2025 Token Review: 84% Peak at Opening, High Financing Projects Become "Breakout" Disaster Zone?

Dec 23, 2025 21:34:00

Share to

Original Title: 113 token launches. $1.3B+ raised. One pattern that kills all

Original Source: Solus Group

Original Compilation: CryptoLeo, Odaily Planet Daily

Editor's Note: Recently, analyst Ash stated in a popular post that among over 100 new tokens launching in 2025, 84.7% of tokens had a fully diluted valuation (FDV) lower than their FDV at the time of token generation event (TGE). The median FDV of these tokens dropped by 71% compared to their issuance (with a median market cap drop of 67%). Only 15% of tokens saw an increase in FDV compared to their TGE FDV. Overall, most tokens issued in 2025 peaked at their TGE price.

Following these data findings, I found a more interesting article (from Solus Group) that also starts with project token TGE and analyzes the trends of 113 tokens post-TGE in 2025, along with their funding situation, community activity, and correlation with trading platform listings. The research found that high funding, active communities, and trading platform listings, which are commonly seen as quality indicators for projects, have little impact on the price trends of project tokens. In the past, we often filtered good projects based on these conditions, but this project evaluation model has clearly "failed" in 2025. One particularly thought-provoking set of data is:

Projects with trading prices below their IDO price had an average revenue of $1.36 million.
Projects with trading prices above their IDO issuance price had an average revenue of $790,000.

However, these projects all received venture capital support, indicating that the market values speculation over actual performance, values stories over data, and values promises over the product itself. Web3 can no longer pretend that "everything is fine" and cannot continue to label bot traffic as "growth." Of course, the conclusions drawn in this article are statistical and not a standard applicable to all projects. Good projects and significant funding can still represent the development direction of the crypto industry.

With $2 million in funding, top venture capital participation, 500,000 community followers, and a spectacular debut on major trading platforms, the atmosphere was jubilant on Discord, with celebrations all over social media.

In a previous article, we revealed the reality of a 0.96x ROI: by 2025, on average, each token effectively died on the first day, proving that the system is no longer valid. Now, we have analyzed 113 token issuance cases since 2025, providing solid data to support this—yet most founders dare not face these data.

The findings are shocking: large funding does not help, a large community is irrelevant, and every variable you optimize has no statistical value.

But beneath the surface lies something more distorted that still troubles many founders: currently, the revenue situation of projects is a bearish signal, with profitable project token trading prices lower than those of unprofitable projects. This dynamic is crucial for survival. If we continue to punish the profitable and reward the speculators, the entire industry will not survive.

Editor's Note: Previously, Solus Group disclosed related data showing that the average investment return rate for new project tokens from their issuance on the first day in 2025 is 0.96, indicating that their product launch has been in a state of loss since day one.

Entrepreneurial Data Trap: Funding Paradox, High Funding Does Not Equal Token Advantage

The correlation between funding and token performance: 0.04, statistically considered as zero.

Projects with $10 million in funding perform exactly the same as those with $1 million in funding. The above chart proves this—regardless of the amount of funding, the distribution of tokens within the investment return rate range is random. The best-performing projects include: Myshell, B² Network, Bubblemaps, Mind Network, Particle Network, Creator.Bid (valuations increased 10x to 30x at ATH) raised between $300,000 and $3 million. Meanwhile, projects like Boundless and Analog, which raised over $10 million, only had valuation multiples of about 1x.

Currently, token performance is even worse; regardless of funding scale, most token investment returns are below 1x. For example, tokens with funding between $5 million and $100 million have ROIs ranging from 0.1x to 0.7x (e.g., Fleek, Pipe Network, Sahara AI), which is the same as those with little funding.

The fact is: large funding accelerates the death of project tokens.

Projects with the least funding ($300,000 to $5 million) have a higher return on investment for every dollar raised; they execute faster, have lower switching costs, and are not drowned in quarterly venture capital token unlock schedules, where large unlocks can damage project revenues.

If you pursue $10 million for "competition," you are preparing for failure.

The Fan Myth: Large Project Communities Are Just "Paper Tigers"

Social media followers of 500,000 and 50,000 show identical statistical results.

Correlation coefficients: 0.08 (token ATH) and -0.06 (current token situation)

Data shows that the size of the audience's followers has no predictive value for token performance; projects with large follower bases perform inconsistently—some surge, some plummet, and projects with smaller audiences show the same lack of trend, pattern, or correlation.

Your Discord group is not a community; it is a speculative audience waiting to leave.

The reality is: price determines community development, not the community driving price.

When prices plummet, followers disappear. The chart proves this— the lower left quadrant (fewer followers + price drop) is very dense. When prices soar, followers sometimes grow, but it is not stable.

This means:

Your "active community" has never truly cared about the product—they are focused on the token price trends. Once token performance disappoints, they will vanish; community growth is a lagging indicator, not a leading one.

This is not just theory but a viewpoint publicly expressed by @belizardd (researcher and trader/KOL):

Most people come here purely for speculation, not for the product itself. We find that very few protocols perform well after TGE, and they are mainly those with initially low token FDV, modest fundraising, and generous airdrops. To be honest, I wouldn't blindly invest in anything right now. The risk/reward is not worth it; I'm just waiting for the market to improve.

Speculators know the game has failed. They are taking a wait-and-see approach. Meanwhile, founders continue to pour 60% of their budget into Discord bots, Twitter giveaways, and KOL promotions—burning money on statistically irrelevant metrics.

