The resurgence of public offerings, yet fundraising becomes more difficult: Analyzing why the market has become more selective from the cold start of INX

Star Project "Waterloo": Infinex's Public Offering Faces Cold Reception Amid Hot and Cold Market

Recently, the crypto circle witnessed an unexpected public offering Waterloo: the Infinex project, led by well-known DeFi figures, encountered a cold reception during its public fundraising, leaving the market astonished. It is worth noting that the Infinex project had previously raised over $65 million through the issuance of Patron NFTs, boasting a luxurious founding team and investor background. However, when they launched the public offering for the INX token in early January 2026, they managed to raise only about $460,000 in 30 hours, less than one-tenth of the expected target. Even after the project team sensed the market's chill and drastically lowered the valuation from the originally announced $300 million to $100 million, and reduced the fundraising target from $15 million to $5 million, the result was still a cold reception. The stark contrast in fundraising performance left many wondering: how could a once-hot star project face such a drastic shift in the public market?
The Infinex team quickly realized the problem. They rarely admitted during the public offering that "the sales mechanism was wrong" and adjusted the rules overnight to "remedy" the situation. Initially, to prevent large investors from monopolizing, the official set a limit of $2,500 per address, hoping to attract more retail investors. However, the reality was harsh: during the market downturn, active users were few, and only 285 addresses participated in the public offering, with only 134 addresses reaching the maximum limit. In other words, most ordinary investors showed little interest, while the "whales" who could invest more were blocked by the hard cap. The team humorously remarked: "Ordinary users hate lock-ups, whale players hate limits, and everyone hates complex rules"—the attempt to please both sides resulted in almost no one buying in.
Moreover, the tokens purchased in this public offering have a lock-up period of one year, significantly exceeding common levels (although an early redemption option was provided, it was based on a higher valuation). For investors seeking short-term opportunities, being unable to sell for a year is tantamount to depriving them of liquidity, and in the current cautious market environment, this long lock-up design undoubtedly increases the opportunity cost. Additionally, despite the astonishing reduction in valuation, some investors became even more cautious—seeing the valuation "cut in half" did not appear to them as a bargain but rather reinforced their judgment of a downward trend in industry expectations. Some questioned whether Infinex's valuation, even if diluted to $100 million, was still too high; the project had not yet validated its business model but expected investors to pay upfront for growth over the coming years. With various factors at play, Infinex's public offering on the first day only achieved 8% of its target, which can be described as a deserted scene.
Faced with the bleak situation, the Infinex team announced an emergency adjustment on January 5: cancelling the single-user investment cap and replacing it with a "maximum-minimum fair distribution" (i.e., all participants would proportionally increase their shares until sold out, with excess funds refunded) instead of a lottery, while retaining priority for early sponsors. Project founder Kain Warwick even tweeted that he would personally invest to support the project's operations if necessary. However, the loosening of rules did not yield immediate results; as of noon on January 6, on-chain data showed a cumulative fundraising amount of about $1.34 million (approximately 26.8% of the target), with the number of participating addresses increasing to 508. There was still a gap of nearly $3.7 million to the $5 million target, and market feedback remained tepid. In other words, the problem may not only lie in the unfriendly rule design but also in the systematic decline of investor interest in such public offerings.

Behind the Public Offering Resurgence: Cold Private Placements and a Chilly Financing Environment

The reason Infinex's experience has sparked heated discussions is that it occurred at a time when "ICOs seem to be warming up." Since the second half of 2025, with Bitcoin prices stabilizing and some sectors experiencing temporary rebounds, discussions about the recovery of the primary market in the crypto circle have increased. The previously quiet public fundraising model has resurfaced: projects like Monad, Pump.fun, Plasma, and Falcon Finance have chosen to raise funds through token public offerings, and a number of fundraising platforms (such as Buidlpad and Echo) have rapidly emerged, providing projects with channels for public issuance. At first glance, it seems as though the ICO frenzy of 2017 is about to be replayed.
However, rather than saying this is a return of the public offering craze, it is more of a passive move. The macroeconomic environment and capital winter have made traditional venture capital firms more cautious: the frequency of crypto venture capital investments has noticeably decreased, valuation systems have become more conservative, and fundraising cycles have been significantly extended. Against the backdrop of the Federal Reserve's interest rate hikes and tightening global liquidity, the slowdown in risk asset investments is a trend—this means that the VCs who once waved checks around the world to find projects are now tightening their purse strings. In this situation, many projects that have not yet formed stable cash flows but urgently need funds for continued development have been forced to take action: publicly issuing tokens to the market has become one of the few "viable" fundraising paths. Compared to relying on institutional endorsements or accepting harsh private placement terms, public offerings theoretically allow direct access to the liquidity in the hands of a broad base of investors, free from the control of a few large capital players.
From the data, capital is concentrating on leading and compliant areas. According to RootData's 2025 annual report, the total amount of global crypto primary market financing reached a new high of $22.7 billion that year, but funds are highly concentrated on leading projects, with traditional CeFi companies dominating; in contrast, the combined financing share of "Web3 native" sectors such as NFTs, DAOs, and social projects is only 0.5%. The entire industry has entered a consolidation phase of "big fish eating small fish," where small and medium-sized projects are either being acquired or eliminated. It can be said that the "capital winter" does not mean that capital has completely exited the market, but rather that it has become more selective in choosing targets—those unprofitable, purely narrative startups are finding it increasingly difficult to raise money from professional investors. This is also why some project teams have no choice but to turn their attention back to ordinary crypto investors: when "private placement funds are hard to come by," they have to settle for public offerings to seek opportunities.
However, an increase in the willingness of project teams to raise funds does not mean that the market is receptive. The fact that star projects like Infinex are hitting walls indicates that today's public market investors are no longer naive. Behind the resurgence of the public offering model lies a dual change in the financing supply and demand environment: on one side, project teams are forced to find their own way due to the retreat of VCs, and on the other side, the mindset of retail and institutional investors is markedly different from a few years ago.

