2026-01-20 06:34:58

Recently, I saw a comparison of financing data compiled by industry institutions, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. Projects in their early stages of growth, like those that saw Eclipse's initial valuation surge to $1 billion and then drop to $70 million, a decline of over 90%—such projects are actually countless. The logic at the time was very simple: chase VC endorsements, chase funding amounts, chase high valuations. This phenomenon is even more common in the primary market.

To put it plainly, many people didn't care about the projects themselves when they entered; they only looked at the financing halo. And what happened? When the cycle turned, high valuations became the biggest burden. This story of chasing highs repeats itself in the crypto market every so often.

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
8
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

希云

· 21h ago

Big data really makes a difference. Just now, I followed the AI signals at Pump Point Game to avoid a killer and earned points. The 91% win rate data is quite convincing.

View OriginalReply0

MEVHunterWang

· 22h ago

Seeing a 90% decline and still staying calm, mostly it's just old chives haha What’s the use of VC endorsements? Bankruptcy is still bankruptcy When the funding data looked good, who didn’t want to buy the dip? The question is, where is the bottom? Every time they say they’ve learned their lesson, but in the next cycle, it’s still gambler mentality The Eclipse example is really brilliant—valuation halved, then halved again, and still halved Purely based on the funding halo to enter, this cycle should be paid for with tuition Honestly, the tricks used in the primary market to deceive have long become tiresome History always repeats itself, chives never give up High-valuation projects ultimately become synonymous with bagholders

View OriginalReply0

MerkleMaid

· 22h ago

This is a classic VC narrative trap—focusing on funding rounds rather than actual products. No wonder. Overvaluation is truly poison. I even saw someone疯狂接盘 during the Eclipse wave. The primary market is just a game of hot potato; the last to take over always ends up bleeding. This kind of thing happens every cycle. How can some people still not learn their lesson? Chasing hype rather than fundamentals—these players are bound to suffer.

View OriginalReply0

UncleLiquidation

· 22h ago

Entering with VC hype, only to be heavily cut by overvaluation—this trick really has become old.

View OriginalReply0

BearMarketMonk

· 22h ago

A 90% decline—what does it indicate? It shows that the initial valuation was just air. For those entering with the glow of funding, nine out of ten get cut. This is how the cycle works. This story plays out every year, yet people still jump into the trap. Truly ironic. High valuations always turn out to be a trap; history has proven this time and again. The era of chasing VC endorsements should be over, but human nature still falls for it. The best time to evaluate projects is at the bottom; looking at valuation tables now is just pointless.

View OriginalReply0

FlashLoanPrince

· 22h ago

Haha, the Eclipse case is really incredible. The 90% drop is a textbook-level cautionary tale. Chasing funding amounts has been played out in the primary market for a long time. The VC halo can indeed deceive many people. Every bull market, you see newcomers taking over like this. The cycle doesn't change, and neither does human nature.

View OriginalReply0

BlockchainBard

· 22h ago

VC backing is really the biggest IQ tax; the Eclipse case has狠狠ly slapped those valuation chasers in the face.

View OriginalReply0

MintMaster

· 22h ago

Haha, as expected of Web3, the newcomers will never learn --- What’s the use of VC endorsements? In the end, everyone ends up buried together --- The Eclipse case is really top-notch; surviving a 90% drop is already good --- So, a larger fundraising amount is actually more dangerous; the bubble keeps growing bigger --- Every time they say "this time is different," but when the cycle comes, everything is exposed --- It's about time to wake up; analyzing the project itself is the key, everything else is nonsense --- What sounds nice is "chasing hot topics," but honestly, it’s just gambler’s psychology --- In such a competitive primary market, ordinary people really can’t play --- Are there still people taking over projects that have plummeted in valuation? --- Always remember: once the fundraising halo fades, it’s nothing

View OriginalReply0