The real question is: "If the token crashes 50% tomorrow, how many people will stay?"

The answer: almost none.

Token Price Trap, Beware of Overpricing/Underpricing

Median investment return rates calculated by token listing price:

Below $0.01: 0.1x (90% loss)
$0.01 to $0.05: 0.8x (survival zone)
$0.05 to $0.50: 0.5x (50% loss)
Above $0.50: 0.09x (91% loss)

To explain again:

A listing price below $0.01 does not make your token "more accessible"; it only makes you a low-priced coin that attracts profit-driven capital, which rises quickly but also falls quickly.

A price above $0.50 does not make your token a "premium token"; it only makes it appear overpriced, and an excessively high token price will stifle the retail market, and whales will not buy it.

The price range of $0.01 to $0.05 is the only viable pricing range, as this price is high enough to indicate the project's legitimacy while low enough to allow for upside potential. Within this price range, only 42 out of 97 projects had a median token performance that was positive.

If your token economic model sets your valuation at $0.003 or $1.20, stop rebuilding the model; the data indicates that the project has already failed.

Industry Status: Stop Building Like It's 2021

Loser: Gaming

Average ATH ROI: 4.46x (lowest)

Current median investment return rate: 0.52x

GameFi tokens are like lottery tickets; play once, and they are forever forgotten.

Trap: DeFi

Average ATH ROI: 5.09x (looks good)

Current median investment return rate: 0.2x (disastrous)

DeFi's early price surges followed by steep declines are greater than in any other sector, with the gap between speculation and reality being extremely brutal.

Winner: AI

Average ATH ROI: 5.99x (highest increase)

Current median investment return rate: 0.70x (best retention rate)

AI token prices soar and remain stable. This trend is persistent, and funds are flowing in.

If you are developing GameFi, your execution needs to be 10 times better than average to achieve ordinary results. If you are in the DeFi space, be prepared for rapid rises and sharp declines. If you are in the AI field, the market will give you opportunities, but only if you can deliver results. The requirements in the infrastructure space are even more stringent: compared to standard decentralized applications (like AI agents), you will consume more time and resources, yet your current median ROI is slightly lower than the declining GameFi sector.

Data does not care about the projects you are interested in.

IDO/IEO Data Overview: Good Platforms Cannot Save Projects

You spend months building connections just to secure a spot on Binance Launchpad or a primary IDO allocation, thinking that being filtered through a platform means you are protected. But the data shows otherwise.

IDO Platforms: Almost all projects are in a state of loss

Only one project had a return rate of +14.6% across 5 IDO platforms, and that’s it. All other projects had return rates between -70% and -93%.

The so-called "premium Launchpad" does not provide protection for buyers; it merely offers them a way to lose money.

IEO Platforms: The Ultimate Example of Survival Bias

Binance wallet shows a yield of 11x. It seems incredible, but it only had 3 issuances, with too small a sample size. MEXC shows a yield of +122.8% across 14 issuances—larger sample size, but still an outlier. All other projects? Poor performance. Bybit IEO tokens have a loss rate of 38%, with other projects suffering even greater losses.

This proves that:

Choosing a platform is like a lottery with better brand effects. A few exceptional data points distort the average, while a large number of tokens fall post-issuance; the "curation service" fees you pay—whether through connections, listing fees, or token allocations—do not reliably protect token ROI.

Platforms cannot save garbage tokens, nor can they help good tokens.

Reflecting on 2025, Looking Ahead to 2026

The development of projects based on 2025 has failed at every level.

Zero Level: Foundation

Problem: "Speculative token economics." Recklessly dumping tokens into a liquidity-starved market without an organic revenue model to absorb shocks.

First Level: Funding

The problem lies in: "Modify on PDF first, then deal with it."

Second Level: Marketing

Problem: KOL model, paid army of users who disappear once payments stop.

Third Level: Liquidity

Problem: Assuming liquidity will increase with speculation, but in reality, institutional investors will wait for evidence.

Fourth Level: User Retention

Problem: Zero retention infrastructure. "Project community" is 10,000 Telegram users who will abandon you within 90 days.

2026 should not play the old game anymore. There is a deeper issue behind all this; infrastructure is indeed important, but even the best infrastructure is dictated by timing. As Ivan Paskar (Growth Director at Altius Labs) said:

Tokens do not fix broken things—they amplify reality. Right timing = momentum increases. Wrong timing = years of effort vanish in an instant. Most teams do not fail in token design; they fail because they misjudge the stage they are in and the macro environment. Timing is not a detail; it determines everything.

What Projects Should Do in 2026

Survival is not about following the old script; it is about building a new script.

Thoughtful Design

Target amounts between $300,000 and $5 million; the projects with the highest return on investment are here. More funding = more problems.

Survival Cost

Issuance price between $0.01 and $0.05. Other prices struggle to survive. If your token economics do not fit this range, then there is a problem.

Product First, Token Second

If you cannot explain in one sentence why your token exists, then it does not exist. Revenue must come before speculation.

Ignore Vanity Metrics

Follower count is a distraction; wallet activity, retention rate, and revenue per user are the key metrics.

Industry Realism

Understand the failure rate of your industry before writing code. GameFi needs twice the execution efficiency to break even. AI has tailwinds—if you can deliver results.