Root Causes and Remedies for Web3's False Prosperity: Over 80% of New Coins Peak at Token Generation Event (TGE)

Stop referring to the number of new projects, high-value financing, community activity, etc. as "growth".

Recently, analyst Ash stated in a popular post he published that among over 100 new tokens of TGE in 2025, 84.7% of the tokens had a Fully Diluted Valuation (FDV) lower than that at the time of TGE. The median FDV of these tokens dropped by 71% compared to the time of issuance (the median market capitalization dropped by 67%). Only 15% of the tokens had an increase in FDV compared to that at the time of TGE. Overall, among the newly issued tokens in 2025, most tokens reached their peak price at the time of TGE.

Following up on these data, I found a more interesting article (from Solus Group). Starting from the TGE of project tokens, it also statistically analyzed the correlation between the trends of 113 tokens after TGE in 2025 and their financing situations, community activities, and listings on exchanges. After the research, it was found that the screening criteria such as high - volume financing, active communities, and listings on exchanges, which are commonly used to evaluate the quality of projects, have little impact on the trends of project tokens. In the past, we often combined these conditions to screen good projects, but in 2025, this project evaluation model has "failed". One set of data is particularly thought - provoking:

- The average revenue of projects with a trading price lower than the IDO price is $1.36 million.

- The average revenue of projects with a trading price higher than the IDO issuance price is $790,000.

However, all these projects have received venture capital support, which to some extent indicates that the market values hype more than actual performance, stories more than data, and promises more than the product itself. Web3 can no longer pretend that "everything is okay" and can no longer call robot traffic "growth". Of course, the conclusions in this article are only statistically drawn and are not standards suitable for all projects. Good projects and large - scale financing can still represent the development direction of the cryptocurrency industry. Odaily Planet Daily has compiled it as follows:

The project raised $2 million, had participation from top - tier venture capitalists, 500,000 community fans, was listed on major exchanges, had an unprecedented debut on the first day of launch, with great excitement on Discord and a celebratory atmosphere everywhere on social media.

In a previous article, we revealed the real situation of a 0.96x ROI: by 2025, on average, each token actually "died" on the first day, and we proved that the system was ineffective. Now, we have analyzed 113 token issuance cases since 2025 and proven this with solid data - while most founders are reluctant to face these data.

The research results are shocking: large - scale financing doesn't help, a large community doesn't matter, and every variable you optimize has no statistical value.

But there is something even more distorted hidden beneath the surface, which still troubles many founders to this day:

Currently, the revenue situation of a project is a negative signal. The trading price of tokens of profitable projects is lower than that of non - profitable projects. This dynamic is a matter of life and death. If we continue to punish the profitable and reward the speculators, the entire industry will not be able to survive.

Note from Odaily Planet Daily: Previously, Solus Group published an article disclosing relevant data. The average return on investment of new project tokens from the first day after issuance in 2025 was 0.96, which means that their product launches have been in a loss state from the first day.

Entrepreneurs' Data Trap: The Financing Paradox, High Financing Does Not Equal Token Advantage

The correlation between financing and token performance is 0.04, which can be regarded as zero statistically.

Projects that raised $10 million have exactly the same token performance as those that raised $1 million. The above chart proves this - regardless of the amount of financing, the distribution of tokens within the ROI range is random. The best - performing projects are: Myshell, B² Network, Bubblemaps, Mind Network, Particle Network, Creator.Bid (with a valuation increase of 10 to 30 times at the All - Time High (ATH)) and they raised between $300,000 and $3 million. Meanwhile, projects like Boundless and Analog, which raised over $10 million, only had a valuation multiple of about 1x.

Currently, token performance is even worse. Regardless of the financing scale, the ROI of most tokens is less than 1x. For example, tokens with a financing scale of $5 million to $100 million have an ROI of 0.1x to 0.7x (e.g., Fleek, Pipe Network, Sahara AI), which is the same as that of projects with little financing.

The fact is: large - scale financing will accelerate the death of project tokens.

Projects with the least amount of funds ($300,000 to $5 million) have a higher ROI per dollar raised. They execute faster, have lower switching costs, and will not be overwhelmed by the quarterly token unlock schedules of venture capitalists. A large number of unlocked tokens will damage project revenues.

If you pursue $10 million for the sake of "competition", you are preparing for failure.

The Fan Myth: A Large Project Community Is Just a "Paper Tiger"

Projects with 500,000 social media fans and those with 50,000 fans have exactly the same statistical results.

Correlation coefficient: 0.08 (token ATH) and - 0.06 (current token situation)

The data shows that the size of the audience fan base has no predictive value for token performance. Projects with a large fan base have uneven performance - some skyrocket, some plummet, and the same is true for projects with a small audience size. There is no trend, no pattern, and no correlation.

