Why most premined coins (>90% of all altcoins) will eventually fail

[Yatsan]

Unfortunately, this happens for a long time already that new projects being released are only profitable before its release to the market and eventually fallimg out of the project's support. One reason is utility of token and also futuristic roadmap of the project. But as I have mentioned, projects are failing to meet their long term plans  They indeed tend to move to another, leaving investors at tge middle of nowhere which created an impression to this industry. This could also be a reason why such thing continued for years. Investors are no longer hoping for a length with every project release. First ones are having the advantage 'coz they have already established their name to investors.

[bots1]

This is an interesting topic to discuss.
Indeed most of the coins that are nominated have the possibility of failing in the end. Premines give a competitive advantage initially, but once funds are depleted, that advantage can fade and the coin faces a significant drop in value. Factors such as lost competitive advantage, ineffective community takeovers, and limited space in the market can cause the failure of most large premium coins. A few exceptions, such as Ethereum, XRP, and BNB, have survived due to a diverse business model or strong ecosystem. However, in general, the hope that community expropriation would address the problem was often unfulfilled. No-premium coins have the psychological advantage of an easier community takeover. Evaluation of the success of a coin should consider factors such as business model, ecosystem, competitive advantage and community psychology.

[jaberwock]

Unfortunately, this happens for a long time already that new projects being released are only profitable before its release to the market and eventually fallimg out of the project's support. One reason is utility of token and also futuristic roadmap of the project. But as I have mentioned, projects are failing to meet their long term plans  They indeed tend to move to another, leaving investors at tge middle of nowhere which created an impression to this industry. This could also be a reason why such thing continued for years. Investors are no longer hoping for a length with every project release. First ones are having the advantage 'coz they have already established their name to investors.

But, how can the investors sell if it wasn't out officially in the market or not yet listed on an exchange? But you are right that lots of new projects are only profitable at their early runs. After the hype has gone, the coin will then get weaker and die eventually. There might be projects who has a good utility but fails in other things like they only have less budget to market their product.

This is why it's important to plan carefully first and prepare all the necessary things, so that they won't waste their time or the opportunity. Then there are fake projects who can have that futuristic roadmap you are telling. It's only said that they are mostly the ones who can get successful.

[d5000]

Sometimes, the community is to blame, too. They view this coin as something that is the next big thing while in reality, it isn't, and they're only shilling for their own gain and, just like the developers, when they already profited, they'll just move on to the next 'big thing'.

Indeed. This in my opinion is also a negative consequence of the premine. The business model favoured by premined coins is based often not really on a sustainable usage but on hype and visibility, because the project will have to concentrate the premined funds for a marketing campaign and a paid campaign cannot last forever. Most of those speculating with this kind of coins already for a time should know that pattern, so they are incentived to "play by the rules of the altcoin circus" and hype the coin for a short time, sell it and then jump to the next project.

When you start a non-premined coin incentives are a bit different. It's even often better for the founders if the project at launch isn't known that much, so they can mine/mint without having to invest large sums in hardware. This can lead to a smoother "visibility curve" and also to slower growing prices/market caps, if the team and community do their "job" the right way.

The problem is that most of these projects get lost in the noise of centralized coins. Also, it looks often like these coins are mainly created for the benefit of miners (at least I get this impression in the ANNs of newer non-premine coins) and not to solve a real problem or with the intention to create a real long term viable cryptocurrency. So in these cases they behave actually very similar to premined coins and die after a short hype; even worse, they're at disadvantage in the "altcoin circus" as they have no money created out of thin air for bounties.

The challenge for a really long term successful non-premined coin is to eventually get visibility, and this is not easy. I think the best way to really get successful is to have a kind of USP (for example, some unique function or service) or at least a clear plan what the use case could be, maybe an attached business like an exchange or service provider, and then slowly introducing features which brings the coin closer to that goal. For example I think a non-premined smart contract platform could have that kind of USP, as no popular projects of this kind exists (besides perhaps Signum).