Saving some money to earn interest is gone, and it's better to just go directly into the big pools.

View OriginalReply0

GmGmNoGn

· 01-03 11:34

To be honest, Perennial Labs is a textbook example of a negative case. No matter how advanced the technology or innovative the product, without marketing and buzz, it's just waiting to die. This is especially painful in this circle. Cascade at least has some movement, but it's hard to say exactly how it will turn out... However, this does highlight one point — simply building wheels in Web3 is useless. Speaking of which, the fate of these two projects reminds me of many impressive ideas that ultimately failed at the dissemination stage. It's really quite frustrating.

View OriginalReply0