【NEAR Is Down 75%: A Golden Opportunity or a Value Trap?】
In the winter of 2017, I watched a bunch of people pile into EOS. They bought at ten yuan, watched it fall to two, and then gritted their teeth and called it “value investing.” What happened next? Some saw a rebound; others watched their investment go to zero. What made the difference? Whether the project itself had a real, functioning business model.
NEAR is now at $ 5.21, down roughly 75% from its peak. That number is right there in front of us. Some people call it a golden opportunity; others say it’s like trying to catch a falling knife. I don’t want to take sides. I just want to ask one question: Has NEAR’s underlying thesis changed?
Here’s the conclusion first: No. NEAR’s sharding technology, Nightshade protocol, and user-friendly design are all genuinely moving forward, based on what I’ve been able to verify. They’re not just PowerPoint slides. But that’s also where the question lies: the technology works, but what about real-world adoption?
Ethereum’s latest upgrade has increased its gas limit by more than threefold. Put simply, it’s about scaling. In the short term, that’s good news for ETH. But what about the long term? The entire L1 ecosystem will be forced to pick up the pace, or risk being left behind. NEAR is no bystander here—it has to keep up.
Who will be affected? First, developers. Lower gas costs mean it’s cheaper to build dApps, putting more pressure on NEAR to compete. Second, holders. If NEAR can’t quickly prove its competitive edge, capital will flow elsewhere. Third, the entire public-chain sector—this shakeout will be brutal, and the survivors won’t be the ones just shouting slogans.
So here’s what it comes down to: yes, the valuation is low, but “low” isn’t a reason to buy. “Low, while the underlying thesis still holds” is. I don’t have a position right now, but I’ll be watching NEAR’s actual daily active users and TVL. Those numbers don’t lie.
What do you think? Is NEAR worth holding on for, or is it better to get out first and ask questions later?
In the winter of 2017, I watched a bunch of people pile into EOS. They bought at ten yuan, watched it fall to two, and then gritted their teeth and called it “value investing.” What happened next? Some saw a rebound; others watched their investment go to zero. What made the difference? Whether the project itself had a real, functioning business model.
NEAR is now at $ 5.21, down roughly 75% from its peak. That number is right there in front of us. Some people call it a golden opportunity; others say it’s like trying to catch a falling knife. I don’t want to take sides. I just want to ask one question: Has NEAR’s underlying thesis changed?
Here’s the conclusion first: No. NEAR’s sharding technology, Nightshade protocol, and user-friendly design are all genuinely moving forward, based on what I’ve been able to verify. They’re not just PowerPoint slides. But that’s also where the question lies: the technology works, but what about real-world adoption?
Ethereum’s latest upgrade has increased its gas limit by more than threefold. Put simply, it’s about scaling. In the short term, that’s good news for ETH. But what about the long term? The entire L1 ecosystem will be forced to pick up the pace, or risk being left behind. NEAR is no bystander here—it has to keep up.
Who will be affected? First, developers. Lower gas costs mean it’s cheaper to build dApps, putting more pressure on NEAR to compete. Second, holders. If NEAR can’t quickly prove its competitive edge, capital will flow elsewhere. Third, the entire public-chain sector—this shakeout will be brutal, and the survivors won’t be the ones just shouting slogans.
So here’s what it comes down to: yes, the valuation is low, but “low” isn’t a reason to buy. “Low, while the underlying thesis still holds” is. I don’t have a position right now, but I’ll be watching NEAR’s actual daily active users and TVL. Those numbers don’t lie.
What do you think? Is NEAR worth holding on for, or is it better to get out first and ask questions later?