2025-12-13 10:10:45

Have you seen the fundraising pitch decks of those top-tier projects? It all boils down to one core — how to sell Token.

To put it simply, technical services, ecological applications, commercial monetization… all these fancy words are just packaging. The real factor supporting the project's revenue has always been: Token sales.

This is not some conspiracy theory. Just look at the wave of projects in 2024 — fundraising → airdrops → listing on exchanges → concentrated sell-offs. The entire process has become an industrial-standard operation. Project teams continuously release Token rights through various funding rounds, ultimately relying on retail investors to take the bait. Once the liquidity on the exchange is sufficient, the window for dumping opens.

Moving into 2025, this logic becomes even more naked. New projects no longer list tokens to establish a long-term market; they do it solely to seize the liquidity dividend. Listing equals dumping — this is not a joke, but reality. Investors need to consider not the project's prospects, but whether they can exit before the project team dumps their holdings.

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.

9 Likes

Reward
9
9
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

ChainSpy

· 12-16 08:37

I've seen through this routine a long time ago, basically just an industrial standard process for ripping off retail investors. --- The funding proposal I interpret literally: how to sell tokens as quickly as possible. Everything else is just nonsense. --- The projects in 2024 have really turned this into an assembly line. Now retail investors just go in to be fed to the wolves. --- Listing = selling window, this statement hits too close to home. People still researching project prospects need to wake up. --- Once you see through it, it's easier. Anyway, just watch who runs faster. The real move is for project teams to dump their own funds before dumping tokens. --- Token sales = the only profit source, all those terms about tech ecosystems are just packaging to deceive investors.

View OriginalReply0

HappyToBeDumped

· 12-15 02:02

That hits too close to home—it's just one word: Charge If you don't run fast enough, you'll have to pick up the bag; this is the reality now. I really can't understand who is taking the final baton in this wave—anyway, it can't be me. I haven't looked at the funding proposal, but I've seen enough exit tactics. Those who manage to run out before the dump is called real profit. Instead of researching prospects, it's better to study when liquidity will dry up.

View OriginalReply0

BoredWatcher

· 12-14 20:25

It's the same old trick again, funding rounds one after another, the real purpose has long been obvious Retail investors are still studying whitepapers, while they’ve already figured out how to sell Honestly, talking about ecosystem prospects in current projects is pointless, it's all about who can run faster Listing coins and dumping is indeed the routine operation of 2025, no need to pretend anymore These days, investing in projects is really less valuable than investing in your own mind—learning when to run

View OriginalReply0

MEVHunter_9000

· 12-14 03:05

It's all just the same old tactics to cut the leeks. I've looked at a few financing proposals, and they all have the same flavor. The operation process has been written all over their faces. Don't the project teams have any brains? Basically, it's a gamble on whether they can run faster than them. This is a risky game.

View OriginalReply0

BlockTalk

· 12-13 10:40

Honestly, I've seen through this routine a long time ago; it's just a different coat of the same old trick. Really, the fundraising plan is more rigid than a script, and the core is just two words—cutting leeks. I've watched all the projects in the 2024 wave; they list tokens and dump within an hour, it's hilarious. But on the other hand, who keeps taking the bait? This game has to go on. This is the real Web3—no technological dreams, just financial games. Alright, stop worrying about the prospects. If you can beat the main players, that's a win.

View OriginalReply0

ImpermanentPhilosopher

· 12-13 10:34

Another day of telling the truth and getting likes. I've long seen through it—those fundraising plans are just four words: how to harvest the leeks. Talking about technology ecosystem, it's all a facade; the core is two words: sell coins.

View OriginalReply0

DataOnlooker

· 12-13 10:33

Honestly, this套路 has been rotten for a long time, and it's no wonder people still get caught. Fundraising proposals are just a fancy version of "how to fool you into buying coins." Those who take visions seriously are really foolish. Things that are more transparent than a pancake, why do some people always insist on taking the final step? That wave of projects in 2024, isn't it just moving the scam from offline to on-chain? The process is standardized like an assembly line. The problem isn't whether the project is reliable, but whether you can run fast enough—that's all. Bro, instead of studying white papers, it's better to study escape routes, really.

View OriginalReply0

SchroedingerMiner

· 12-13 10:22

Really, it's too heartbreaking. I'm already tired of this set of pump-and-dump processes. The fundraising plan is all lies and tricks. Honestly, they just want to liquidate quickly. What happened to those projects in 2024? Just a bunch of mess. Those still daring to take over new coins must have pretty bad judgment. The issue isn't about how good the projects are; it's whether they can outrun the whales. I just want to know how many people can truly walk away unscathed before a dump. Another cycle, retail investors are always the last to suffer losses.

View OriginalReply0

GasWaster

· 12-13 10:22

Really, once you see through it, it's no longer interesting. Now it's just a gamble on who can run faster.

View OriginalReply0