2026-01-19 02:26:32

Rushing to launch first doesn't necessarily guarantee victory. The key is to survive until the end. In the crypto market, how many projects have jumped ahead but ultimately fallen behind? Instead, those that start later but last longer, iterate quickly, and adapt to changes are the ones who will ultimately succeed. That's why continuous innovation, community resilience, and capital reserves are much more important than simply being a first-mover advantage. Only by surviving do you have the qualification to dominate the market.

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.

15 Likes

Reward
15
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

AirdropGrandpa

· 4h ago

There are a bunch of "King of Coins" projects, but only a few are truly surviving. First mover my ass, isn't it just being crushed by the waves behind?

View OriginalReply0

NFTRegretter

· 23h ago

Authentic. Look at those once top-tier projects; they were hyped up early on, but what’s their status now? Conversely, the dark horses that came later are living much more steadily. Survival > Initial Launch; this logic is almost common sense in the crypto world. Well said, but I’m afraid project teams might not listen and are still dreaming. Cash reserves are the real trump card; without funds, you’ll starve sooner or later. Fast iteration is so crucial; only those that can adapt and evolve will last longer. Wait, how did those that have lasted so long do it? Does community really play such a big role? Instead of fighting for the initial launch, it’s better to build internal strength. But in reality? Everyone is still playing the apeing game.

View OriginalReply0

WhaleMinion

· 23h ago

Really, first-mover advantage is a load of crap. The ones that die the fastest are those guys. Survival is the key; everything else is nonsense. Look at how many of the first batch projects are now just ruins, still bragging about being first-movers? Community resilience is the real key. Raising a lot of funds is useless if you can't endure. Fast iteration and longevity—that's what a true winner looks like. What’s the use of rushing ahead? In the end, it’s still about who can survive the longest.

View OriginalReply0

CantAffordPancake

· 23h ago

Really, a bunch of projects that issued tokens in Round 1 are now gathering dust in the trash heap. Longevity is the key; I've seen through this long ago. Those who boast about being first-movers have really poor vision. You need resources to last until the end; projects without money have no way out. If the community isn't strong? Then even the initial advantages are useless. Look at how many competitors ETH had back then, and now? That's how it is. Projects that don't iterate deserve to die; the market won't wait for you. Instead of rushing ahead, it's better to endure; this is the true way to survive. Most of those who are still around are probably not the first to launch. How many coins from 2017 are still alive now? Countless, right? You still need real utility; just hype will eventually cool off.

View OriginalReply0

DeFiGrayling

· 23h ago

The real winner is the one who survives until the end. There's nothing wrong with that, but honestly, most projects won't make it that far, haha.

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-7b078580

· 23h ago

The data shows that patterns have been observed... The survival rate of early projects by the hour is really bleak, but being alive in itself is already winning half the battle.

View OriginalReply0