Why do many new crypto projects fail?

[AntonySS]

You can look at the number of coins on CoinMarketCap and see a huge number of phantoms there.

[Kavelj22]

A lot of project teams don't really care building the good reputation supported by community trust. They don't hesitate to scam their own communities or to force them to gave up their privacy. In the Altcoins board, there is an infinite number of projects who delayed transactions for bounty hunters who helped them promote their brands. While there is another infinite number of crypto projects who completely ignored their communities. I saw a lot of them in the crypto-based casinos, where some casinos ignore solving pending disputes, let all its community down.

Such projects that ignore their community will only end up failing, they cannot succeed without a community,
without early users who struggle to test and provide feedback on the project.

If in the end, the community is ignored, bad things like what I explained will always happen. In fact, it's not just the OGlabs project that has recently happened,
but there are many other crypto projects today that are completely ignoring the community,
providing disproportionate rewards and even more allocations for Binance Alpha users which is currently controversial.

Let's agree that a lot of projects ignore their communities. But some of them are quite successful at some extents. The question is not why those projects don't care about the community feedbacks, but how they can survive in such a competitive market. In my opinion, the answer to this question is quite evident. It's the exchange platforms who can help those project taking a share from the market by just offering trading opportunities without requiring any developement condition. All what those projects have to do is paying listing fees for the exchange.

[markm]

Since exchanges "list" crap anyway apparently, why bother with them?

That could even give people the impression your project is crap too.

It seems to me to make a lot of sense to simply launch on a blockchain that has built-in ability to trade any asset against any other.

Sure you get lost in a sea of crap, but if you do anyway even on "major" exchanges so what?


-MarkM-

[ndutndut]

Most projects fail because they're just money making opportunities for their teams and when they cashout the profits from launching a successful project at TGE. Successful TGE doesn't always reflect the project success. I have seen it times without number. Most of these projects are pure grift because them teams know that there is no real market for whatever they are building but still go ahead to launch a token for "governance".

Yes, many projects are born but many also slowly die. Their motivations vary some are genuinely interested in scams while others are serious but the developers are very amateurish in launching the project. Many developers launch new projects without the necessary skills and responsibilities which ultimately fail.

We know that the cryptocurrency world isn't always about profit it also involves significant risks for investors. One example is the large number of coins whose origins and fundamental objectives are unclear, resulting in little interest. It's no wonder that crypto project failures are becoming more frequent making it crucial for us as investors to avoid new coins.

Essentially thousands of new projects are emerging without a solid foundation. Many are simply created to ride a passing trend, lacking strong fundamentals or a competent development team. This situation results in many projects being unable to survive long in a highly competitive market, and many are intentionally creating new coins solely to scam.

[Stable090]

A lot of people get excited about the next big crypto project, but if you’ve been in this space for a while, you’ve probably seen dozens of coins and protocols launch with hype and then disappear. Many new crypto projects fail because they launch without a clear real world use case, rely only on hype and tokenomics, or have teams that aren’t transparent or skilled enough to deliver what they promise. Add poor security, weak communities, and bear market pressure, and you’ve got a recipe for collapse.

If a project doesn’t have any use case, then you should know that if the coin is hyped, then the price is going to pump, but immediately the hype dies down, then the coin is also going down with the hype. Lots of coins entering the market right now are owned by scammers, they just make promotions to create awareness so that the price will increase, and if they notice that the price is high already, they going to dump everything on people that bought the coin, and they will move on. If you see a new coin right now, be careful, don’t even invest in it because you are likely going to be scammed at d end.

[Baki202]

Let's agree that a lot of projects ignore their communities. But some of them are quite successful at some extents. The question is not why those projects don't care about the community feedbacks, but how they can survive in such a competitive market. In my opinion, the answer to this question is quite evident. It's the exchange platforms who can help those project taking a share from the market by just offering trading opportunities without requiring any developement condition. All what those projects have to do is paying listing fees for the exchange.

There are too many factors that contribute to the project's failure. The majority of the team is always focused on their own interests, which does not help the project. As a result, they should focus more on the community because they are the ones who will be able to predict the market. Without buyers or sellers, the project will fail silently.

