Good fundamentals don't ensure a great investment.

[Macoach]

After OP made a planned and private decision to unlock 18% of its treasury tokens, there was a noticeable drop in price, approximately around 6%. It's important to keep in mind that for OP to reach its all-time high (ATH), it would need to see a significant price surge. While this isn't impossible, it's not necessarily a bet worth placing.

Projects like OP, ALGO, AVAX, and DOT are all considered popular cryptocurrencies, but they share a common trait: they have inflationary tokenomics. This raises an important question – why invest in a project that steadily increases its supply by 7% each year for the next three years? Or one that releases large numbers of tokens, potentially leading to price manipulation by large holders?

In essence, even if a project boasts strong fundamentals, a solid team, and real-world value, it doesn't automatically translate into a great investment. This is particularly true for projects with highly inflationary token models. In such cases, reaching previous all-time highs can seem like an even more distant goal.

In summary, a project's fundamentals are only one piece of the investment puzzle, especially when dealing with highly inflationary tokens.

What do you think about this ?

[un_rank]

This is not a bitcoin discussion topic so you should move it from this thread to the Altcoin discussion session or Economics.

In summary, a project's fundamentals are only one piece of the investment puzzle, especially when dealing with highly inflationary tokens.

There are so many pieces to a good investment, but a good fundamental is a very big part of that. Any project that can get the basics right and build something that is in demand and has properties that investors are looking for, it will be able to market itself giving enough time.

- Jay -

[o48o]

After OP made a planned and private decision to unlock 18% of its treasury tokens, there was a noticeable drop in price, approximately around 6%. It's important to keep in mind that for OP to reach its all-time high (ATH), it would need to see a significant price surge. While this isn't impossible, it's not necessarily a bet worth placing.

Projects like OP, ALGO, AVAX, and DOT are all considered popular cryptocurrencies, but they share a common trait: they have inflationary tokenomics. This raises an important question – why invest in a project that steadily increases its supply by 7% each year for the next three years? Or one that releases large numbers of tokens, potentially leading to price manipulation by large holders?

In essence, even if a project boasts strong fundamentals, a solid team, and real-world value, it doesn't automatically translate into a great investment. This is particularly true for projects with highly inflationary token models. In such cases, reaching previous all-time highs can seem like an even more distant goal.

In summary, a project's fundamentals are only one piece of the investment puzzle, especially when dealing with highly inflationary tokens.

What do you think about this ?

Well if you are staking and your bag is part of the inflation and growing with it. And to top of that, usually inflation is happening very slow.

The individual coin price dropping a little doesn't matter, because it's the value of your bag of that coin that matters. If it loses value, only then you are losing money .

However high infraltion rate and price of one whole token dropping can be bad in other ways. As people who are doing technical analysis follow only the price dropping, they don't include the staking rate in their chart analysis, and most investors look only the surface and the chart/marketcap movement.

Also tokenomics are just one part of fundamentals.

[carlfebz2]

After OP made a planned and private decision to unlock 18% of its treasury tokens, there was a noticeable drop in price, approximately around 6%. It's important to keep in mind that for OP to reach its all-time high (ATH), it would need to see a significant price surge. While this isn't impossible, it's not necessarily a bet worth placing.

Projects like OP, ALGO, AVAX, and DOT are all considered popular cryptocurrencies, but they share a common trait: they have inflationary tokenomics. This raises an important question – why invest in a project that steadily increases its supply by 7% each year for the next three years? Or one that releases large numbers of tokens, potentially leading to price manipulation by large holders?

In essence, even if a project boasts strong fundamentals, a solid team, and real-world value, it doesn't automatically translate into a great investment. This is particularly true for projects with highly inflationary token models. In such cases, reaching previous all-time highs can seem like an even more distant goal.

In summary, a project's fundamentals are only one piece of the investment puzzle, especially when dealing with highly inflationary tokens.

What do you think about this ?

Well if you are staking and your bag is part of the inflation and growing with it. And to top of that, usually inflation is happening very slow.

