The Dark Side of Altcoins

深潮Publicado em 2025-12-11Última atualização em 2025-12-11

Resumo

The article "The Dark Side of Altcoins" argues that most cryptocurrency tokens inevitably fail due to a fundamental structural conflict between company equity and token holders. Most crypto projects are essentially traditional companies with equity-held founders, VC investors, and profit motives, which later issue a token. This creates irreconcilable incentives: equity seeks to capture value (revenue, profit, control) for the company and shareholders, while tokens need value (fees, buybacks, governance) to accrue to the protocol and holders. Equity almost always wins, leading to token value drainage. The piece highlights Hyperliquid as a rare success because it avoided VC equity financing entirely. Without a board or pressure to deliver value to shareholders, it could direct all economic value to its protocol and token. Legally, tokens cannot function like stocks without being deemed unregistered securities (if they offer dividends, ownership, etc.), which would trigger severe regulatory crackdowns. The optimal structure is one where the company holds no equity, captures no revenue, and all value flows to token holders via protocol mechanisms, with a DAO governing economic decisions. However, the only way to eliminate all conflict is to become a fully decentralized protocol like Bitcoin or Ethereum, with no company, no equity, and neutral, autonomously running infrastructure. The core issue is structural, not market conditions. Tokens are mathematically destined to fail...

Written by: Crypto Dan

Compiled by: Saoirse, Foresight News

People always ask why almost all tokens eventually go to zero, with only a few exceptions like Hyperliquid.

It all boils down to one thing that no one talks about openly: the structural conflict between company equity and token holders.

Let me explain it in simple terms.

Most cryptocurrency projects are essentially companies with attached tokens

They have the following characteristics:

  • A corporate entity

  • Founders holding equity

  • VC investors with board seats

  • CEO, CTO, CFO

  • Profit goals

  • Future exit (cashing out) expectations

Then, they issue a token on the side.

What's the problem?

Only one of these two can capture value, and equity almost always wins.

Why dual financing (equity + token) doesn't work

If a project raises funds through both equity and token sales, it immediately creates conflicting interests:

Equity side's demands:

  • Revenue → flows to the company

  • Profits → flow to the company

  • Value → belongs to shareholders

  • Control → belongs to the board

Token side's demands:

  • Revenue → flows to the protocol

  • Token buyback / burn mechanisms

  • Governance rights

  • Value appreciation

These two systems will always be in conflict.

Most founders ultimately choose the path that satisfies the VCs, and the token's value bleeds out.

This is why even if many projects "appear successful," their tokens still end up going to zero.

Why Hyperliquid stands out in a field where 99.9% of projects fail

Besides being one of the highest fee-generating protocols in crypto, the project avoided the biggest "killer" of tokens – VC equity funding rounds.

Hyperliquid never sold its shares, has no VC-dominated board, and thus no pressure to direct value to a company.

This allowed the project to do what most cannot: direct all economic value to the protocol, not to a corporate entity.

This is the fundamental reason its token is an "exception" in the market.

Why tokens cannot legally function like stocks

People always ask: "Why can't we make tokens equivalent to company shares?"

Because if a token has any of the following characteristics, it will be deemed an "unregistered security":

  • Dividend payments

  • Ownership

  • Corporate voting rights

  • Legal claim to profits

Then, US regulators would crack down on the project overnight: exchanges couldn't list the token, holders would need KYC, and its global distribution would be illegal.

Therefore, the crypto industry chose a different path.

(The Optimal Legal Structure (Used by Successful Protocols)

Today, the "ideal" model is as follows:

  1. The company does not capture any revenue; all fees go to the protocol;

  2. Token holders capture value through protocol mechanisms (e.g., buybacks, burns, staking rewards, etc.);

  3. Founders capture value through tokens, not dividends;

  4. No VC equity exists;

  5. Economic decisions are controlled by a DAO, not a company;

  6. Smart contracts automatically distribute value on-chain;

  7. Equity becomes a "cost center," not a "profit center."

This structure allows the token to function economically similarly to a stock without triggering securities laws. Hyperliquid is the prime current success story.

