Is VC the biggest culprit in this round of decline? Let's talk about VC coins in depth
Recently, high fdv vc coins have become a hot topic of discussion. Many people believe that high fdv vc coins have harmed the market. Retail investors have no choice but to participate in meme coins. Xiaoge only agrees with part of this view. The part that agrees with is that high fdv coins continue to affect the unit price of the currency, resulting in the secondary market takeovers not making money, which I agree with. However, high fdv is designed by VCs, and I don't agree with it so much. The reasons are as follows:
1. The initial high fdv project was indeed due to the fact that some of the world's top VCs and project parties jointly set a precedent for low circulation. Slowly, other project parties learned from it.
2. The rise of this trend, except for the world's top VCs, is generally a victim. Including more than 95% of VCs, even the top domestic VCs may also be victims.
3. Whether VC can make money in this game depends on whether VC can have the pricing power of the project. Institutions that have the pricing power for high-quality projects need to have global-level capabilities such as the ability to organize, fund, and incubate (market, brand, and economic model) at the same time. There are no more than ten institutions in the world that have these capabilities, while there are thousands of VC funds on the market.
4. The pricing power of many projects is in the hands of the project parties themselves. In a bull market, it is easy for projects to price themselves in the primary market through the performance of leading projects in the secondary market. For example: the rise of GameFi is due to the surge in Axs. Axs has a market value of several billion US dollars at its peak. If the game fundamentals and team fundamentals of a primary market project far exceed Axs, it is easy to get a valuation of more than 100 million US dollars. After all, even if such a valuation is compared with the ceiling project in the future, there is still room for dozens of times of growth. If VC wants to invest in such a project, it can only compromise on valuation and unlocking. There is nothing it can do. When the hot track comes, the supply and demand relationship is that the funds are far greater than those of "high-quality projects". At this time, "high-quality projects" have pricing power.
5. Many "high-quality projects" told you that the tge was 30% after financing in 2021 or 2022. Then two years later, they told you that the tge has become 5%. If you disagree, you can get a refund.If you are a VC, how would you choose at this time? If you agree, you have to accept the huge changes in tge, then it is very likely that you will not be able to get your money back after opening. If you disagree, then you will bear the time cost of two years of funds yourself. Or do you take the contract to sue the project? There are so many things happening every day in the bull market. As a VC, who would spend so much energy to sue a project party? ! In the end, most VCs usually choose to agree to the terms of the project party.
6. Objectively speaking, in the VC coin incident, VCs with "no pricing power" may be one of the biggest victims. While bearing the most poisonous blows, they also receive the most severe scolding.
7. Don't stand in line, just objectively analyze the cause of this incident for your reference. Supply and demand determine the price! The cause of the market decline is caused by everyone. If the market does not accept it, VC will change its strategy. The fittest survive, and the unfit are eliminated.