VC endorsement used to be a solid indicator of project quality. But now? To put it bluntly—the more of a vaporware project it is, the more they love to bring in a bunch of investment firms just for show.
The trick is actually pretty simple: they claim externally to have raised tens of millions of dollars, but in reality, the actual funds received might not even come close. The sole purpose is to create the illusion that "top-tier institutions are betting on this" to lure in retail investors. This kind of operation has become an open secret in the industry.
So when evaluating projects now, just looking at the list of investors isn’t enough. You have to check real progress, code commits, community activity—those hard metrics that can’t be faked.
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.
17 Likes
Reward
17
6
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
POAPlectionist
· 12-09 22:49
I've been numb to inflated fundraising numbers for a long time—I've seen too many number games.
Code and community activity are the real deal, things you can't fake are the most honest.
What used to be fundraising news is now a joke—you have to dig into the data to find what's reliable.
Any project that brags about VC backing gets a question mark from me; actual delivery is worth more than any list of names.
The tricks are really worn out, but there are still people who believe them—it's unbelievable.
View OriginalReply0
SocialAnxietyStaker
· 12-09 22:49
Financing figures are just paper tigers; you really need to dig into the on-chain data.
View OriginalReply0
ForumLurker
· 12-09 22:44
I think only new retail investors still believe in VC endorsements these days.
This trick has been played for three years, and the fundraising numbers just keep getting more ridiculous.
Looking at code commits is what really matters—you can tell if something is legit at a glance.
View OriginalReply0
MemeKingNFT
· 12-09 22:41
The financing amount should have been verified on-chain a long time ago; numbers on paper are the easiest to fake.
View OriginalReply0
ChainDetective
· 12-09 22:37
Seriously, everyone who went all in just because the list was full of big funds should really reflect on themselves.
View OriginalReply0
BearMarketBro
· 12-09 22:31
The list of investors has long become just for show; we should really rely on on-chain data to speak for itself.
VC endorsement used to be a solid indicator of project quality. But now? To put it bluntly—the more of a vaporware project it is, the more they love to bring in a bunch of investment firms just for show.
The trick is actually pretty simple: they claim externally to have raised tens of millions of dollars, but in reality, the actual funds received might not even come close. The sole purpose is to create the illusion that "top-tier institutions are betting on this" to lure in retail investors. This kind of operation has become an open secret in the industry.
So when evaluating projects now, just looking at the list of investors isn’t enough. You have to check real progress, code commits, community activity—those hard metrics that can’t be faked.