More than 80% of the new coins TGE are the root cause and antidote of the false prosperity of Web3.

Original: Solus Group; Translated by: CryptoLeo

Editor’s Note: Recently, analyst Ash stated in a popular post that among over 100 new tokens scheduled for TGE in 2025, 84.7% of the tokens have an FDV lower than their FDV at TGE. The median FDV of these tokens has dropped by 71% compared to their issuance (with the median market cap down by 67%). Only 15% of the tokens have seen an increase in FDV compared to their FDV at TGE. Overall, most of the newly issued tokens in 2025 belong to the category of “the price at TGE is the peak.”

After extending these data, I found a more interesting article (from Solus Group), which also starts from the project's token TGE and statistics on the trends and financing situations of 113 tokens after their TGE in 2025, as well as the correlation between community activity and exchange listings. The research found that high financing, active communities, and exchange listings, which are considered screening criteria for project quality, have little impact on the trends of project tokens. In the past, we often used these conditions to filter good projects, but in 2025, this project evaluation model has clearly “failed.” One set of data is particularly thought-provoking:

• The average revenue of projects with trading prices below the IDO price is $1.36 million.

• The average income of projects with a trading price higher than the IDO issue price is $790,000.

However, these projects have all received support from venture capital, which to some extent indicates that the market values hype more than actual performance, values stories more than data, and values promises more than the products themselves. Web3 can no longer pretend that “everything is fine” and cannot refer to bot traffic as “growth.” Of course, the conclusions drawn in this article are statistical and not a standard applicable to all projects. Good projects and large funding still represent the development direction of the crypto industry. Odaily Planet Daily has compiled it as follows:

Raised 2 million USD, top venture capital participation, 500,000 community fans, listed on major exchanges, an unprecedented launch day, jubilant on Discord, and a festive atmosphere everywhere on social media.

In a previous article, we revealed the reality of a 0.96x ROI: by 2025, on average, each token had actually died on the first day, proving that the system is no longer viable. Now, we have analyzed 113 token issuance cases since 2025, providing solid data to support this point - yet most founders dare not confront this data.

The research results are shocking: large-scale financing is of no use, a huge community is irrelevant, and every variable you optimize has no statistical value.

Yet beneath the surface lies something even more twisted that continues to trouble many founders to this day:

Currently, the project's revenue situation is a bearish signal, with the trading price of tokens from profitable projects being lower than that of tokens from unprofitable projects. This dynamic is crucial for survival. If profitable entities continue to be punished while speculators are rewarded, the entire industry will not be able to survive.

Note: Previously, Solus Group released information disclosing relevant data, indicating that the average investment return rate for the new project token of the TGE in 2025 starts from the first day of issuance at 0.96, meaning that its product launch has been in a loss state since the first day.

Entrepreneur Data Trap: Funding Paradox, High Funding Does Not Equal Token Advantage

The correlation between financing and token performance: 0.04, which can be considered statistically zero.

Projects that raised $10 million and those that raised $1 million show identical token performance. The above chart proves this point—regardless of the amount raised, the distribution of tokens within the investment return range is random. The best-performing projects are: Myshell, B² Network, Bubblemaps, Mind Network, Particle Network, Creator.Bid (which saw its valuation increase 10 to 30 times at ATH) raised between $300,000 and $3 million. At the same time, projects like Boundless and Analog, which raised over $10 million, only had a valuation multiple of about 1 time.

Currently, the performance of tokens is worse, regardless of the scale of financing, with most token investment returns being below 1x. For example, tokens with financing scales of 5 million to 100 million USD have an ROI of 0.1x to 0.7x (e.g., Fleek, Pipe Network, Sahara AI), which is the same as the ROI of tokens from projects with little to no financing.

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

Projects with the least funding (from $300,000 to $5 million) have a higher return on investment for every dollar raised. They execute faster, have lower switching costs, and are not submerged in the quarterly venture capital token unlock schedule, where a large number of unlocked tokens can damage project returns.

If you pursue 10 million dollars for the sake of “competition,” then you are preparing for failure.

Fan Myth: A Huge Project Community is Just a “Paper Tiger”

Social media with 500,000 followers and 50,000 followers, the statistical results are completely the same.

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

Data shows that the size of the audience's fan base has no predictive value on token performance. Projects with a large fan base exhibit mixed results—some surge, while others plummet. Similarly, projects with a smaller audience also show no trends, no patterns, and no correlation.

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

The reality is: prices determine community development, not the community pushing prices.

When prices crash, followers disappear. The chart proves this - the lower left quadrant (decreasing followers + falling prices) is very dense. When prices soar, followers sometimes grow accordingly, but it is not stable.

This means:

Your “active community” has never really focused on the product—they are focused on the token price trends. Once the token performs disappointingly, they will disappear; community growth is a lagging indicator, not a leading indicator.

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

Most people come here purely for speculation, rather than the product itself. We find that there are very few protocols that perform well after the TGE, and mainly those with lower initial token FDV, low fundraising amounts, and generous airdrops. To be honest, I won't blindly follow the trend to invest in anything right now. The risk/reward isn't worth it, I'm just waiting for the market to improve.

Speculators know the game has broken down. They are taking a wait-and-see approach. Meanwhile, the founder continues to invest 60% of the budget into Discord bots, Twitter giveaways, and KOL promotions—burning money on statistically insignificant metrics.

The real question is: “If the token drops 50% tomorrow, how many people will stick around?”

Answer: Almost none.

