See original
Eric SJ
--
"VC's success in crypto projects is neither sufficient nor necessary"
As a practitioner working in VC, I find it somewhat amusing every time I encounter this perspective.
The root of the market's rebuttal against so-called VC coins, in my opinion, lies in the inequality of valuations. Most projects currently entering the market were financed during the last bull market.
In that environment, it was difficult for valuations to be objective.
Looking back at the current mainstream market cap, which of those was not supported by VCs back then?
➠ VCs provide funding, which also gives the market a margin of error for development.
Moreover, last year's inscriptions had people shouting similar slogans; what was the result? 😂
Collective efforts in the capital market can occasionally be effective, but they won't remain effective over time. Those who have been involved in the community should deeply resonate with my statement.
- At the current liquidity dead end: CEX
Also trying to compress some project valuations and extend the exit time frame for some VCs.
Currently, although the effectiveness is not significant, we are continuously exploring solutions. HYPY and ai16z, as individual cases, still cannot negate the existence of VCs.
Moreover, this valuation issue is often not something a single investment institution can decide...
Most only see VCs profiting, but in reality, it’s just paper profits; how the final exit looks remains uncertain.
Beaten VCs are prevalent in the market because the valuation system in crypto itself is not sound.
As for ourselves, 2023 has been significantly better than 2024...
When I have time, I’ll share what I know about how VCs determine valuations with everyone. 👀
As a practitioner working in VC, I find it somewhat amusing every time I encounter this perspective.
The root of the market's rebuttal against so-called VC coins, in my opinion, lies in the inequality of valuations. Most projects currently entering the market were financed during the last bull market.
In that environment, it was difficult for valuations to be objective.
Looking back at the current mainstream market cap, which of those was not supported by VCs back then?
➠ VCs provide funding, which also gives the market a margin of error for development.
Moreover, last year's inscriptions had people shouting similar slogans; what was the result? 😂
Collective efforts in the capital market can occasionally be effective, but they won't remain effective over time. Those who have been involved in the community should deeply resonate with my statement.
- At the current liquidity dead end: CEX
Also trying to compress some project valuations and extend the exit time frame for some VCs.
Currently, although the effectiveness is not significant, we are continuously exploring solutions. HYPY and ai16z, as individual cases, still cannot negate the existence of VCs.
Moreover, this valuation issue is often not something a single investment institution can decide...
Most only see VCs profiting, but in reality, it’s just paper profits; how the final exit looks remains uncertain.
Beaten VCs are prevalent in the market because the valuation system in crypto itself is not sound.
As for ourselves, 2023 has been significantly better than 2024...
When I have time, I’ll share what I know about how VCs determine valuations with everyone. 👀
Disclaimer: Includes third-party opinions. No financial advice. May include sponsored content. See T&Cs.
Replies 0