The individual coin price dropping a little doesn't matter, because it's the value of your bag of that coin that matters. If it loses value, only then you are losing money .

However high infraltion rate and price of one whole token dropping can be bad in other ways. As people who are doing technical analysis follow only the price dropping, they don't include the staking rate in their chart analysis, and most investors look only the surface and the chart/marketcap movement.

Also tokenomics are just one part of fundamentals.

It would really be just only having two possible path which it would really be going up or down and it would really be in according in overall demand and recognition by those investors or the community on which it

would really be that depending in regarding into its value overtime. Good fundamentals doesnt assure that you would really be that able to hit up the right project but since we are doing our research which it is a must thing then it would really be indicating that this one is really that having the potential.It is way more better compared when you do make out some investment decisions without any basis because on this method on which you arent following any steps or analysis then you are just simply doing gambling in the first place. We know that dealing investment on this space does really involves that kind of risks
on which it is really that normal that you would really be needing to take further step for you to be able to get the chance of progress.

You wont really be able to know unless you do try. To those people who do really take up the risks because of tending to involved into something are the ones who do have that kind of possible opportunity
on making their good profits on which it is really that a common approach or things that could possibly happen but of course losing money is always next in line too.

[Kelvinid]

Having a good fundamental is a big asset to the project for the investors think that it will become successful and encourage them to invest. However, this won't give us 100% assurance but at least the chances are pretty high compared to the projects. While choosing a project to invest in, we also bear a lot of considerations and project analysis. As we decided to invest in that project, it meant that we trusted the team and the fundamentals of the project. If we think they can't perform well, then we also have the right to decline.

[serjent05]

In summary, a project's fundamentals are only one piece of the investment puzzle, especially when dealing with highly inflationary tokens.

What do you think about this ?

Isn't the number of coin supplies included in the fundamental analysis?  So you should have taken into account that with ever-increasing number of tokens/coins, it will impact the fundamentals of the project.  Aside from that the marketing capability of the team is also part of the fundamentals so you shouldn't be surprised that the price of OP will decrease due to its marketing incapability and the ever-increasing supply. With these flaws, I don't think that the project you stated has a good fundamental.

[harizen]

In summary, a project's fundamentals are only one piece of the investment puzzle, especially when dealing with highly inflationary tokens.

What do you think about this ?

Isn't it just usual that a project should have a fundamental that makes sense as a start?

Investors won't just throw money if the project doesn't have a reasonable fundamental use-case. If the team were able to show that clearly and the roadmap somehow made sense, investors might think that it's worthy investing in. The next one is the critical part, how the team will manage the project along the way and that's the key in making a strong backed community around the project.

It's really tough to choose a project especially risking money for startups that's why a good-decision making should always be a priority.

[Silberman]

...

In essence, even if a project boasts strong fundamentals, a solid team, and real-world value, it doesn't automatically translate into a great investment. This is particularly true for projects with highly inflationary token models. In such cases, reaching previous all-time highs can seem like an even more distant goal.

In summary, a project's fundamentals are only one piece of the investment puzzle, especially when dealing with highly inflationary tokens.

What do you think about this ?

That is just the way it is, there are many companies that despite having great products and innovative ideas failed at the end, so it is not surprising the same were to happen in this market, after all a great deal of speculators out there are not really looking for solid projects in which they can invest, what they are looking is for the dumbest project which can be conceived but that can still attract the attention of others, which is why meme coins are so popular despite their poor fundamentals.

[nelson4lov]

~Snipped
In summary, a project's fundamentals are only one piece of the investment puzzle, especially when dealing with highly inflationary tokens.

What do you think about this ?

There is no "one size fits all" when it comes to tokenmetrics. The tokenmetrics of existing altcoin projects are largely experiment and inflationary token supply has become a new shift in how token supply are structured. Instead of having all the supply available at launch (and unlocked) which could impact the price, most teams just lock some of the token supply and unlock it linearly. It's not the best approach and it has its downside but it's the best for now except someone comes up with a much better way to structure token metrics in the future.