But even the ideal structure cannot completely eliminate conflict

As long as a corporate entity exists, potential conflicts of interest remain.

The only path to a truly "conflict-free" state is to achieve the ultimate form like Bitcoin/Ethereum:

  • No corporate entity

  • No equity

  • Protocol runs autonomously

  • Development funded by a DAO

  • Neutral infrastructure properties

  • No legal entity to attack

Achieving this is extremely difficult, but the most competitive projects are moving in this direction.

The Core Reality

Most tokens fail not because of "poor marketing" or "bear market conditions," but due to flawed structural design.

If a project has any of the following characteristics, it is mathematically impossible for the token to achieve long-term sustainable appreciation. Such designs are doomed from the start:

  • Conducted VC equity fundraising

  • Conducted private token sales

  • Has investor token unlock schedules

  • Allows the company to capture revenue

  • Uses the token as a marketing coupon

Conversely, projects with the following characteristics can achieve a completely different outcome:

  • Direct value to the protocol

  • Avoid VC equity fundraising

  • Have no investor token unlock schedules

  • Align founder interests with token holders

  • Make the company economically irrelevant

Hyperliquid's success is not "luck" but stems from thoughtful design, sound tokenomics, and high alignment of interests.

So, the next time you think you've "found the next 100x gem," maybe you have. But unless the project adopts a token economic design like Hyperliquid pioneered, its ultimate fate will be a slow grind to zero.

The Solution

Project teams will only optimize tokenomics when investors stop funding flawed designs. They won't change because you complain; they will only adjust when you stop giving them money.

This is why projects like MetaDAO and Street are so important for the industry – they are pioneering new standards for token structures and holding teams accountable.

The future direction of the industry is in your hands, so allocate your capital wisely.

Perguntas relacionadas

QWhat is the core structural conflict that causes most altcoins to fail according to the article?

AThe core conflict is between company equity and token holders. Projects with both equity (held by founders and VCs) and tokens create competing interests where value is almost always captured by equity rather than the token, leading to token value drainage.

QWhy can't tokens function like company stocks from a legal perspective?

AIf tokens offer dividends, ownership, corporate voting rights, or legal profit claims, they would be classified as unregistered securities. This would trigger severe regulatory crackdowns, making the token illegal on exchanges and requiring KYC for holders.

QWhat key features make Hyperliquid an exception to the typical altcoin failure pattern?

AHyperliquid avoided VC equity financing, has no board of directors, and directs all economic value to the protocol instead of a corporate entity. This aligns incentives and prevents value extraction by equity holders.

QWhat is the 'optimal legal architecture' for a successful protocol as described in the article?

AThe optimal architecture includes: no company income (all fees go to the protocol), value accrual to token holders via mechanisms like buybacks/burns, founders benefiting from tokens (not dividends), no VC equity, DAO-controlled economic decisions, and smart contracts automating value distribution.

QAccording to the article, what is the only way to achieve a truly 'conflict-free' system like Bitcoin or Ethereum?

AA truly conflict-free system requires no corporate entity, no equity, protocol self-operation, development funded by a DAO, neutral infrastructure, and no legal entity that can be targeted. This eliminates all structural conflicts between equity and token holders.

Leituras Relacionadas

STAR 50 Soars 10.73%, Why Did A-Shares Stage a "V-Shaped Reversal"?

After a prolonged decline, the Chinese A-share market staged a strong rally on July 21. The STAR 50 index surged 10.73%, its largest single-day gain in nearly a year, leading a broad-based "V-shaped" reversal. The Shanghai Composite Index rose 1.79%, the Shenzhen Component Index gained 4.81%, and the ChiNext Index jumped 7.05%. Total market turnover reached 2.97 trillion yuan, an increase of 256.1 billion yuan from the previous session, with over 3,100 stocks advancing. The semiconductor sector spearheaded the rebound, with related ETFs posting significant gains. Analysts attribute the surge to three converging factors. First, coordinated capital inflows from "national team" institutions, insurance funds, listed company buybacks, and fund house self-purchases have bolstered market liquidity and confidence. Second, supportive policy signals, including commitments from regulators to ensure stable market operations, provided a favorable backdrop. Third, a stabilization and recovery in overseas markets, notably South Korea, created a positive external environment. Institutions suggest the most severe panic selling phase for the tech sector has likely passed, following a significant digestion of crowded positions and leveraged funds. While short-term volatility may persist, the medium to long-term outlook remains underpinned by enduring trends like AI computing demand expansion and semiconductor localization. The market's focus now shifts to the sustainability of supportive fund flows, earnings reports, and upcoming catalysts from the global AI industry chain.

