I personally invested 50k, and a few friends around me also reached over 200k. Now we are all waiting for the project team's attitude.
To be honest, the core issue here is trust. In the crypto market, when promises made during the fundraising stage don't match the actual performance in the secondary market, investors tend to become dissatisfied. Everyone used to follow a common pattern: the project team issues tokens, hype concepts, and secondary market participants follow suit, allowing all parties to profit. But if the project team changes the rules midway or breaks promises, the entire ecosystem's trust collapses.
From a利益平衡 (interest balance) perspective, the best option for the project team now isn't complicated—seriously push for exchange listing, while providing moderate compensation or refunds to early investors. Specifically, maintaining a funding amount of 2-5M is a reasonable range, which can address investors' core concerns while leaving enough room for the project team to operate in the secondary market.
This kind of方案 (plan) is actually a win-win. Investors feel relieved, and the project team can rebuild their reputation through transparent and responsible actions, creating momentum for future exchange listings. Truly flipping the table benefits no one; it only destroys the entire project's ecosystem. Sometimes, stepping back can open up greater market space.
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.
10 Likes
Reward
10
4
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
TheMemefather
· 9h ago
Wait a minute, isn't this logic a bit too idealistic? Will the project team really cooperate like this?
View OriginalReply0
StableGenius
· 9h ago
honestly, the 2-5M reserve thing is textbook cope. teams never actually follow through with "reasonable compromises" — they just string everyone along until people exit at a loss. empirically speaking, i've seen this play out at least a dozen times. the moment project devs start negotiating, it's already over.
Reply0
GateUser-c799715c
· 10h ago
Did you really invest 50k? Man, your guts are really big. Waiting for the project team’s attitude is just waiting to get cut. To put it nicely, it's a matter of trust; in reality, it's just breaking promises.
View OriginalReply0
OldLeekMaster
· 10h ago
To put it simply, if the project team is truly smart, they should quickly provide compensation; otherwise, the reputation will be completely ruined, and no one will follow them in the future.
I personally invested 50k, and a few friends around me also reached over 200k. Now we are all waiting for the project team's attitude.
To be honest, the core issue here is trust. In the crypto market, when promises made during the fundraising stage don't match the actual performance in the secondary market, investors tend to become dissatisfied. Everyone used to follow a common pattern: the project team issues tokens, hype concepts, and secondary market participants follow suit, allowing all parties to profit. But if the project team changes the rules midway or breaks promises, the entire ecosystem's trust collapses.
From a利益平衡 (interest balance) perspective, the best option for the project team now isn't complicated—seriously push for exchange listing, while providing moderate compensation or refunds to early investors. Specifically, maintaining a funding amount of 2-5M is a reasonable range, which can address investors' core concerns while leaving enough room for the project team to operate in the secondary market.
This kind of方案 (plan) is actually a win-win. Investors feel relieved, and the project team can rebuild their reputation through transparent and responsible actions, creating momentum for future exchange listings. Truly flipping the table benefits no one; it only destroys the entire project's ecosystem. Sometimes, stepping back can open up greater market space.