[JeffBrad12]

fundamental is just one factor that determine whether a product is good, such project that add 7% of supply yearly to the total supply is complete waste of time to invest honestly.
even ethereum is having burning to keep the total supply from getting too much.
but sometime even if the coin supply is keep increasing, it could still mantain its value for each coin because the demand is massive and these demand coming from the fact that the coin itself is trendy.
then that would be exception where the total supply increase doesn't really matter that much, the thing is that the market of certain coin sometime could be so abstract getting affected by various factors out there.

[Saisher]

In summary, a project's fundamentals are only one piece of the investment puzzle, especially when dealing with highly inflationary tokens.

What do you think about this ?

A good project is a combination of many features and fundamentals I have seen a lot of projects that are only good on paper but failed to translate it to success because the people behind that project are not capable of materializing what they intend to do.
A good project to become successful should be relevant to what the community needs and those needs should be long-term and not just hype or a trend that will vanish when a new trend comes.

[poodle63]

a project could gain success when they have good marketing that generates demands, have fundamentally good products that helps to market it, and also sustaining long term planning if a project got all these then success is definitely gonna come.
but some project only excels at one thing, not to mention those that only depend on the hypes making their project completely irrelevant within next months.
thats why analyzation about all these things are required only then you'd have the perfect projects that you can invest on. otherwise it will just losing value in long term.
so its true that fundamental is only a piece of puzzle in this case.

[bluebit25]

The question is when do you come into contact with it?

The projects that OP mentioned here are all names that have created a position in this market, raising the issue of investment, there are many problems that follow it to lead to a profitable investment and analyzing the basics purely and uncritically into the development plan of the market or project to avoid missing opportunities. For altcoins, the trend happens almost after bitcoin, so for new people they may not understand too much and need time to experience to see the price increase or decrease of whatever they are interested, the inflation story here really doesn't have much of a problem when we are discussing a crypto space that is still small compared to the economy, there is no need to complicate the issue whether short or long term.

[@sriyan]

After OP made a planned and private decision to unlock 18% of its treasury tokens, there was a noticeable drop in price, approximately around 6%. It's important to keep in mind that for OP to reach its all-time high (ATH), it would need to see a significant price surge. While this isn't impossible, it's not necessarily a bet worth placing.

Projects like OP, ALGO, AVAX, and DOT are all considered popular cryptocurrencies, but they share a common trait: they have inflationary tokenomics. This raises an important question – why invest in a project that steadily increases its supply by 7% each year for the next three years? Or one that releases large numbers of tokens, potentially leading to price manipulation by large holders?

In essence, even if a project boasts strong fundamentals, a solid team, and real-world value, it doesn't automatically translate into a great investment. This is particularly true for projects with highly inflationary token models. In such cases, reaching previous all-time highs can seem like an even more distant goal.

In summary, a project's fundamentals are only one piece of the investment puzzle, especially when dealing with highly inflationary tokens.

What do you think about this ?

How about the layer zero?  They have good fundamentals. Also, they received higher investment from the VCs as well. So most crypto companies invest the money based on the project's unique solution. So layer zero provides an omni-chain solution. If the project has good funding, then users will be trying to use it for targetting the airdrops from the project team. so the project's transactions will increase.

[Apocollapse]

Projects like OP, ALGO, AVAX, and DOT are all considered popular cryptocurrencies, but they share a common trait: they have inflationary tokenomics.

In essence, even if a project boasts strong fundamentals, a solid team, and real-world value, it doesn't automatically translate into a great investment.

How those shitcoins are considered having good fundamentals in the first place? popular and useful are different, if popular and big market cap are the reasons of good project. A whale just need to create a new coin and invest all of his money to bump the coin into top 10 in CMC, after many investors are buying the coin, the whale can run away and steal all investors money.

