When project teams deprioritize holder interests, this is the inevitable outcome. Treating community members as second-class stakeholders while pursuing other agendas rarely ends well. The warning signs were there early on—misaligned incentives, unclear development direction, and decisions that favored insiders over long-term believers. By the time reality sets in, the damage is done. Another once-promising protocol reduced to a cautionary tale about what happens when tokenomics and governance take a backseat to poor management decisions.
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.
16 Likes
Reward
16
4
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
RugpullTherapist
· 12-26 15:57
I should have known earlier, this trick is always the same... The team first makes promises, then they prioritize internally, retail investors? Haha
View OriginalReply0
SelfStaking
· 12-26 15:51
That's why I never trust projects that are vague about the community from the very beginning.
View OriginalReply0
StakeWhisperer
· 12-26 15:41
This is the same old story again; the team benefits at the community's expense, I've seen it coming a long time ago.
When project teams deprioritize holder interests, this is the inevitable outcome. Treating community members as second-class stakeholders while pursuing other agendas rarely ends well. The warning signs were there early on—misaligned incentives, unclear development direction, and decisions that favored insiders over long-term believers. By the time reality sets in, the damage is done. Another once-promising protocol reduced to a cautionary tale about what happens when tokenomics and governance take a backseat to poor management decisions.