They Survived the Hype. Will the Market Remember Them? 🔥
Everyone loves a new crypto narrative. New tokens get the attention, new projects get the hype, and yesterday’s favorites get forgotten.
But some believers are still watching three very different visions.
🟢 ETC — The Original Vision
Built around Ethereum’s original proof-of-work chain, ETC represents a different path for believers who value immutability and decentralization. Can that legacy attract renewed attention in the next cycle?
🔴 DOT — The Connected Future
Polkadot’s big idea was never just another blockchain. It was about making different blockchains work together. The challenge now is turning that vision into sustained adoption.
🔵 ICP — The Internet Computer
What if applications and computing could run on-chain, without relying entirely on traditional cloud infrastructure? ICP is pursuing that ambitious vision—but execution and real-world usage still matter.
Here’s what I believe:
A project being forgotten doesn’t automatically make it undervalued. And a loyal community doesn’t guarantee a comeback.
The real opportunity is finding the gap between what a project promises and what it actually delivers.
So let’s hear from the community 👇
If the next bull market rewards fundamentals over hype, which vision would you investigate first?
$ETH is about 9% below where it traded before Bitmine said it would stop buying. And as far as I can tell, Bitmine hasn’t even stopped yet.
Here’s the setup. As of Oct 4, Bitmine held about 6 million ETH, roughly 4.9% of everything out there. Chairman Tom Lee said on Oct 7 it will stop at 5%, about 100,000 ETH away. At around $2,460 an ETH, that’s roughly $246M by my math. Reports say it has $643M in cash and securities, so it isn’t stopping because the money ran out. It’s choosing to stop.
On my 4-hour chart, ETH sat around $2,700 before Oct 7. It slid to a low near $2,320 on Oct 15, then bounced to about $2,460. That’s roughly 14% down at the worst point.
I can’t tell you why. The buying hadn’t ended, so this isn’t the buyer disappearing. It looks more like traders pricing in the day it does. I haven’t verified that, and the wider market was shaky too.
My read: the fear of losing the buyer may be doing more damage than losing the buyer. That’s a guess, not a fact.
What I’m watching: Bitmine’s weekly holdings update. If it finally stops and ETH holds above that $2,320 low, the fear was bigger than the cause. If $2,320 breaks after the buying ends, the cushion mattered.
What I don’t know: what happens after 5%. Staking rewards could push Bitmine over the line, and Lee has reportedly said it could sell those to stay under.
If the biggest buyer hasn’t stopped yet and the price already fell 14%, what happens on the day it does?
$BTC went under $81K this week and came back in a day. I’m still not sure what that tells me.
On Tuesday, Korean stocks fell 5.5%. Bitcoin dipped to around $81K, then climbed back above $83K within hours. On Wednesday evening it slid again, on the heaviest volume on my 1-hour chart, down to about $81.6K. The 24-hour low now sits near $79.8K, so at some point it went under that level. Right now it’s back around $82.3K.
I can’t see that dip on the candles I’m looking at, so I don’t know how long it stayed down or how fast it came back.
My read: the line didn’t hold cleanly, but it didn’t stay broken either. I wouldn’t trust the bounce, and I wouldn’t call a breakdown. It looks like a market still deciding.
What I’m watching: does $82K hold as a floor on the next dip, and does the volume on the way up match the volume on the way down. If it falls back under $80K and stays there, I’m wrong about the bounce.
What I don’t know: why it dropped on Wednesday evening. I haven’t found a reason.
When price goes under your level and is back in a day, do you read that as strength or as luck?
I dropped $ZK in a red packet on this post. New narratives are loud. The ones that stayed are worth a second look.
$WAL $QUICK
Sulaiman 零号猎人
·
--
They Survived the Hype. Will the Market Remember Them? 🔥
Everyone loves a new crypto narrative. New tokens get the attention, new projects get the hype, and yesterday’s favorites get forgotten.
But some believers are still watching three very different visions.
🟢 ETC — The Original Vision
Built around Ethereum’s original proof-of-work chain, ETC represents a different path for believers who value immutability and decentralization. Can that legacy attract renewed attention in the next cycle?
🔴 DOT — The Connected Future
Polkadot’s big idea was never just another blockchain. It was about making different blockchains work together. The challenge now is turning that vision into sustained adoption.
🔵 ICP — The Internet Computer
What if applications and computing could run on-chain, without relying entirely on traditional cloud infrastructure? ICP is pursuing that ambitious vision—but execution and real-world usage still matter.
Here’s what I believe:
A project being forgotten doesn’t automatically make it undervalued. And a loyal community doesn’t guarantee a comeback.
The real opportunity is finding the gap between what a project promises and what it actually delivers.
So let’s hear from the community 👇
If the next bull market rewards fundamentals over hype, which vision would you investigate first?
Tokenized assets are growing fast. But which token actually gets paid?
I ran 3 RWA tokens through one test: when the business grows, does the token holder see any of it?
Ondo ($ONDO ): No. Q2 gross revenue was $15.3M, gross profit was zero. $CFG : No. $0 of the $5.44M protocol revenue reaches holders. $SYRUP : Yes, but small. 25% of revenue goes to buybacks.
What could go wrong:
Ondo: about 5B tokens are still to circulate Centrifuge: two funds make up 95.6% of the platform Maple: buybacks slowed in 2026
Which one would you hold for 3 years? Reply with one line why. I’ll check the best answer and post what I find.
Of the three RWA projects I checked, only one ties its token to revenue: Maple.
91% of voters backed ending staking rewards and sending 25% of revenue to buybacks. On $14.43M annualized revenue, that’s roughly $3.6M a year (my estimate).
It’s small against $4.82B AUM, and buybacks slowed in 2026. Rules-based buybacks only restarted in August.
Distribution is real, though: Maple’s yield-bearing stablecoins are live on $AAVE markets.
What I’m watching: does $SYRUP ’s buyback rule hold? Not financial advice.
$1.6B platform. $0 to $CFG holders. Annualized fees are $59.81M and protocol revenue is $5.44M, but CFG is governance-only, with no claim on fund cash flows. The bigger risk: two Janus Henderson funds make up 95.6% of the platform.
If one leaves, the TVL story changes overnight. $ONDO has the same value-capture gap, but without this concentration. Verdict: high risk, need proof before any 10x talk. One source mentions an equity conversion, but it’s unconfirmed. Not financial advice. #Centrifuge #RWAInfrastructure #ConcentrationRisk #OnChainCredit #ZeroHunter
Every cycle, some coins go quiet and people stop talking about them. The ones that held up in a downturn are often the first people remember when the market turns.
$LINK $13.05 vs a ~$52 high $XRP $1.40 vs a ~$3.65 high $BAT $0.133 vs a ~$1.90 high
Long-term scenarios: $LINK : $25-40, if demand for its oracle service keeps growing $XRP : $3-5, a retest of its old highs $BAT : $0.50-1, if usage picks up
Holders of old coins don’t need hype. They need a reason to keep waiting, and that reason is usage, not price.
What I’m watching: does the network activity behind these three keep growing while the price stays flat?