marsbitHá 27m

STAR 50 Soars 10.73%, Why Did A-Shares Stage a "V-Shaped Reversal"?

marsbitHá 27m

U.S. Tech Momentum Stocks Post Largest Single-Day Gain Ever, But Is the Plunge Over?

US tech momentum stocks staged a sharp rebound on Tuesday (July 21st). Morgan Stanley's TMT Momentum Factor surged over 12%, marking its largest single-day gain on record, exceeding even peaks from the 2000 dot-com bubble. Key momentum indices from Goldman Sachs also posted their strongest daily performances in years. The rally was led by semiconductors, with the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index jumping 4.6%. This rebound followed three consecutive down days and a cumulative 33% plunge in momentum stocks, one of the steepest drawdowns since the dot-com era. Analysts attribute the surge largely to a short squeeze. Heavy selling had pushed high-beta momentum stocks into deeply oversold territory, forcing many short sellers, particularly in Asia, to cover their positions, creating a self-reinforcing buying spiral. However, the rebound's internals appear weak. Trading volume was notably low, and advancing stocks still lagged decliners on the S&P 500, indicating a narrow, concentrated rally rather than broad market participation. Diverging views emerge on the outlook. BTIG warns the bounce has hit key resistance and recommends selling into strength, citing extreme volatility and historical parallels to past market tops. Conversely, Goldman Sachs and UBS believe the momentum unwind is nearing its end, suggesting it may be time to gradually add exposure, as positioning has been significantly reduced. They caution, however, that high volatility warrants a measured approach, potentially using defined-risk strategies. The upcoming earnings season, particularly reports from major tech firms like Alphabet, is seen as a critical test for the rally's sustainability. Simultaneously, bond markets flashed a warning, with yields rising partly due to spiking oil prices. Analysts note that if long-term Treasury yields break decisively higher, it could pose a significant headwind for equities, especially growth stocks.

marsbitHá 34m

U.S. Tech Momentum Stocks Post Largest Single-Day Gain Ever, But Is the Plunge Over?

marsbitHá 34m

U.S. Tech Momentum Stocks Record Largest Single-Day Gain Ever, but Has the Rout Ended?

U.S. tech momentum stocks staged a dramatic rebound on Tuesday, July 21st. Key momentum indices like the Morgan Stanley TMT Momentum Factor and Goldman Sachs' High Beta Momentum Long Index posted historic or near-historic single-day gains, fueled largely by semiconductor stocks. This sharp rally followed a severe three-day sell-off that saw momentum stocks plunge 33%, marking one of the steepest pullbacks since the dot-com bubble. Analysts attribute the bounce primarily to a short squeeze, as forced covering from over-leveraged traders, particularly in Asia, created a buying spiral. However, the rally's health is questioned due to weak market breadth—overall trading volume was low, and decliners outnumbered advancers in the S&P 500 despite the index's gain—suggesting a narrow, concentrated surge rather than broad recovery. Opinions on the sustainability diverge. BTIG strategists warn the rebound has hit key resistance levels, citing extreme volatility and historic stock dispersion as signs of an ongoing broader correction, and recommend selling into strength. Conversely, Goldman Sachs and UBS view the aggressive momentum unwinding as nearing its end, noting reduced positioning and a lack of new fundamental catalysts. They suggest the sell-off presents a selective opportunity to add exposure, albeit cautiously and gradually using defined-risk strategies. The immediate trajectory hinges on the ongoing earnings season, with market focus on Alphabet's capital expenditure guidance for AI investment clarity. Meanwhile, bond markets present a risk, with rising Treasury yields—potentially heading toward 5.5%—and widening credit spreads for mega-cap tech companies posing a threat to equity valuations. The combination of technical factors, earnings results, and macro conditions leaves the durability of the rebound in doubt.

