tokens

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

#tokens #Carnavaltokens una campaña exclusivamente para usuarios invitados! No he sido invitada, tu estas invitado? Me invitas!

Amidst the ongoing decline in the value of #tokens listed on Binance in 2024, quote statistics show a sharp decline in the valuations of most assets since their listing. Among the new cryptocurrencies, only 2 - JUP and $WIF
- have shown positive dynamics from the moment they appeared on the world's largest trading platform until today. The rest have shown significant losses, and several tokens have lost more than 80% of their initial #Capitalization .

$JUP
(Jupiter) and WIF (dogwifhat) remained in the plus side amid massive declines, making them unique among the other assets that failed to hold their positions. The cryptocurrency #jup.. posted a 10.5% increase in #MarketCapitalization , while WIF saw a 12.1% increase. In the context of a general market decline, this may speak about the high stability of these assets or about the active interest of investors, which helps them to maintain a positive trend.

On the other hand, a number of tokens showed a catastrophic drop in value. Among the hardest hit are $AEVO , PORTAL, W, and TNSR, each of which lost more than 80% of its original valuation. For example, AEVO dropped in value by 89.7% and PORTAL lost 89.1%. These steep declines could be due to lack of liquidity, high volatility, or weak interest from institutional and retail investors.

The reasons why some of the tokens failed to stay afloat could be related to both high expectations at the initial offering stage and overloaded supply amid low demand. Investors looking for short-term gains may have been faced with the realities of a bear market and lack of fundamental value, leading to massive sell-offs. Notably, most of the tokens that lost most of their value belong to projects focused on blockchain infrastructure or the DeFi segment, where competition is very high.
#10MTradersLeague

#Ripple💰 #RippleStablecoin #CoinbaseExchange. #BinanceSquareFamily
#tokens

Introduction

In a noteworthy development, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has revised its position regarding the classification of cryptocurrencies, heralding a moment of triumph for crypto supporters. In its amended complaint against Binance, the SEC stated that it does not regard crypto assets themselves as securities. This revelation, though mentioned in a footnote, quickly gained traction among industry leaders, including the Chief Legal Officers (CLOs) of Ripple and Coinbase.

Contents
1. Reactions from Coinbase and Ripple's CLOs
2. Frustration Over SEC’s Inconsistent Regulations
3. The Ripple Case Under Examination

1. Reactions from Coinbase and Ripple's CLOs

Paul Grewal, Coinbase’s Chief Legal Officer, highlighted this crucial update in a series of posts on X (formerly Twitter). He underscored the importance of the SEC’s admission by quoting directly from the amended complaint. Grewal remarked, “‘The SEC regrets any confusion it may have invited’ by falsely and repeatedly stating that tokens themselves are securities.”
He characterized the language in the footnote as “remarkable,” criticizing the agency for its reversal of a long-standing position on crypto regulation. Grewal also noted the potential ramifications this shift could have on ongoing litigation involving other crypto entities, particularly Ripple. He tagged Ripple's CLO, Stuart Alderoty, in his post, suggesting that Alderoty might be surprised by the SEC's latest statement.

2. Frustration Over SEC’s Inconsistent Regulations

Stuart Alderoty responded with a mix of vindication and frustration. Quoting Grewal’s post, he expressed his views on the SEC's contradictory approach to cryptocurrency regulation. Alderoty stated, “So the SEC finally admits that 1/ ‘crypto asset security’ is a made-up term and 2/ to prove a ‘crypto asset security’ is an investment contract, the SEC needs evidence of a bundle of ‘contracts, expectations, and understandings’?”
He went on to criticize the SEC’s ever-evolving stance, labeling the agency as “a twisted pretzel of contradictions.” Alderoty humorously proposed a redesign of the SEC's logo to reflect their complex legal entanglements.

3. The Ripple Case Under Examination

The SEC’s acknowledgment is a relief for many within the cryptocurrency sector, especially following years of what has been termed “regulation by enforcement.” Grewal emphasized this concern, stating, “That SEC absolutely ‘maintained’ that tokens themselves are securities is clear from the long record of their regulation by enforcement campaign. Why mislead...”

Conclusion and Final Thoughts

The SEC's recent admission that crypto tokens are not classified as securities represents a significant pivot in its regulatory stance, eliciting strong reactions from key figures in the industry. As the crypto community digests this announcement, the implications for ongoing litigation and future regulatory frameworks remain to be seen. The contrasting views from Coinbase and Ripple's legal leaders highlight the complexities and challenges faced by the cryptocurrency sector as it navigates an evolving regulatory landscape.