So the people are the project and that is why every project team must focus on pe trusting their customers because making them happy will determine how the project will go because no customers no progress so they need to change there mind set, because there problem is there self interest is always there problem so they need to work on there mindset before any other can work for them. This are little things that should be part of there considerations because they think things like this don't matter but they actually do so it is up to them.

[Odusko]

Lack of basic user case and existing ecosystem that support the project to sustain it presence around the market is very important, most of the over 15000 coins that we have in the market are all base on hypes only a few of them like BNB have a good ecosystem like being used as liqudities paying of fees on the binance chain and other functions it has around the binance ecosystem.

[GigaBit]

Let's agree that a lot of projects ignore their communities. But some of them are quite successful at some extents. The question is not why those projects don't care about the community feedbacks, but how they can survive in such a competitive market. In my opinion, the answer to this question is quite evident. It's the exchange platforms who can help those project taking a share from the market by just offering trading opportunities without requiring any developement condition. All what those projects have to do is paying listing fees for the exchange.

There are too many factors that contribute to the project's failure. The majority of the team is always focused on their own interests, which does not help the project. As a result, they should focus more on the community because they are the ones who will be able to predict the market. Without buyers or sellers, the project will fail silently.

If a coin has no real use case, how will the price of that coin increase? Most projects are in demand when there is hype at the beginning, but after the hype ends, people are no longer interested in those coins. Some projects are so hyped that at first it seems that those projects will be the top, but after a few days, the hype of those projects disappears and the coins survive for existence. According to CoinGecko, there are 19,256 coins listed in the market, but can so many coins really meet the expectations of investors? From my point of view, to benefit from investment, especially in the long term, it is necessary to limit yourself to the top 10 coins.

[markm]

If a coin has no real use case, how will the price of that coin increase? Most projects are in demand when there is hype at the beginning, but after the hype ends, people are no longer interested in those coins. Some projects are so hyped that at first it seems that those projects will be the top, but after a few days, the hype of those projects disappears and the coins survive for existence. According to CoinGecko, there are 19,256 coins listed in the market, but can so many coins really meet the expectations of investors? From my point of view, to benefit from investment, especially in the long term, it is necessary to limit yourself to the top 10 coins.

I wouldn't say just the top ten.

Right now I am looking farther down CoinMarketCap's first page than that, and not seeing much green in the one week timespan column of ups and downs.

I find that kind of nice in a usefulness sense because it isn't flooding me with a huge number of greens to try to find some rationale for.

Two of them look to be gold-stablecoins, a pax one and a tether one.

I only scanned down to find three more to look into, finding ZORA, OriginTrail and ZEROBASE.

Brought up their websites-according-to-coinmarketcap...

ZORA seems to be some kind of instagram-like social-posting site or somesuch not clearly a site about a coin at all, so am trying its whitepaper according to coinmarketcap which is a github.

However even before diving into what the heck those three-so-far standouts might be, already I am thinking that gold might make sense as a unit-of-account better than dollars because frankly I find it more believable that gold is stable and dollars going down than that dollars are stable.

I am not even sure it is worth digging into those big three gainers I just mentioned, because afterall if we are to credit the theory that hype alone is a big mover of the markets it seems likely those three will turn out to be evidence of the power of hype; but there are smaller gainers, maybe those are more worth examining to see if anything other than hype and gold are up this week...


-MarkM-

[Mayor of ogba]

The reason why most new projects fail is because they were built with hype and no solid use cases, and the teams intention is just to milk investors' money by sweet talking them into investing in their projects through either their ICO or IEO sales, and when they successfully sell their coins or tokens, they will run away with the money and deactivate their social media handles and their Telegram groups so that nobody can trace them.

[beveryu778]

The reason why most new projects fail is because they were built with hype and no solid use cases, and the teams intention is just to milk investors' money by sweet talking them into investing in their projects through either their ICO or IEO sales, and when they successfully sell their coins or tokens, they will run away with the money and deactivate their social media handles and their Telegram groups so that nobody can trace them.

Yes, when a project does not have good utility and the use case is very low, then the fund raising of that project is not very much. And because of this, they cannot be listed on a good exchange and cannot keep any large liquidity to maintain the token price in the market at a good position. And because of this, most projects fail and the token price crashes very quickly from the market and investors consider it as a cam. And the token that crashes once in a new state cannot recover later.

