2026-01-01 22:20:38

In the crypto ecosystem, projects face two very different paths:

The shortcut is to pile on incentives to quickly create eye-catching surface achievements. Short-term content easily attracts traffic and hype, making the numbers look impressive.

The real challenge lies in building a fair competitive environment—making users truly believe they won't be subject to adverse selection. This requires transparent mechanism design, genuine value flow, and long-term trust accumulation.

The former is fast but fragile, while the latter is slow but solid. Many projects tend to take shortcuts, but those that survive and grow often choose the more difficult path.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

11 Likes

Reward
11
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

DataChief

· 22h ago

Honestly, most projects have already chosen the first path—just look good in trading volume, who cares what happens later. The ones that last long are truly rare. I've seen too many projects with impressive data collapse overnight. People talk a lot about transparency, but how many actually do it? I guess you can count them on two hands. I respect projects that stick to the difficult path, even if they can't make quick money. In my opinion, what the crypto ecosystem lacks are projects that come slowly and steadily; instead, they've all been drained by vampires.

View OriginalReply0

MevShadowranger

· 22h ago

Most projects are still playing the numbers game, and very few truly focus on doing it sincerely. --- Basically, when retail investors want incentives, project teams just pile on incentives, anyway just harvest once and leave. --- A transparent mechanism sounds good, but who really cares? In the end, it’s all about who cuts in early. --- That’s true; those who survive have indeed worked hard, but most fall along the way... --- Stacking incentives for short-term gains looks good, data is maximized, and then? The project disappears after three months. --- Fewer people take the difficult path, but those who do make a profit. It’s that simple. --- Is trust worth anything in this circle... --- Wait, quick fundraising to boost data and then find a sucker— isn’t that also how they survive? --- If the mechanism design is transparent, will users believe it? I don’t believe you. --- Fragile but fast, or stable but slow— which to choose? I guess I have to survive either way.

View OriginalReply0

DegenTherapist

· 22h ago

Sounds good, but isn't it true that most projects are following the first path? Now think about it, how many can really make it to the second stage? Every day, watching new projects launch and throw incentives, and after three months the hype dies out—it's hilarious.

View OriginalReply0

FundingMartyr

· 23h ago

To put it simply, most projects nowadays are just playing with numbers; as long as the data looks good, that's enough. Anyway, users will be drained sooner or later. The hard path? Come on, those who can survive a bull market have already won.

View OriginalReply0

CodeAuditQueen

· 23h ago

That shortcut is essentially a social engineering version of reentrancy attacks, appearing to have beautiful data but actually full of overflow vulnerabilities. Projects that truly survive need to have governance mechanisms audited as rigorously as the contract code.

View OriginalReply0