The current project parties are basically all about rushing in and out, with no thought for long-term development.
$EOS Back then, they at least had the concept of super nodes, but now these projects are too lazy to even perform: the token economics are poorly designed, the team's unlock ratio is absurdly high, and they start cashing out in various ways as soon as they go online.
The real problem is that the market has been spoiled by this wave of play. Investors are not foolish; everyone knows the rules of the game, so now it’s purely PVP, seeing who can run the fastest. The project parties think about making a quick profit and running, while retail investors think about making a quick gain and pulling out, leaving a mess behind.
In such an environment, it’s truly rare for a project to survive a bull and bear market. But then again, this can be considered the market's natural selection.
Old players like FF are still using this narrative of "stable and capital-efficient DeFi infrastructure." Which DeFi project doesn’t package itself this way nowadays? The key lies in the design of token economics and actual application scenarios. Without real revenue support, no matter how beautiful the infrastructure is, it’s just a castle in the air.
Can net capital outflow still be "cautiously optimistic"? This is typical analyst jargon: when it rises, they say the technicals are strong; when it falls, they say the fundamentals are good. The real question is: what else does this project have apart from speculation? Are users really using it?
The market is not lacking in concepts; what it lacks are protocols that can continuously generate cash flow.