[Kavelj22]

Let's agree that a lot of projects ignore their communities. But some of them are quite successful at some extents. The question is not why those projects don't care about the community feedbacks, but how they can survive in such a competitive market. In my opinion, the answer to this question is quite evident. It's the exchange platforms who can help those project taking a share from the market by just offering trading opportunities without requiring any developement condition. All what those projects have to do is paying listing fees for the exchange.

There are too many factors that contribute to the project's failure. The majority of the team is always focused on their own interests, which does not help the project. As a result, they should focus more on the community because they are the ones who will be able to predict the market. Without buyers or sellers, the project will fail silently.

So the people are the project and that is why every project team must focus on pe trusting their customers because making them happy will determine how the project will go because no customers no progress so they need to change there mind set, because there problem is there self interest is always there problem so they need to work on there mindset before any other can work for them. This are little things that should be part of there considerations because they think things like this don't matter but they actually do so it is up to them.

As i explained many times, there is great chance that the project can last for a longtime without a real product/service or even a prototype and with a poor community management. Some project are scams proved but still running. The problem is with exchange platforms who list those projects in exchange for a fee, and the project becomes just a cryptocurrency without any real use case and used just as a trading instrument. Traders will be the main community for the projects and usually they don't care about the team behind or to ask about future developments. With the team, traders will buy dip and sell high. Once the token get delisted for any reason, the full concept fail.

[el kaka22]

Statistics is a good reason too. I mean we can't have this many projects be good, there is a finite amount of money going into crypto, so it can't sustain all of them. Considering the amount of tokens and amount of money and then you realize the ratio. There isn't enough money to go around all of them and that means most of them has to fail in order for the few to succeed.

This is just simple math, if we had a lot more money in the crypto world maybe we could see more doing fine. Like go back 10 years and check the top 100, you would say 100th was a small tiny thing, look at it now, it's big. So that means even top 100 grew, but that doesn't mean that it stayed the same, changed a lot over the years, even top ten changed a lot.

[taufik123]

Let's agree that a lot of projects ignore their communities. But some of them are quite successful at some extents. The question is not why those projects don't care about the community feedbacks, but how they can survive in such a competitive market. In my opinion, the answer to this question is quite evident. It's the exchange platforms who can help those project taking a share from the market by just offering trading opportunities without requiring any developement condition. All what those projects have to do is paying listing fees for the exchange.

The cost of listing for an exchange or requesting some supplies is a common rule, it's about how the Exchange is also the mastermind of the collapse of a project
because it takes more of the share that should be for the community.

While we ourselves who work as early users only get rewards that are not even worth it and are smaller than Alpha users who get high rewards just by collecting points.

The current market does look very competitive and many new projects continue to appear,
If they survive with a good community and do not neglect the community, they will be able to survive, because there will be continuous development.

Just compare projects that only ignore the community, they don't last long and are ignored by most large communities.

The exchange platform doesn't fully take a role in whether the project will be successful or not,
but more communities satisfied with fair distribution will provide clearer Insights and better marketing.

-snip-
This is just simple math, if we had a lot more money in the crypto world maybe we could see more doing fine. Like go back 10 years and check the top 100, you would say 100th was a small tiny thing, look at it now, it's big. So that means even top 100 grew, but that doesn't mean that it stayed the same, changed a lot over the years, even top ten changed a lot.

Even those that have not been seen before reach the top 10 or 100, each project cannot be sure whether it will stay in its position or will instead drop and disappear.
As happened with LUNA and UST, it was ranked in the top 10 but then disappeared and was ignored because the developers were too greedy and made big scams.

Some of the top coin positions with continuous development, they continue to survive and continue to innovate to maintain their positions.

[Kavelj22]

Let's agree that a lot of projects ignore their communities. But some of them are quite successful at some extents. The question is not why those projects don't care about the community feedbacks, but how they can survive in such a competitive market. In my opinion, the answer to this question is quite evident. It's the exchange platforms who can help those project taking a share from the market by just offering trading opportunities without requiring any developement condition. All what those projects have to do is paying listing fees for the exchange.