[cryptoaddictchie]

Well you dont only based the project strenght on its inflation rate. We should also check its use cases around their ecosystem does those unloaded tokens have usefulness in such horizon or not? Well if its in demand then its price would increase no matter how big the supply being release on specific time. Yes supply and demand of such commodity matter but also its only a part of what we can see on future of different project.

[nutildah]

What do you think about this ?

What I think is you've been using ChatGPT to write most of your posts for you...

However, it's important to note

When it comes to cryptocurrencies, it's essential to consider

It's true that

When it comes to

In essence,

These are some of the most common phrases used by ChatGPT when generating responses or re-writing text for people..

I don't really know what your aim is but if its to rank up and join a signature campaign, you're going to want to start writing posts using your own voice and own original thoughts.

[goaldigger]

Well you dont only based the project strenght on its inflation rate. We should also check its use cases around their ecosystem does those unloaded tokens have usefulness in such horizon or not? Well if its in demand then its price would increase no matter how big the supply being release on specific time. Yes supply and demand of such commodity matter but also its only a part of what we can see on future of different project.

In short there’s a lot of factors that needs to be consider before investing and fundamentals alone is not enough because not all projects are fundamentally good but still they are able to rise and build their empire. The usage of the project, the demand for it and the future plans of the project also matters, look into this details as well before investing, try to use both FA and TA to have a solid result of your analysis.

[Yamifoud]

It was not the sole metric to see if that project/s become successful but having that feature it seems to have a bigger chance.
If I choose a project to invest in, I'm not choosing it because it is popular on social media, it has good fundamentals but also, I consider the most if that project showcases a useful contribution to the crypto space so we can benefit from it. Many projects show great things at first but they don't have sustainable market designs to retain their greatness, they are gradually losing identification and popularity until they lose sight of the investors.

[abel1337]

Well you dont only based the project strenght on its inflation rate. We should also check its use cases around their ecosystem does those unloaded tokens have usefulness in such horizon or not? Well if its in demand then its price would increase no matter how big the supply being release on specific time. Yes supply and demand of such commodity matter but also its only a part of what we can see on future of different project.

In short there’s a lot of factors that needs to be consider before investing and fundamentals alone is not enough because not all projects are fundamentally good but still they are able to rise and build their empire. The usage of the project, the demand for it and the future plans of the project also matters, look into this details as well before investing, try to use both FA and TA to have a solid result of your analysis.

Yep, one example of that the projects that is mentioned in the OP has the same characteristics but managed to make a good way for their own community to trust them. There are so many deciding factor on why would you trust a project but I think investors make the inflationary characteristic a passable factor. Maybe the burning or the product usefulness can't be overseen that's why the "cons" of unlocking a certain number of tokens is still manageable. It depends on how the community see the project fundamentals.

[woez]

It's very interesting to see that many people are unable to withstand market corrections, especially if BTC goes down, even though in the past the type of token/coin you mentioned was considered very fundamental. Well, what we see most is that we can only participate in active participation programs in the network, such as staking or other reward programs and one more thing if i see the price increases can occur along with project development or based on other market factors.

[lalabotax]

In essence, even if a project boasts strong fundamentals, a solid team, and real-world value, it doesn't automatically translate into a great investment. This is particularly true for projects with highly inflationary token models. In such cases, reaching previous all-time highs can seem like an even more distant goal.

In summary, a project's fundamentals are only one piece of the investment puzzle, especially when dealing with highly inflationary tokens.

What do you think about this ?

I agree with this.
In fact, not all projects that have good fundamentals will be successful later and get lots of investors and good responses from investors. There are several other factors that will make a project really big. But nowadays, sometimes, most of the new projects want to get their project hype first by any means. And after that, they don't even care about the fundamental side of their project. Meanwhile, projects that are really serious and contain very good fundamentals, are not certain to be truly successful. There are other things that make a project a big success, not only because of the hype but also other factors. And this will really depend on the ability of the developer and their team to make their project truly accepted and able to continue to develop in various markets.