Token Price Traps: Beware of Overpricing/Underpricing

Median investment return rate calculated based on the token listing price:

Below 0.01 USD: 0.1 times (loss of 90%)

$0.01 to $0.05: 0.8 times (survival zone)

0.05 USD to 0.50 USD: 0.5 times (loss of 50%)

Above $0.50: 0.09 times (loss of 91%)

Explain it again:

A发行 price lower than $0.01 will not make your token “easier to obtain”; it will only make you a low-priced coin that attracts profit-driven capital, which rises quickly but also falls quickly.

A price above $0.5 does not make your token a “premium token”; it only makes the pricing seem too high. Excessively high token prices will stifle the retail market, and whales won't buy in either.

The token price range of $0.01 to $0.05 is the only viable pricing range, as this price is high enough to indicate the legitimacy of the project, yet low enough to leave room for appreciation. Within this price range, only 42 out of 97 projects have a median performance of their tokens that is positive.

If your tokenomics model values you at $0.003 or $1.20, then stop rebuilding the model; the data indicates that the project has already failed.

Industry Status: Stop 2021-style Construction

Loser: Gaming

Average ATH ROI: 4.46 times (minimum)

Current median return on investment: 0.52 times

GameFi tokens are like lottery tickets; once played, they are forgotten forever.

Trap: DeFi

Average ATH ROI: 5.09 times (looks good)

Current median return on investment: 0.2 times (catastrophic)

The early price surge of DeFi was followed by a decline that was greater than in any other field, and the gap between speculation and reality is extremely brutal.

Winner: AI

Average ATH ROI: 5.99 times (maximum increase)

Current median return on investment: 0.70 times (best retention rate)

AI token prices have surged and remained stable. This trend is persistent, and funds are flowing in accordingly.

If you are developing GameFi, your execution must be ten times higher than average to achieve typical results. If you are in the DeFi space, you need to be prepared for rapid rises and sharp declines. If you are in the AI field, the market will give you opportunities, but only if you can deliver results. The requirements in the infrastructure sector are even stricter: compared to standard decentralized applications (like AI agents), you will consume more time and resources, yet your current median ROI is slightly lower than the generally pessimistic GameFi sector.

Data does not care about the projects you are interested in.

IDO/IEO Data Overview: A Good Platform Cannot Save a Project

You spent months building connections just to secure a seat on the Binance Launchpad or a spot in a tier 1 IDO allocation, you thought being selected by the platform meant you were protected. Data shows otherwise.

IDO Platform: Almost all projects are in a state of loss

Only one project had a return rate of +14.6% among the 5 IDO platforms, and that's it. The return rates of all other projects were between -70% and -93%.

The so-called “advanced Launchpad” does not provide protection for buyers; it merely offers them a way to lose money.

IEO Platform: The Ultimate Manifestation of Survival Bias

The Binance wallet shows a return rate of 11 times. It seems unbelievable, but it has only been issued 3 times, and the sample size is too small. MEXC shows a return rate of +122.8% over 14 issuances—larger sample size, but it is still an outlier. What about all the other projects? They perform poorly. Bybit IEO tokens have a loss rate of 38%, and the other projects have even more severe losses.

This proves that:

Choosing a platform is like a lottery with a better brand effect. The victory of a few anomalous data points distorts the average, while the decline after a large number of token issuances prevails. The “curation service” fees you pay—whether through relationships, listing fees, or token distribution—cannot reliably protect the token ROI.

The platform cannot save garbage tokens, nor can it help good tokens.

Reflection on 2025, Outlook for 2026

The project development based on 2025 has failed at every level.

Layer Zero: Foundation

Question: “Token economics based on speculation.” Unrestrainedly selling tokens into a market with insufficient liquidity without an organic revenue model to absorb shocks.

Layer One: Financing

The problem lies in: “First modify on the PDF, then process it.”

Second Layer: Marketing Promotion

Question: In the KOL model, users rented from paid water armies disappear without a trace once the payment stops.

Layer Three: Liquidity

Question: Suppose liquidity increases with speculation, but this is not the case; institutional investors will wait for evidence.

Layer Four: User Retention

Question: Zero retention infrastructure. The “project community” consists of 10,000 Telegram users who will abandon you within 90 days.

In 2026, we should no longer play old games. There is a deeper issue behind all this; infrastructure is indeed important, but timing determines everything, even with the best infrastructure. As Ivan Paskar (Growth Director at Altius Labs) said:

Tokens do not fix broken things - they amplify reality. Right timing = momentum increase. Wrong timing = years of effort instantly turned to nothing. Most teams do not fail in token design; they fail because they misjudge the stage they are in and the macro environment. Timing is not a detail; it determines everything.

How should the project be done in 2026

Survival is not about following an old script, but about building a new one.

1. Carefully designed

The target amount is between 300,000 and 5,000,000 USD, and the projects with the highest return on investment for every dollar invested are right here. More funds = more problems.

2. Cost of Living

The issue price is between 0.01 and 0.05 dollars. Other prices are difficult to survive. If your token economics do not fit this range, it indicates that there are problems.

3. Products first, tokens second.

If you can't explain in one sentence why your token exists, then it doesn't exist. Profit must come before speculation.

4. Ignore vanity metrics

The number of followers is a distraction; wallet activity, retention rate, and revenue per user are the key metrics.

5. Industry Realism

Before writing code, understand the failure rate of your industry. GameFi requires double the execution efficiency to break even. AI has the wind at its back—as long as you can deliver results.

6. Integrate, or perish.

The era of mergers and acquisitions is about to arrive. If you cannot expand independently, then look for an acquirer. Acquisitions are not a failure, but a wise move.

These six principles are important. But the fact is: the standard script is outdated, and there is no longer a one-size-fits-all standard model.