85% of Tokens Launched in 2025 Have Fallen Below Their Market Entry Price

RBK-cryptoPublished on 2025-12-23Last updated on 2025-12-23

Abstract

According to an analysis by Memento Research, 85% of tokens launched in 2025 have fallen below their initial listing price. The study of 118 token generation events (TGEs) found that 84.7% of assets are trading below their starting valuation, with two-thirds losing over 50% of their value. A significant 38% have experienced a devastating 70-90% decline, entering what analysts term the "token graveyard zone." Notably, all 28 tokens with a high initial fully diluted valuation (FDV) of over $1 billion are in the red, with a median decline of 81%. The worst-performing category was infrastructure projects, which formed the bulk of the sample and fell an average of 72-82%. The DeFi sector performed relatively better, with 31.6% of its tokens still trading above their TGE price. The report concludes that purchasing tokens at launch in 2025 was largely unprofitable. Success was limited to assets with a low starting valuation; in this group, 40% traded above their launch price. For all other segments, the median decline ranged from 70% to 83%, indicating that the TGE often marked a price peak followed by a sharp correction.

Analysts at Memento Research analyzed 118 token launches (token generation event, TGE) since the beginning of the year and recorded massive declines. According to their data, 84.7% of assets are trading below their initial valuation.

Two-thirds of the tokens in the sample have lost more than 50% of their value, and 38% have a current market capitalization that is 70–90% below the initial level. The authors refer to this range as the "token graveyard zone" (highlighted in red on the chart). The authors rely on data from aggregators CoinGecko and CoinMarketCap, their own calculations, and data from public blockchains, with prices recorded as of December 20, 2025.

Large TGEs with inflated initial valuations performed particularly poorly. Out of 28 launches with an initial valuation (fully diluted value, FDV) of $1 billion or more, none are in profit. The median decline was about 81%.

The authors analyzed token launches in categories such as infrastructure projects (Infra, 46 launches in 2025), artificial intelligence (AI, 23 tokens), decentralized financial platforms (DeFi, 19 tokens), consumer services (Consumer, 14 tokens), gaming projects (Gaming, 6 tokens), stablecoins and related projects (Stablecoin, 4 tokens), decentralized futures platforms (Perp DEX, 3 tokens), data providers (Data, 2 tokens), and one token from a scientific crypto project (DeSi). For the 30 largest tokens, the median initial valuation was $1.58 billion, while for another 28, it was around $680 million.

The largest losses were recorded in infrastructure projects. They made up the bulk of the sample and showed an average decline of 72% to 82%. The DeFi sector performed relatively better, with 31.6% of tokens trading above their TGE price. The perp DEX segment stands out from the rest with an average increase of 213%, but the result is heavily skewed by the launch of the Aster DEX platform, whose token ASTER surged in price due to prolonged aggressive support from the largest crypto exchange Binance and its founder Changpeng Zhao.

Projects with high initial valuations (FDV) failed to meet expectations and were revalued by the market significantly downward. This particularly affected infrastructure and AI-focused projects, which accounted for the majority of the decline.

Buying tokens at launch in 2025 meant betting on rare exceptions, the authors write. Most launches turned out to be unprofitable, and only assets with low initial valuations showed significantly better results. In this group, 40% of tokens traded above their launch price, and the median decline was about 26 percent. For all other segments, the average declines ranged from 70% to 83%, and there were almost no successful examples.

Thus, for most tokens in 2025, TGE was an unfortunate entry point. The median decline was about 70%, and in the case of inflated initial valuations, the market perceived the token launch as a local price peak, followed by a sharp decline.

Experts allowed for a Bitcoin drop to as low as $56k. Where did this conclusion come from?

Bitcoin's price fell short of 2025 forecasts. Who predicted what and why?

Coins of the year. How and why Tron's TRX token outperformed almost the entire crypto market.

Related Questions

QAccording to the analysis, what percentage of tokens launched in 2025 are trading below their initial valuation?

A84.7% of the tokens are trading below their initial valuation.

QWhat is the median drawdown for tokens with a high initial fully diluted value (FDV) of over $1 billion?

AThe median drawdown for tokens with an initial FDV of over $1 billion is approximately 81%.

QWhich token category performed the worst in terms of price decline, and what was the average drop?

AInfrastructure projects (Infra) performed the worst, showing an average price decline between 72% and 82%.

QWhich specific sector showed an average price increase of 213%, and what was the primary reason for this outlier performance?

AThe perp DEX sector showed an average increase of 213%, primarily due to the strong performance of the Aster DEX token, which was aggressively supported by the Binance exchange and its founder, Changpeng Zhao.

QWhat was the key factor that distinguished the performance of tokens with a low initial valuation from the rest?

A40% of tokens with a low initial valuation traded above their launch price, with a median decline of only about 26%, significantly outperforming other segments which saw average declines of 70% to 83%.