[serjent05]

It was not the sole metric to see if that project/s become successful but having that feature it seems to have a bigger chance.
If I choose a project to invest in, I'm not choosing it because it is popular on social media, it has good fundamentals but also, I consider the most if that project showcases a useful contribution to the crypto space so we can benefit from it. Many projects show great things at first but they don't have sustainable market designs to retain their greatness, they are gradually losing identification and popularity until they lose sight of the investors.

It is also good to consider the potential growth of the project which is affected by the ability of its developer and the marketing department.  I believe @OP failed to include these factors in his fundamental lists.  With the potential growth, the maximum number of coins should be the utmost concern.  With the additional supplies, the growth will be nullified because it will saturate the value of the coins especially when the coin influx is way too much for the market to handle and the marketing team is unable to cope with the increase of supplies.

[TastyChillySauce00]

It's very interesting to see that many people are unable to withstand market corrections, especially if BTC goes down, even though in the past the type of token/coin you mentioned was considered very fundamental. Well, what we see most is that we can only participate in active participation programs in the network, such as staking or other reward programs and one more thing if i see the price increases can occur along with project development or based on other market factors.

The future is still remain unpredictable. I remember the time when people were yelling if luna was the next bitcoin but they were got rekt massively once luna dumped so hard like it was worth nothing again.
People must not be stupid enough to always call anything that has good fundamentals will be suitable for investing. Even though bitcoin was a coin with best fundamental but it can make us get rekt as well. There's also a certain condition when the project was also facing crisis.
This is also making the investors got so much stressed caused by they saw their portfolios dumped so hard.

[martinex]

The future is still remain unpredictable. I remember the time when people were yelling if luna was the next bitcoin but they were got rekt massively once luna dumped so hard like it was worth nothing again.
People must not be stupid enough to always call anything that has good fundamentals will be suitable for investing. Even though bitcoin was a coin with best fundamental but it can make us get rekt as well. There's also a certain condition when the project was also facing crisis.
This is also making the investors got so much stressed caused by they saw their portfolios dumped so hard.

Everyone's views are of course different and I think as you say is correct, there is a saturation point even though coins like BTC are highly recommended. but what he wants to make a profit then move to a more profitable coin is also each person's right even though they know the risks of selling some BTC for example to enter and take a chance on altcoins.

[abel1337]

The future is still remain unpredictable. I remember the time when people were yelling if luna was the next bitcoin but they were got rekt massively once luna dumped so hard like it was worth nothing again.
People must not be stupid enough to always call anything that has good fundamentals will be suitable for investing. Even though bitcoin was a coin with best fundamental but it can make us get rekt as well. There's also a certain condition when the project was also facing crisis.
This is also making the investors got so much stressed caused by they saw their portfolios dumped so hard.

We all have our own perspective on a coin. Luna was has an aggressive price increase when people are telling the public about their opinion about LUNA, saying that it has a great tokenomics and next to bitcoin but yeah, things happened and the tokenomics they have had been exploited and massively crashed along with it's pegged stable coin. Maybe the opinion of people at that time (before the crash) where directed into hyping and for marketing the LUNA, it was effective if it meant to be that way. Fundamentals is important but I agree that sometimes it can bring a danger to us especially if we don't analyze it that much and have the certain precaution that we need to avoid a fundamental disaster just like what happened to LUNA.

[lombok]

Not all projects with good fundamentals are good and become investment targets. However, a project with a decent return on investment has good fundamentals.

This certainly gives us investment activists special attention to carry out further and thorough research in selecting projects.

No wonder the coin mentioned by the OP has a price increase that tends to be insignificant and continues to produce lower lows in the price of the token.

[cheezcarls]

Having good fundamentals of a certain project isn’t gonna guarantee that it’s gonna be a good investment. There are projects who are being well-funded and backed by VCs and partners didn’t really go up to it’s full potential due to the selling pressure.

