tge

Gone are the days when projects launched at a healthy balance of Fully Diluted Valuation (FDV) and Market Cap (MC). In the previous cycle, even a project with modest funding and a "work-in-progress" product could reliably hit a billion-dollar FDV, leaving plenty of "meat on the bone" for early adopters.
The likes of $TIA , $DYM , STARK, and ARB are prime examples of projects that, despite different market conditions, managed to provide significant upside post-launch.

However, recent TGEs (Token Generation Events) like Aztec or Zama have painted a different, more pathetic picture. For many users who invested or farmed these airdrops, the "listing price" has become the "all-time high," leading to immediate losses and a bitter taste in the mouth of the community.
In this article, we will explore the mechanics of FDV(fully diluted valuation), Market Cap, and the emerging OTV (Outstanding Token Value) metric to understand why the current crop of projects is failing where their predecessors succeeded.
Understanding the Math: MC vs. FDV vs. OTV
To understand why projects are failing, we must first understand how they are valued.
Market Cap (MC) is the current value of all tokens circulating in the market. It is calculated as:
MC = Price X Circulating Supply
Fully Diluted Valuation (FDV) is the total value of the project if all tokens were unlocked and circulating at the current price. It is calculated as:
FDV = Price X Total Supply
While MC and FDV are standard, they often provide a distorted view. High FDV suggests a project is "huge," while low MC suggests it's "early." This gap is where retail investors get trapped. Recently, the industry has shifted toward OTV (Outstanding Token Value).
OTV gives you a more grounded view of a token’s real economic value today. While FDV often overstates value by including long-term or inactive supply, and Market Cap understates it by only counting circulating tokens, OTV reflects a project’s valuation based on tokens currently accessible to the market or expected to circulate in the near term.
What OTV excludes:
Permanently locked tokens.Burned tokens.Reserved tokens with no plan to circulate.Long-term foundation or treasury allocations.Validator or ecosystem stakes not meant for the market.

Comparison of the Old and New Projects
Comparing the performance of older "blue-chip" TGEs to recent ones reveals a staggering divide.
Celestia launched as a solid Layer 1 with a $1.8 billion Market Cap and an FDV of $13 billion at launch. Despite the high FDV, it saw sustained growth and became a centerpiece for the modular narrative. Similarly, $ARB and $STARK launched with massive community airdrops. Even with high FDVs, they maintained high liquidity and provided "up-only" windows for participants.
In contrast, recent projects like Aztec and Zama launched into a "fatigue" market with high valuations. Many users who participated saw immediate losses as these projects lacked organic buy pressure. Unlike TIA, which gave the market room to breathe, many new projects are launching at valuations so high that there is no upside left for anyone but the VCs.
Here is an image of projects that launched 2025 and how badly down they are:

Why Projects are Doing Badly Now: A Reality Check
The reason for the current "death" of TGEs has very little to do with market conditions. It is a failure of market psychology and founder ego.
1. The "VC Game" vs. The Startup Path
Most founders no longer want to build a startup; they want to play a VC valuation game. You can launch a product at a $50 million valuation and virtually guarantee a 10x-20x move as you grow, but no founder does that. Instead, they launch at $1 billion plus because they want to look successful to their peers. The result is that there is zero incentive for a retail buyer to step in. If you launch at the finish line, there is nowhere to go but down.
2. Greed and "Exit Liquidity"
Founders have begun to blame airdrops for price crashes, failing to realize that airdrops are the literal only thing that brings users to their protocols. When a project launches at an astronomical FDV with hardly any actual users, they are essentially asking the public to be exit liquidity for their private investors.
3. Lack of Product-Market Fit (PMF)
We are seeing billion-dollar valuations for protocols that have no real users. In the current market, investors have stopped paying for "potential" and started demanding "performance." If there is no demand to use the token, the sell pressure from airdrop recipients and VCs will always win.
Conclusion: What then is the recipe for success?
The only recipe for success in crypto is a good product with PMF, a fair incentive or airdrop structure, and launching at a low valuation. Crypto founders need to self-reflect and realize that they need to incentivize people to use their apps. If founders want to have all the upside, users will leave and let the app die.
I hope this helps, let me know in the comment.
#tge #tokens #BTC