2026-01-10 09:09:04

The launch of a project has never been the work of just one or two people. Looking at those successful projects, you can understand—the true underlying logic is what? It requires a group of people who genuinely build, the attention and support of large holders, and substantial official backing. All three conditions are indispensable.

Compared to historical cycles, you can clearly feel the changes in market cap ceilings. In the past, a few hot topics could push a project to the top; now, that's no longer possible. From another perspective, if a project has genuine community consensus, a group of people deeply involved, plus participation from large funds and official endorsement, then reaching a market cap of over a billion is just the starting point, not the end.

This is not empty talk, nor is it FUD. It’s the reality of ecosystem development: popularity + consensus + capital + official support, each link is crucial. Missing any one of them can become a bottleneck. Truly worthwhile projects are often just a group of people working together, making things bigger and bigger.

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
9
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

rekt_but_vibing

· 01-11 22:05

That's right, pure hype is dead now. Without a genuine builder team, nothing can really hold up. --- Breaking 100 million is just a small goal; the key is whether that group can truly deliver the product. --- Capital + consensus + official endorsement, missing one is just for show, I have deep experience with this. --- I've seen too many projects fail at a certain stage; popularity is there, but without people doing the work, it's all pointless. --- Compared to the historical cycle, things have indeed changed; now it's about real skills, not just hype. --- I don't like any of the three conditions missing; the trend is just like that. --- Official endorsement is the most critical, without it, everything is just empty talk. --- A group of people rooted in their work—that's the project characteristic I truly want to see. --- The ceiling is set so high now; to break through, everything must be in place. --- Consensus is the hardest to achieve; people and money are easy to find, but genuine conviction is scarce. --- Breaking 100 million is just the starting point; this phrase is a bit bold, but it makes sense.

View OriginalReply0

MetaverseLandlord

· 01-11 21:44

To be honest, now there are projects claiming to have a team and consensus everywhere, but once big funds start moving, they get exposed. The idea of starting with a market cap of over a billion sounds great, but in reality, most projects struggle to even survive. Official endorsement is the most crucial, everything else is superficial. Watching this kind of analysis every day, it becomes even harder to tell who is genuine and who is fake. I've heard this set of tactics countless times, but why is it still a mess? But it's true, projects without real people working on them tend to die quickly. To judge whether a project is worth it, see if there's actual progress; everything else is just deception.

View OriginalReply0

LightningHarvester

· 01-11 00:52

In plain terms, relying on a lone wolf to achieve dozens of times returns is just wishful thinking. That's right, but the problem is where to find a group of like-minded people. Most projects end up in chaos. Is surpassing 100 million the starting point? Then I ask, how many projects can actually reach that milestone... That's nonsense. I agree with this combination punch theory, but the implementation is too difficult. It sounds easy, but actually doing it is deadly. Projects without people, funds, or official support still have to survive. For them, this theory is a nightmare. The words are correct, but it feels like chicken soup. Very few can actually achieve these four points. The real bottleneck is finding reliable people. I'd rather pay than have incompetent teammates.

View OriginalReply0

RetailTherapist

· 01-10 09:39

That's very true, but in reality, there are very few projects that can meet these four conditions. Most projects fail at some point, especially in terms of official support, which is often just for show. It's about the logic—when evaluating a project, you have to look at the people; only if the people are right can the project succeed. I agree with the idea that a market cap starting at over a billion is feasible, but the prerequisite is that these people are truly reliable. Right now, it's no longer possible to just hype concepts and take off; you still need to be grounded and do the work. Feels like this paragraph is talking about a certain project. With consensus established and capital coming in, it all depends on whether the official side can really deliver.

View OriginalReply0

SmartContractWorker

· 01-10 09:38

That's right, but the current problem is that big funds are waiting to cut the leeks, so where is the genuine development? Starting point with a market cap of over a billion? I feel like most projects die halfway through. This logic isn't wrong, but execution is the hard part, brother. Honestly, even if you meet all three conditions, you still need to align and be precise. Official endorsements are the most superficial; what looks like support is actually passing the buck.

View OriginalReply0

BlockchainNewbie

· 01-10 09:27

Exactly right. Right now, this market is all about team effort, capital, and consensus. Retail investors going solo have no chance. The projects that can truly succeed are definitely built on this formula—missing one means failure. Wait, what about those projects that only have official hype but no real development? What are they?

View OriginalReply0

GovernancePretender

· 01-10 09:22

That's right, but after looking around, there are very few that meet all four conditions. With more people, there's also more consensus. When money flows in, it tends to disperse instead. Is this a curse? The phrase "breaking 100 million is just the starting point" is outdated. Even now, many are still dying after reaching 100 million. Official support is the most superficial part; what's written in the white paper doesn't count. Capital pursues profit, communities chase hot topics—how can they be synchronized?

View OriginalReply0

AirdropLicker

· 01-10 09:14

Nothing wrong with that. Projects that rely solely on a single hot topic are basically dead now. No matter how awesome a person is, it's useless. Team consensus is the key. When big capital enters the market, it's a signal. Following along will definitely be profitable. When will I ever encounter a project with everything in place? I'm so anxious. Missing any link makes it impossible to play, that's an iron law. However, I actually think that some official support for projects can be more of a burden. Really, I've seen too many cases where big funds come in and end up ruining the project. Community self-motivation > all external factors, I insist on this. Wait, those top-tier projects didn't have much official backing at the beginning either. Consensus is the most valuable; everything else is just superficial.

View OriginalReply0

ChainWatcher

· 01-10 09:11

You're right, relying on a single person alone can't get you anywhere now. Is 100 million the starting point? I feel like most projects haven't even reached that point. Capital + community + official support, missing one of these is a failure. This judgment still makes sense. The era where hype could propel projects to the sky a couple of years ago is indeed over. So the question is, who can truly bring these three elements together? There aren't many reliable builders with solid projects, and big funds are also very selective. Official support is the most superficial; a single sentence is considered support. However, I've seen a few projects that were genuinely built this way from the ground up. Gotta admit, it really takes a team of people working hard inside, not just slogans.

View OriginalReply0