Family, today let's not talk about high-end trends, but instead have an honest discussion about the pain points of small and medium players: the 2025 layout of cryptocurrency regions, which pitfalls should we avoid? As someone who has fallen into regional traps three times and lost six figures, I understand the confusion small and medium players face in regional planning—either following the trend to chase popular areas and buying at high prices; or being tempted to enter 'low-threshold' areas, only to find that the projects have run away and assets have been frozen; or thinking that 'laying out several regions will be stable,' only to end up spreading their efforts too thin and not making money in any of them! Today, I have compiled these painful lessons into five major pitfalls to help you avoid the minefields of the 2025 regional layout. I recommend saving this and reviewing it repeatedly!
Pit 1: The 'gray area' with ambiguous regulations. This is the pit that is easiest for small and medium players to fall into! Some areas appear to have loose policies with no explicit prohibitive regulations, but also lack any protective measures—if a project runs away, no one manages it, and if assets are frozen, there is no place to appeal. I have previously stumbled into this pit; I invested in a so-called 'policy dividend project' in a certain gray area, only to find that six months later, the project team absconded with the funds, leaving me with no means of recourse and losing everything. My personal suggestion is that small and medium players should only choose areas with clear regulatory frameworks, even if the entry barriers are slightly higher or the returns are lower, at least the safety of the principal is guaranteed. For example, parts of Europe and North America have strict regulations, but they also have comprehensive protective measures for investors, making them 100 times safer than gray areas.
Pit 2: Relying solely on 'policy subsidies' to tell a story, with no actual demand. Some regions offer high policy subsidies, such as tax reductions and financial support, to attract crypto projects, leading many small and medium players to think 'subsidies mean a good area' and blindly follow investment projects. However, many projects attracted by subsidies have no actual demand locally and rely on subsidies to survive; once the subsidies expire, they go bankrupt. I previously followed a project in a certain area that thrived on government subsidies for a while, but no one used it locally, and after the subsidies expired, it declared bankruptcy, leaving investors in deep losses. My personal judgment is that by 2025, projects that rely on subsidies to tell stories will find it increasingly difficult to survive. Small and medium players must look at local demand when making investments, such as whether they are connected with local enterprises and whether there is a real user base, and not be misled by subsidies.
Pit 3: Blindly following head projects in popular areas like the Middle East and North America. Many small and medium players think 'head projects in popular areas are definitely stable,' and invest heavily. However, the valuations of head projects in popular areas are already high, with limited upside and intense competition, making it hard for small and medium players to make money. For instance, a head compliance project in North America had its valuation rise tenfold last year; entering now is likely just taking over someone else's position. I personally suggest that small and medium players pay attention to smaller projects in niche sectors of popular areas, such as smaller compliant DeFi projects in Europe or crypto infrastructure projects in the Middle East; these projects have lower valuations and less competition, offering greater upside potential. Moreover, the cost of trial and error is low for small investments, so even if there are losses, they won't be catastrophic.
Pit 4: A 'global net-casting' layout with scattered focus. Some small and medium players think 'the more areas you invest in, the more money you can make,' resulting in simultaneous investments in projects in Europe, North America, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia. They have to monitor policy changes and project dynamics in different regions daily, which is simply not feasible, leading to a situation where they fail to keep track of any projects and lose money without knowing why. From my personal experience, small and medium players have limited funds and energy; it is best to focus on 1-2 areas and 1-2 sub-sectors for in-depth research, which allows for precise opportunity grasping. For instance, you can focus on the compliant DeFi sector in Europe or the crypto payment sector in the Middle East, thoroughly researching the projects, policies, and risks in that sector, which is much more reliable than blindly casting a wide net.
Pit 5: Ignoring local culture and user habits. Many small and medium players do not consider local culture and user habits when laying out overseas areas, thinking 'crypto technology is universal,' resulting in projects landing without anyone using them. For example, a project may lay out crypto payments in Southeast Asia, but local users prefer traditional mobile payment software. If the project does not adapt to local needs, it will ultimately fail. My personal suggestion is that before laying out overseas areas, one must understand local culture and user habits, and even find local partners to create localized products and operations. For example, Southeast Asian users prefer simple and easy-to-use products, so projects should simplify operational processes; Middle Eastern users value privacy, so projects should strengthen privacy protection features.
The above are the 5 major pitfalls for small and medium players in the 2025 crypto regional layout, all hard-earned lessons. To help everyone avoid these pitfalls more accurately, if you currently feel helpless and confused about trading and want to learn more about the crypto world and the latest cutting-edge information, follow me @标哥说币 .