From FOMO to Calculation: Public Offerings Enter "Accounting Period," Buying Logic Fails

During the last bull market, public offerings could push people into the "buying frenzy" based on two default premises: tokens would soon go live and have trading depth; the opening would leverage emotional premiums to reward short-term gains. Many people participated in ICOs with a straightforward mindset—grab the tokens first, and worry about project delivery later.
Currently, the premises have clearly loosened. Some tokens lack depth and have weak buying support after issuance, and explosive price increases at launch are no longer as likely to occur as in previous cycles. Public offerings resemble a "pre-sale contract": exchanging current funds for future delivery, while the market is more willing to keep funds for verifiable certainty.
Investors have not suddenly become rational; rather, they have learned to calculate after being educated by the alternating bull and bear markets, with their picky standards generally falling on several hard metrics:

• Higher liquidity requirements: Most people want to trade as soon as possible; the longer the lock-up period, the higher the opportunity cost. Infinex's INX public sale terms included a one-year lock-up period, and initially set a $2,500 cap per wallet, which was later changed to a more equitable distribution model; the repeated adjustments to the rules also amplified the wait-and-see sentiment.
• More rational valuation and fundraising scale: After the bubble burst, fully diluted valuation became the first arithmetic problem. Selling at a nearly $100 million valuation without proving the product's ability to generate cash flow is easily seen as "selling future profits to the market." Compared to large-scale fundraising of tens of millions of dollars, more people are willing to accept smaller-scale trials, restrained valuations, and controllable pacing.
• Stricter scrutiny of themes, with use cases prioritized: The memory of air projects going to zero still lingers, making investors more sensitive to "pure narratives." Directions that can address real needs and form closed-loop scenarios are more likely to attract attention and funds, with AI, RWA, and stablecoin settlements being typical representatives.
• Hot cases indicate that funds have not disappeared: Plasma's public token sale attracted funds to the $500 million cap and completed it in a very short time, indicating that clear demands like "stablecoin settlements" can still ignite buying frenzies. MegaETH's public sale also showed strong signals of oversubscription, with discussions mentioning total subscriptions of about $1.39 billion, over 50,000 participants, and a multiple of about 27.8. The signal is clear: funds are still willing to bet, but they prefer to reserve their bullets for targets that are "demand clear, path clear, and solid support."
• Macroeconomic and regulatory factors affect participation sentiment: In a high-interest-rate environment, risk-free returns become attractive, naturally raising the premium requirements for risk assets. When regulatory boundaries are unclear, thresholds such as KYC, qualification restrictions, and compliant issuance paths can also lower participation willingness, with some buyers choosing to wait for clearer rules before taking action.

Considering all these factors, the mindset of current investors has almost switched to a different "operating system" compared to a few years ago. After being tempered by alternating bull and bear markets, funds now place greater importance on verifiable delivery, clear rules, and predictable liquidity support. Infinex's cold start perfectly exposes the misalignment; the balance of supply and demand for funds has long tilted, with the initiative returning to investors, making selective and careful choices the norm.
In the context of CEEX, the differences become even more apparent: CEEX focuses on aggregated trading across all currencies, integrating spot, contracts, and wealth management, resulting in shorter trading paths and smoother operations; the broker system refines service granularity, with clear tier logic and transparent upgrade mechanisms, providing newcomers with a sense of security that "someone is guiding them, and the rules are clear." Users have developed rational decision-making habits in a smoother and more stable trading experience, and public offerings in the primary market naturally return to the same high standards—transparent information, friendly mechanisms, and solid liquidity support, all worthy of real trust.