The cost of listing for an exchange or requesting some supplies is a common rule, it's about how the Exchange is also the mastermind of the collapse of a project
because it takes more of the share that should be for the community..

I guess you are talking about a particular exchange or a commun use between all exchange platforms. But from what i hear that some dishonest exchange platforms offer listing opportunities for a short period of time. The project can pay to get listed for let's a month. If the trading circulation is successful, they pay for longer period, or just keep selling maximum before running away but this is rare to happen.

[markm]

Again with the exchanges as gatekeepers being a problem.

To my mind that problem was solved by the advent of Ripple...

...Until Ripple screwed us by reneging on the open-ness to all...

...Whereupon Stellar took up the mantle.

Ever since, what is with this whole "thing" about exchanges being a problem?

Once trading is part of the platform/blockchain, that whole "monopoly/gatekeeper" thing should have been over.

It was over, for real, but somehow the masses keep trying to perpetuate it? Why?

I had naturally thought that a problem once solved is solved?

I have not really looked at all the further generations of shitcoins coming out since Ripple and Stellar (and, I perhaps-naively thought, umpteen more forever after since once a problem is solved why would any hoped to be competetive project deliberately fail to incorporate already-invented solutions) already solved that problem.

But now I am more and more strongly each day it seems getting an impression that everything ever since somehow keeps failing to include trrading as part of its native functionality, no gatekeepers required, anyone can trade anything against anyone else?

Heck just there now I didn't even mention the NXT family of platforms, because in their "solution" all pairs are versus the native currency rather than implementing anything against anything trading directly.

As is clear you have to trust the project itself anyway, so what for does any project need some gatekeeper "exchange" anymore?

They can directly issue their own tradeable tokens and their users can trade them, "listing" can be purely grass-roots.

"Listing" thus just comes down to advertising, you can "list" anywhere, just publish your token details in classified ads or press releases or whatever you want and folks can trade directly even from their own home clients.

This is all so weird to me, its like a decade or more now since the whole exchanges as gatekeepers problem was solved.

Is it really the case that the swarms of new platforms coming out do not include trading natively?

They are all by-design perpetuating a "need" for gatekeepers?


-MarkM-

[allthebitandbobs]

What you are doing right now is not that great, it is not crazy neither, trusting new projects is just wrong plain and simple. Most of them fail because they are not going to be good with the amount of failures we have seen. Trust in alts is gone, so that means only a very special cases could do very well, since people just default do not trust a project. Which they are right to do, because majority will fail, and people thinking it will fail causes most of them to fail, so they become de facto correct.

However, there is no reason why we should do what we are doing, it is not going to be that big of a deal. Just invest into bigger and better investments with time and we won't have to worry about anything better on the long term, that's the most important part.

[Sovannar Sangha]

You can look at the number of coins on CoinMarketCap and see a huge number of phantoms there.

CMC data has quite a lot of new coins, but in my opinion, it's better than illegal ones like most meme coins currently available. Many of them can't be found on CMC. You can only check what network their smart contracts use, and the risk of loss is also significant if you choose the wrong one.

[Wakate]

CMC data has quite a lot of new coins, but in my opinion, it's better than illegal ones like most meme coins currently available. Many of them can't be found on CMC. You can only check what network their smart contracts use, and the risk of loss is also significant if you choose the wrong one.

These people are launching different coins every day and don't be surprised because if you continue to check CMC often time in search of these tokens and shitcoins, you might not sleep a whole day. There are many of them but majority will not last 3 months. Trust me and see because there are also many of these rubbish projects on pump.fun with low liquidity without a good responsible team.

[Rockson1]

These people are launching different coins every day and don't be surprised because if you continue to check CMC often time in search of these tokens and shitcoins, you might not sleep a whole day. There are many of them but majority will not last 3 months. Trust me and see because there are also many of these rubbish projects on pump.fun with low liquidity without a good responsible team.

But come to think of it why won't some new projects fail, dude some of those projects was never created to stay for longer-term, the developers has target for developing those shits so once they get what they want the next things is to bounce, they won't care about what anyone feels about it, this is more reason we should not go for any random or any shit shit that call themselves new projects, many investors has learn in a harsh way but we must advise to the best of our understanding because we don't know who will be the next victim.