链捕手Há 37m

U.S. Tech Momentum Stocks Record Largest Single-Day Gain Ever, but Has the Rout Ended?

链捕手Há 37m

Bitcoin flashes 3 macro-bottom signals – But can BTC reach $70K?

The article discusses Bitcoin's recent price movement above $66,000 and a shift in market analysis from focusing on a local bottom to a potential macro-cycle bottom. It cites a crypto analyst noting that BTC has flashed three historical technical signals that previously coincided with major market bottoms in 2015, 2019, and 2022, suggesting the current zone could be a strong long-term accumulation area. However, the article also highlights a significant challenge: despite the price breakout, on-chain data shows a lack of supporting liquidity. Stablecoin dominance is rising while the total stablecoin market cap is shrinking, with capital continuing to leave exchanges. This divergence indicates that while the technical setup is bullish, the rally may struggle to sustain enough momentum for a decisive move into the $70,000 region without an influx of fresh capital.

ambcryptoHá 39m

Bitcoin flashes 3 macro-bottom signals – But can BTC reach $70K?

ambcryptoHá 39m

Long-Divided Must Unite, Long-United Must Divide: When L1 Becomes Its Own Rollup, What Is Ethereum's Endgame?

"The Inevitable Cycle: When L1 Becomes Its Own Rollup – What is Ethereum's Endgame?" For years, the Ethereum community grappled with concerns that L2s were fragmenting the ecosystem and eroding L1's value. While L2s provided cheaper execution, they also splintered liquidity and the unified user experience of a single chain. This has prompted a fundamental reassessment of the relationship between L1 and L2. Ethereum's roadmap is evolving. The "Scale" initiative merges L1 and L2 expansion into a holistic framework. L1 itself is advancing with higher gas limits, statelessness, and zkEVM verification, no longer content to be just a low-throughput settlement layer. Consequently, the primary value proposition of L2s is shifting from merely providing cheap blockspace to offering L1 cannot easily provide: application-specific optimizations, privacy features, and flexible governance models. L2s are becoming a spectrum of execution environments with varying degrees of security inheritance from Ethereum. A critical challenge in this multi-chain future is interoperability. The vision is to make Ethereum "feel like one chain again." This relies on advancements in native account abstraction (like EIP-7702) and intent-based architectures (Open Intents Framework), where users declare desired outcomes, and solvers handle the complex cross-chain execution. Furthermore, shortening Ethereum's finality time from minutes to seconds is crucial, as it underpins trust between chains for bridges, stablecoins, and cross-chain applications. Perhaps the most provocative idea is that Ethereum L1 itself could become a form of "its own Rollup." As zkEVM and proof systems mature, high-performance nodes could execute transactions and generate validity proofs. Regular validators would then verify these proofs instead of re-executing all transactions. This blurs the traditional L1/L2 hierarchy, making "Rollup" more of a general execution-verification architecture. Native Rollup aims to integrate L2 validation more directly into the Ethereum protocol, allowing L2s to inherit L1's security more fully and move away from reliance on security councils. In the end, L2s are not destined to replace L1 or be made obsolete by it. The likely future is a unified system where diverse execution environments—each optimized for specific use cases like DeFi, gaming, or privacy—coexist. They will share a common foundation of security, liquidity, and verifiable state, seamlessly connected to restore a cohesive user experience. The next phase for Ethereum is not just about scaling through separation, but about intelligently reintegrating what was separated back into a coherent whole.

链捕手Há 53m

Long-Divided Must Unite, Long-United Must Divide: When L1 Becomes Its Own Rollup, What Is Ethereum's Endgame?

链捕手Há 53m

Trading

Spot
活动图片

Categorias popularesright-arrow

Etiquetas Popularesright-arrow