It might gain a little bit but it’s just temporary as the market we’re in is so uncertain. Although we do not rule out these projects with good fundamentals are going to stay as it is as they are more working on for the long-term results.  

For a project to stand out and has big reasons for us to keep buying and less selling, it must be something out of the box that would definitely attract a lot of users not just in the short term, but in the long run.

[VFalcon]

The foundation doesn't always justify the project, it's still the community that matters. For example, TFS token is quite stable and one of the positive factors is a strong community 

[LogitechMouse]

~
In essence, even if a project boasts strong fundamentals, a solid team, and real-world value, it doesn't automatically translate into a great investment. This is particularly true for projects with highly inflationary token models. In such cases, reaching previous all-time highs can seem like an even more distant goal.

In summary, a project's fundamentals are only one piece of the investment puzzle, especially when dealing with highly inflationary tokens.

What do you think about this ?

You're only pertaining to inflationary tokens here right.

TBH, this isn't only applicable to inflationary tokens alone, but in all of the tokens in general. Fundamentals alone isn't enough for a project to say that it's a good project to invest your money with. A project can have a good update this month, then it will not for the next 3-6 months. I've seen some projects in the past whose been at the top 20 or even in the top 10 a few years ago, but now isn't even in the top 50 now because of lack of updates, or news regarding the project.

As for inflationary tokens in general, I think we already know what's the most popular inflationary token right now, and yes it isn't DOGE, but it's Ethereum.

[shinratensei_]

Having good fundamentals of a certain project isn’t gonna guarantee that it’s gonna be a good investment. There are projects who are being well-funded and backed by VCs and partners didn’t really go up to it’s full potential due to the selling pressure.

It might gain a little bit but it’s just temporary as the market we’re in is so uncertain. Although we do not rule out these projects with good fundamentals are going to stay as it is as they are more working on for the long-term results. 

For a project to stand out and has big reasons for us to keep buying and less selling, it must be something out of the box that would definitely attract a lot of users not just in the short term, but in the long run.

most of the time it doesn't need to be out of the box too, you see arbitrum, sei, and sui quite literally its the same thing with previous project just blockchain that have capability of smart contract and yet
when they are releasing they have massive demands.
its usually what the market really wants, market wants more smart contract blockchain there it is, market wants L2 because ethereum has high gas fee then there it is.
basically you just need riding the trend train and you're set no need to have innovation or out of the box idea you just create what is trendy.

[Blitzboy]

After fully considering this scenario, I agree with your concerns about inflationary tokenomics. Possible manipulation by large holders with many tokens throws a shadow. The 6% dip after freeing a large treasury chunk is more than a warning. It warns about how overproduction and price suppression can kill growth.

Three years of 7% annual gains in the inflationary model is a loaded dice roll, right? Why invest in a project that may increase supply and manipulate prices? a valid worry. The growth and fall of bitcoin prices are typically hidden from investors. These underlying components may be strong, but can they withstand inflation and manipulation?

[Silberman]

The foundation doesn't always justify the project, it's still the community that matters. For example, TFS token is quite stable and one of the positive factors is a strong community 

A strong community is important for the success of a project but it is not everything, the project still needs to be good and the developers need to follow their roadmap as close as possible so the trust of the community does not disappear, and yet there are many projects which despite seemingly doing everything right disappear, because at some point the developers get tired of maintaining the project and they simply want to cash out their coins and live the good life.

[Xal0lex]

After OP made a planned and private decision to unlock 18% of its treasury tokens, there was a noticeable drop in price, approximately around 6%. It's important to keep in mind that for OP to reach its all-time high (ATH), it would need to see a significant price surge. While this isn't impossible, it's not necessarily a bet worth placing.

Projects like OP, ALGO, AVAX, and DOT are all considered popular cryptocurrencies, but they share a common trait: they have inflationary tokenomics. This raises an important question – why invest in a project that steadily increases its supply by 7% each year for the next three years? Or one that releases large numbers of tokens, potentially leading to price manipulation by large holders?