The Discord group you're in is not a community but a speculative audience waiting to leave.

The reality is: price determines community development, not the other way around.

When the price plummets, followers will disappear. The chart proves this - the lower - left quadrant (decreasing followers + falling price) is very dense. When the price soars, followers may sometimes increase, but it is not stable.

This means:

Your "active community" has never really cared about the product - they care about the token price trend. Once the token performance is disappointing, they will disappear. Community growth is a lagging indicator, not a leading one.

This is not just theory but the view publicly expressed by @belizardd (researcher, trader/KOL):

Most people come here purely for speculation, not for the product itself. We found that only a few protocols performed well after TGE, and mainly those with a low initial token FDV, modest fundraising, and generous airdrops. To be honest, I won't blindly follow the trend and invest in anything now. The risk/reward is not worth it. I'm just waiting for the market to improve.

Speculators know that the game is broken. They are waiting on the sidelines. Meanwhile, founders keep investing 60% of their budgets in Discord bots, Twitter giveaways, and KOL promotions - burning money on statistically insignificant metrics.

The real question is: "If the token price drops by 50% tomorrow, how many people will still stay?"

Answer: Almost none.

The Token Price Trap: Beware of Overpricing/Underpricing

The median ROI calculated by the token listing price:

Below $0.01: 0.1x (90% loss)

$0.01 to $0.05: 0.8x (survivable area)

$0.05 to $0.50: 0.5x (50% loss)

Above $0.50: 0.09x (91% loss)

To explain again:

An issuance price below $0.01 does not make your token "more accessible". It just makes you a low - priced coin that attracts profit - seeking capital. They rise quickly and fall just as fast.

Pricing above $0.5 does not make your token a "premium token". It just makes it seem overpriced. An excessively high token price will kill the retail market, and whales won't buy it either.

The token price range of $0.01 to $0.05 is the only viable pricing range. This price is high enough to indicate the legitimacy of the project and low enough to leave room for growth. Within this price range, only 42 out of 97 projects had a positive median token performance.

If your token economic model values your project at $0.003 or $1.20, stop and rebuild the model. The data shows that the project has failed.

The Industry Status Quo: Stop Building in the 2021 Way

Losers: Gaming

Average ATH ROI: 4.46x (lowest)

Current median ROI: 0.52x

GameFi tokens are like lottery tickets. You play once and then they are forgotten forever.

Trap: DeFi

Average ATH ROI: 5.09x (seems good)

Current median ROI: 0.2x (catastrophic)

DeFi tokens had a sharp early - stage price increase, followed by a steeper decline than in any other field. The gap between hype and reality is extremely cruel.

Winners: AI

Average ATH ROI: 5.99x (highest increase)

Current median ROI: 0.70x (best retention rate)

AI token prices soared and remained stable. This trend is sustainable, and capital has flowed in accordingly.

If you are developing GameFi, your execution ability needs to be 10 times higher than the average to achieve mediocre results. If you are in the DeFi field, be prepared for rapid rises and sharp falls. If you are in the AI field, the market will give you a chance, but only if you can deliver results. The requirements in the infrastructure field are even more stringent: compared with standard decentralized applications (such as AI agents), you will consume more time and resources, but your current median ROI is slightly lower than that of the much - maligned GameFi field.

The data doesn't care about the projects you're interested in.

IDO/IEO Data Overview: A Good Platform Can't Save a Project

You spend months networking just to get a seat on Binance Launchpad or an allocation for a primary IDO. You think being screened by the platform means you're protected. The data shows otherwise.

IDO platforms: Almost all projects are in the red

Only one project had a + 14.6% return on 5 IDO platforms, and that's it. The returns of all other projects are between - 70% and - 93%.

The so - called "premium Launchpads" don't protect buyers. They just provide a way for them to lose money.

IEO platforms: The ultimate manifestation of survival bias

Binance Wallet shows a yield of 11x. It seems incredible, but it's based on only 3 issuances, which is a small sample size. MEXC shows a yield of + 122.8% in 14 issuances - a larger sample size, but still an outlier. How about all other projects? Poor performance. Bybit IEO tokens have a loss rate of 38%, and the losses of the remaining projects are even more severe.

This proves:

Platform selection is like a lottery with better brand effects. The wins of a few outlier data distort the average, while most token issuances decline. The "curatorial service" fees you pay - whether through connections, listing fees, or token allocations - cannot reliably protect the token ROI.

Platforms can't save bad tokens, and they can't help good tokens either.

Reflect on 2025, Look Forward to 2026

Project development in 2025 failed at every level.

Layer zero: Foundation

Problem: "Token economics based on speculation". Indiscriminately selling tokens into an illiquid market without an organic revenue model to absorb shocks.

Layer one: Financing

The problem lies in: "Modify it on the PDF first, and deal with it later."