Related Reads

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

In mid-June, three seemingly independent industry events—the compliance-driven throttling of Fable 5, the open-sourcing of GLM-5.2, and the leaked release timeline for GPT-5.6—are pushing the global AI industry toward a watershed moment. These shifts signal a fundamental restructuring of the industry's underlying logic. First, **"usability" has substantially overtaken "advanced capabilities"** as the primary weight, pushing the global large language model (LLM) supply chain into a "dual-track" phase of controlled closed-source and local open-source coexistence. Second, **the competitive moats of closed-source giants are shifting**. Their technical focus is moving from "language intelligence" toward "spatial intelligence (world models)"—a domain heavily reliant on computing power. Third, faced with常态化 transnational compliance risks, **a "model-agnostic" decoupled design has become a survival necessity for application-layer developers to maintain business continuity.** The article details how Anthropic's Fable 5, despite its advanced engineering feats, was restricted for non-U.S. citizens within 72 hours of launch, highlighting how geopolitical compliance can instantly limit even the most advanced models. In response, the open-source camp, exemplified by Zhipu AI's MIT-licensed GLM-5.2, is gaining market share by offering stable performance improvements and significant cost advantages (up to 70% savings for enterprises), while achieving full adaptation with domestic semiconductor platforms. Meanwhile, closed-source leaders like OpenAI are pivoting. The anticipated GPT-5.6 reportedly shifts focus from language to spatial intelligence and world models, aiming to rebuild a generational gap in areas like 3D understanding, simulation, and industrial design that demand immense compute. The core conclusion is that the LLM supply chain's logic has changed. Enterprises must now evaluate infrastructure based on a composite of technical performance and policy compliance. For developers, complete reliance on a single closed-source API poses unacceptable risk. Implementing a truly model-agnostic architecture—enabling swift switches to compliant, locally deployable open-source alternatives—is no longer just good practice but a fundamental baseline for business continuity.

marsbit2h ago

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

marsbit2h ago

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

The article discusses the ongoing "token subsidy war" among AI giants like OpenAI and Anthropic, questioning whether it's nearing its end. It reveals that current AI subscription prices are heavily subsidized, with some plans offering tokens at up to 70 times the actual cost to attract and retain heavy users, especially developers and enterprises. This strategy mirrors past internet-era subsidy battles, but with a key difference: AI tokens lack "lock-in" effects. Unlike ride-hailing or food delivery apps, users can easily switch between AI providers as APIs become standardized, making it difficult for companies to raise prices post-subsidy. The piece highlights a structural asymmetry in the competition. Giants like Google, with massive advertising revenue, can afford to subsidize tokens indefinitely, akin to using "tokens as a weapon." In contrast, venture-backed companies like OpenAI and Anthropic face pressure to become profitable, especially as they approach IPO. The article cites Google Ventures founder Bill Maris, who suggests Google could slash token prices by 80%, putting immense pressure on competitors. Two potential endgames are presented: the "internet service" model (subsidize, monopolize, then raise prices) and the "utility" model (tokens become a standardized, low-margin commodity like electricity). Given the low switching costs, the latter seems more likely. The competition may not have a single winner but could instead accelerate AI's evolution into a foundational, infrastructure-level technology, akin to a public utility. For now, users continue to benefit from heavily subsidized token costs.

marsbit2h ago

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

marsbit2h ago

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

"Beyond the Pitch: The Profit Game Around the World Cup" The FIFA World Cup transcends being a sporting spectacle, evolving into a massive global arena for speculation and profit-seeking. The 2026 tournament has amplified this dynamic, creating a multi-layered ecosystem of financial opportunism alongside the football. **Prediction markets** have surged into the mainstream. Platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi saw trading volumes for World Cup contracts soar, attracting new users with their financial trading model and high-profile, chain-based wealth stories that overshadow traditional sports betting in terms of growth and narrative. However, **traditional sportsbooks** remain the dominant force, leveraging established user habits, legal markets, and comprehensive product offerings to handle the vast majority of speculative wagers, with projections suggesting record-breaking betting volumes. Capital markets also react. **"Concept stocks"** in countries like South Korea and Japan experience volatile price swings based on team performance and anticipated fan spending on items like chicken, beer, and viewing parties, effectively becoming a stock market reflecting fan sentiment. The **ticket resale market** has become a sophisticated arena for arbitrage. Prices fluctuate wildly based on team draws and star power, with sellers sometimes listing tickets they don't yet own in a practice akin to short-selling, while FIFA's own "Right to Buy" tokens add another layer of speculative trading. **Collectibles and merchandise** offer another avenue. Panini sticker albums, with their inherent scarcity and nostalgic value, can become high-value collectibles. Limited-edition or locally themed jerseys command significant premiums on secondary markets, and even counterfeit vendors profit from fans' desire for affordable match-day identity. The **cryptocurrency** space has seen a frenzy of speculative, unauthorized World Cup-themed meme coins on chains like Solana. These tokens, often exploiting team names and player imagery, experience extreme pump-and-dump cycles, creating stories of massive gains for a few early entrants and steep losses for many others. Finally, an entire industry thrives on **providing information and tools** to other speculators. Developers create platforms like SeatSidekick to track ticket inventory and prices, while paid Telegram groups and subscriptions sell betting tips and predictions, monetizing the widespread desire for an informational edge. In essence, the World Cup has become a compressed, global laboratory for speculation. While the games determine champions on the field, a parallel, complex network of financial transactions—spanning prediction contracts, bets, stocks, tickets, collectibles, crypto, and information services—settles its own scores in the global market.

marsbit3h ago

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

marsbit3h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片