In essence, even if a project boasts strong fundamentals, a solid team, and real-world value, it doesn't automatically translate into a great investment. This is particularly true for projects with highly inflationary token models. In such cases, reaching previous all-time highs can seem like an even more distant goal.

In summary, a project's fundamentals are only one piece of the investment puzzle, especially when dealing with highly inflationary tokens.

What do you think about this ?

Everything depends on the term of your investment. Projects with such tokenomics are not profitable to keep in your wallets for a long time, they should be periodically sold, using instead of BUY&HOLD strategy, the strategy of long-term trading. That is, you should sell tokens in every bullish cycle and then wait for the price to drop. In this way, some risks associated with token depreciation can be avoided. It is impossible to apply to altcoins the investment strategy that is applied to bitcoin, not all altcoins grow in value throughout their life, many die or are traded constantly at the same level.

[fullhdpixel]

The foundation doesn't always justify the project, it's still the community that matters. For example, TFS token is quite stable and one of the positive factors is a strong community 

But, I think the community is still part of a foundation, although yeah you are right that without them there will also be no foundation that will be built, however we are talking about fundamentals here not foundation and I think both of them are not the same. I see that you mentioned TFS token there but I'm sorry because it looks like a shill to me, and I don't think it has a strong community because the coin is rarely being talked about now.

They are many alt-coins out there that has a good fundamental to invest on, which cryptocurrency market is on the Bear market and very cheap to invest in difference top alt-coins that is already established in the ecosystem and more profitable after holding in long term.

But, the OP just said that having a good fundamentals alone is not enough. He got a point there though. We can use the example of weak-hand investors who chose Bitcoin but still ended up as a loser. Apart from the awareness, we also need some personal skills, so that we can carry on successfully on our goals.

[wheelz1200]

There are tons of projects out there for every coin or token to take off due to all of the competition for people's money.  Unfortunately some of the good projects fizzle out because they can't reach the right group of investors and eventually the people working on the project slowly drop off.  And vice versa, some terrible projects are marketed correctly and pump in price.  That's crypto.

[Rengga Jati]

In summary, a project's fundamentals are only one piece of the investment puzzle, especially when dealing with highly inflationary tokens.

What do you think about this ?

Of course, good fundamentals are not the only thing that makes a project truly successful. Maybe we have seen how a project has very good fundamentals and quite good development, but ultimately stops along the way due to various reasons. Factors of progress and project capabilities, especially in this era, are very varied. Moreover, various projects currently put forward hype that can attract various investors. However, only some of them have good fundamentals so they won't last long. On the other hand, if you have good fundamentals but a mediocre team, especially if the project's promotion and financial systems are mediocre or even lacking, then the project will not be able to develop well. This is what makes us need to be more alert and careful when concluding a new project that we will approach or invest in.

[Hypnosis00]

There are tons of projects out there for every coin or token to take off due to all of the competition for people's money.  Unfortunately some of the good projects fizzle out because they can't reach the right group of investors and eventually the people working on the project slowly drop off.  And vice versa, some terrible projects are marketed correctly and pump in price.  That's crypto.

No matter how promising the project looks but if that never suits the needs of the people or traction to the investors, it certainly just dumps and dies. Indeed, the market competition is very tough and those projects that already gain support will continue to grow while the others go down. This is the reason why I choose old projects rather than making a fortune in new projects knowing that it was hard for them to get attention when the trust of the inevstors had already hooked up by these projects.

[el kaka22]

It doesn't ensure it, but what does? People keep saying one thing bad without putting any alternatives which is the biggest issue, I believe that we are going to end up with something that would be a bit different if we are not careful, and that is why I believe that we are going to be having some trouble.

Hopefully it will get  to a point where we could end up with a good return one way or another, and that should be important, we could definitely see it happen one way or another. I believe that we are going to end up with something that would be better than good fundamentals before we give that up, if there is nothing better than that, no matter how it is not great, it is still better than any other alternative to it.