Think about it—why chase coins that only pumped when everyone was hyped, with decent charts and buzzing communities that vanish the moment sentiment turns? That's classic fair-weather following.



But the real ones? Those projects that held their ground through the bear market, that kept building when nobody was watching, that maintained active communities despite the noise dying down—those tell a different story.

Then you see it: someone influential drops "bull season incoming" or the narrative shifts to whatever's trending on social media, and suddenly everyone's scrambling into the same plays. It becomes a liquidity game—capital shuffling rather than genuine conviction.

Why not let quality speak for itself? Why force people into FOMO positions on whatever's hot this cycle? The projects worth your money aren't the ones manufactured by hype cycles. They're the ones that survived when the casino floor went quiet.
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.
  • Reward
  • 6
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
0/400
DaoResearchervip
· 6h ago
Based on on-chain data, this article hits a serious governance failure point—the community quality of most projects is actually a direct consequence of token weighted voting. From an economic perspective, the assumption holds: when incentive mechanisms are poorly designed, the influx of fair-weather followers dilutes the decision-making quality of the DAO to a confidence interval of over 95% being negative. It is worth noting that Vitalik warned about this phenomenon early on in his paper—the liquidity illusion caused by second-order game failure. Projects that truly endure during a bear market do so because their governance proposals filter out 99% of spam participants, not because of a "faith" issue. It is recommended that everyone first review the whitepaper of their held projects, especially the chapter on incentive compatibility, to understand this clearly.
View OriginalReply0
SeasonedInvestorvip
· 6h ago
Exactly right, that's how it is... Projects that survive the bear market are truly chosen by the real players.
View OriginalReply0
DeepRabbitHolevip
· 6h ago
That's what they say, but how many projects actually stick with it... Most are still forgotten in the corner.
View OriginalReply0
HashBanditvip
· 6h ago
ngl this hits different after losing my shirt on three separate mining rigs back when gpu mining was still viable... the bear market survivors? those are the actual signal, everything else is just noise and gas fees eating into your already sad ROI calculations
Reply0
YieldWhisperervip
· 6h ago
nah this reeks of survivorship bias though... let me check the actual onchain metrics before preaching about "real builders" lmao
Reply0
4am_degenvip
· 6h ago
ngl, what you said is so true. That's exactly how the crypto world is now... a bunch of people following the trends, jumping ship as soon as the wind shifts. Honestly, it's just gambler mentality without conviction. There are only a few truly valuable projects, and the teams that can坚持build during a bear market are the real ones. Others? They are just hype-driven, gone in a flash.
View OriginalReply0
Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate App
Community
English
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Tiếng Việt
  • 繁體中文
  • Español
  • Русский
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • بالعربية
  • Українська
  • Português (Brasil)