#Yi Lihua says some projects lack a sense of contractual obligation: users deposit BTC but are not allowed to withdraw it, investors’ assets are arbitrarily deducted, and terms are even changed under pressure. This is no longer just a matter of ordinary investment losses—it is a matter of project credibility and contractual risk.
On October 6, Jack Yi (Yi Lihua), founder of Liquid Capital, posted that some projects have issues such as users being unable to withdraw deposited BTC, investors’ assets being arbitrarily deducted, and users being forced to accept changes to terms. He suggested that exchanges make project credibility a key evaluation criterion.
I think what makes this worth paying attention to is not just whether project teams have breached their contracts, but that the crypto market is reassessing “what kinds of projects are worth holding for the long term.”
In the past, when evaluating projects, the market focused more on fundraising backgrounds, lists of institutional investors, team credentials, narratives, and exchange listings. But if users cannot withdraw their assets as they should, and investors’ terms can be changed unilaterally, then no amount of funding or strength of narrative can make up for a lack of trust.
In traditional stock markets, companies involved in fraud typically face penalties, delisting, and other consequences. The crypto market also needs clearer mechanisms to hold projects accountable. Exchanges cannot simply list tokens without paying attention to how projects manage assets, handle token unlocks, and honor their contracts.
In the future, when evaluating a project, in addition to looking at FDV, TVL, and fundraising totals, investors should consider several other indicators:
Does it have real profits and cash flow?
Does it have the ability to buy back tokens?
Are token unlocks fair?
Has the project team previously changed terms or acted against investors’ interests?
When disputes arise, is it willing to take responsibility?
Yi Lihua said he is actively seeking profitable, buyback-capable, and reputable secondary-market projects to invest in. This direction also reflects a shift in market logic.
The primary market is moving away from competing on fundraising, narratives, and exchange listings, and toward competing on revenue, buybacks, and credibility.
For exchanges, project credibility should also be an important criterion for listing decisions and ongoing oversight.
For investors, the real question is not how grand a project’s story is, but what makes it worth holding for the long term beyond that story.
On October 6, Jack Yi (Yi Lihua), founder of Liquid Capital, posted that some projects have issues such as users being unable to withdraw deposited BTC, investors’ assets being arbitrarily deducted, and users being forced to accept changes to terms. He suggested that exchanges make project credibility a key evaluation criterion.
I think what makes this worth paying attention to is not just whether project teams have breached their contracts, but that the crypto market is reassessing “what kinds of projects are worth holding for the long term.”
In the past, when evaluating projects, the market focused more on fundraising backgrounds, lists of institutional investors, team credentials, narratives, and exchange listings. But if users cannot withdraw their assets as they should, and investors’ terms can be changed unilaterally, then no amount of funding or strength of narrative can make up for a lack of trust.
In traditional stock markets, companies involved in fraud typically face penalties, delisting, and other consequences. The crypto market also needs clearer mechanisms to hold projects accountable. Exchanges cannot simply list tokens without paying attention to how projects manage assets, handle token unlocks, and honor their contracts.
In the future, when evaluating a project, in addition to looking at FDV, TVL, and fundraising totals, investors should consider several other indicators:
Does it have real profits and cash flow?
Does it have the ability to buy back tokens?
Are token unlocks fair?
Has the project team previously changed terms or acted against investors’ interests?
When disputes arise, is it willing to take responsibility?
Yi Lihua said he is actively seeking profitable, buyback-capable, and reputable secondary-market projects to invest in. This direction also reflects a shift in market logic.
The primary market is moving away from competing on fundraising, narratives, and exchange listings, and toward competing on revenue, buybacks, and credibility.
For exchanges, project credibility should also be an important criterion for listing decisions and ongoing oversight.
For investors, the real question is not how grand a project’s story is, but what makes it worth holding for the long term beyond that story.