2025-12-26 14:22:02

This year's market has been brutal, indiscriminately killing off many well-funded projects. We once thought that having plenty of money could help us weather the cycle, but what happened? Quite the opposite—excessive funding has actually amplified the strategic errors of those projects.

Looking at the projects that have already failed, we can see they share a common flaw: they rely entirely on external infusion of funds, and once market subsidies stop, they realize they have no real reason to exist. This isn't market淘汰; it's market exposure—lifeless projects finally being exposed.

What about those that survived? Even after a severe drop (we've seen declines of 90%), they usually share a few key points:

They have real user scenarios (like Helium, Render, dYdX); fundamentally, they are infrastructure rather than just financial narratives; they either have self-sustaining cash flow or visible long-term demand; and most importantly—they can continuously deliver products and value, not just rely on incentive mechanisms and burning money to retain users.

Thinking this way, Polkadot's adjustments over the past year are easy to understand. Gavin's return and the changes since then may seem conservative, but they are actually a delayed form of rationality—shifting from dreaming outward to seeking survival inward. This might be the healthiest choice.

HNT10,81%

DYDX6,32%

DOT11,65%

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.

13 Likes

Reward
13
10
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

DAOdreamer

· 2025-12-29 13:58

Raising more funds actually leads to faster death; this logic is truly eye-opening. Projects without real business support should be eliminated. Really impressive, the more money you have, the deeper the trap; I thought we could tough it out through the cycle. Polkadot's recent adjustment is indeed awakening; from dreaming to living well, this is the right path. Stop blood transfusions, and you'll die—no doubt about it, they simply lack the ability to generate their own revenue. dYdX, Render, and similar projects are still in use; most other projects are basically dead. That's the difference. Projects that don't burn money to retain users are still alive—this is the big wave of淘沙. Surviving a 90% drop and still standing shows the real difference when there's genuine demand. Looking inward for survival is much more reliable than dreaming outwardly; Gavin finally figured it out. Cash flow self-sufficiency is the true way; the era of just storytelling is completely over. The era of burning money through incentive mechanisms should have gone bankrupt long ago; who still believes in that? Infrastructure projects are indeed resilient; all financial narratives have died. Projects with more funding die the fastest—what a irony.

View OriginalReply0

LiquidationSurvivor

· 2025-12-29 09:21

Really, raising more funds has become the original sin. Those dead projects are living lessons. The model of burning money to acquire users should have been over long ago; only now do we see who truly has product strength. I think Polkadot's shift is quite right; rather than making big promises, it's better to stay alive first. I really don't understand those projects still hyping up; without actual user scenarios, it's just a castle in the air. It feels like this round of淘汰 is the market's true return to rationality; the ones suffering are those who all-in on fundraising stories.

View OriginalReply0

RugDocScientist

· 2025-12-29 01:47

Raising more funds can actually lead to faster death; this wave has truly been seen through. Genuine users and cash flow are the key to survival—nothing wrong with that.

View OriginalReply0

BloodInStreets

· 2025-12-28 08:05

The more funding, the faster it dies. This is really not a joke anymore. Once you see through it, projects without vitality should be harvested. The ones that truly survive have long understood — you need real substance, not just storytelling. I’ve seen through Polkadot’s adjustment clearly; Gavin is a perfect example of timely stop-loss. Having too much money is actually a curse; it doesn’t generate demand.

View OriginalReply0

ForkItAll

· 2025-12-26 14:51

Raising more funds actually leads to faster death; this wave really hits hard. Having too much money becomes poison, and those projects that rely on subsidies are truly hopeless. A good project is actually very simple—someone uses it, it can sustain itself, and it continuously delivers. Not spending money to attract users is the most crucial point. The recent adjustment in Polkadot makes sense; from dreaming to survival, this is what being pragmatic is all about. Once you let go, the bear market is just about exposing all the fake projects. If they survive a 90% drop, there must be something real. Too much money can lead to confusion; starving a bit makes you realize your true worth. This logic boils down to one sentence: Is there really someone who needs you?

View OriginalReply0

GasWrangler

· 2025-12-26 14:50

actually, if you analyze the data on failed projects, the pattern's pretty clear — they all optimized for capital efficiency the wrong way. totally sub-optimal allocation decisions.

Reply0

RugResistant

· 2025-12-26 14:50

ngl, the "funding = survival" myth getting demolished this hard is *chef's kiss* honestly. been saying this for years but finally the market's doing the work for us. those projects were literally just sophisticated ponzi mechanics wrapped in tech jargon lmao

Reply0

SchrodingerAirdrop

· 2025-12-26 14:49

You still need real users. No matter how much funding a project has, it's all in vain without users. Raising more funds actually leads to faster death. This year has completely exposed that. Gavin's move this time was actually admitting a mistake, which is better than those still making up stories. Has anyone thought that those projects that survived have been quietly making money all along, and we just now discovered it? Money can't build an ecosystem. The lessons from this cycle are truly significant. If there's nothing fundamentally there, no matter how high the funding round, it can't be saved. Now I understand. dYdX, with actual trading volume, is truly strong; others just telling stories should go and wash up.

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-addcaaf7

· 2025-12-26 14:46

Raising more funds means survival? That's laughable. Isn't that just self-deception? No users, no revenue, relying on subsidies to survive. When the market changes, the true nature is immediately exposed. It's very normal. This round of Polkadot's adjustment is actually about facing reality, much better than just bragging. Only those with real demand can survive. This time, it's truly a case of survival of the fittest. Having too much money can actually kill projects. This reversal is quite ironic.

View OriginalReply0

SybilAttackVictim

· 2025-12-26 14:31

Having too much money can actually lead to a faster demise; this is the biggest lesson of the year... Financing is like giving steroids to a bad project, making it look bloated but ultimately虚胖.

View OriginalReply0