When project teams deprioritize holder interests, this is the inevitable outcome. Treating community members as second-class stakeholders while pursuing other agendas rarely ends well. The warning signs were there early on—misaligned incentives, unclear development direction, and decisions that favored insiders over long-term believers. By the time reality sets in, the damage is done. Another once-promising protocol reduced to a cautionary tale about what happens when tokenomics and governance take a backseat to poor management decisions.
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.
20 Likes
Reward
20
6
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
ChainSherlockGirl
· 3h ago
Another insider has had their fill, and only then do the community's bagholders wake up to the old script... Based on my analysis, the early wallet address transfer records must have already leaked the news long ago.
View OriginalReply0
LuckyBlindCat
· 12h ago
It's the same old trick, the team secretly digs a pit for the community to fill, it should have been obvious long ago. When incentives tilt to one side, projects like this deserve it.
View OriginalReply0
RugpullTherapist
· 12-26 15:57
I should have known earlier, this trick is always the same... The team first makes promises, then they prioritize internally, retail investors? Haha
View OriginalReply0
SelfStaking
· 12-26 15:51
That's why I never trust projects that are vague about the community from the very beginning.
View OriginalReply0
StakeWhisperer
· 12-26 15:41
This is the same old story again; the team benefits at the community's expense, I've seen it coming a long time ago.
When project teams deprioritize holder interests, this is the inevitable outcome. Treating community members as second-class stakeholders while pursuing other agendas rarely ends well. The warning signs were there early on—misaligned incentives, unclear development direction, and decisions that favored insiders over long-term believers. By the time reality sets in, the damage is done. Another once-promising protocol reduced to a cautionary tale about what happens when tokenomics and governance take a backseat to poor management decisions.