45% of VC-backed crypto projects from 2023-24 are already dead

>>60507878 (OP)
Good.

you have to trick retail into giving you money, they are too dumb to understand when they are getting taken advantage of. vcs will set deadlines for results or pull funding, you can dangle endless carrots in front of retail. chainlink perfected this business model

That's why, ironically, memecoins are more trustworthy than "tech" projects.

>>60508079
99% of meme coins from 2025 are dead you retarded monkey.

>>60507878 (OP)
Do all VCs just throw as much shit at the wall as possible

>>60507878 (OP)
99% of VC-backed projects in general are dead, anon

yet there are still people here shitting on LINK.

Stinkies are getting passive income along with BUILD rewards. You are sitting in a pig pen waiting for the farmer to hand you your oats.

>>60507878 (OP)
Is that not a decent percentage for the VC's? I mean, you only need one 10x to outweigh 8 100% dead projects, and a 10x isn't much in crypto. This cycle I guess its a decent bit but still, if 55% of your projects are anywhere from -80% to 2,000%, if a decent bit lean towards 1,000-2,000% that seems pretty good. Also my captcha is "TKKKV" and I want to take that as some kind of sign... it should probably be a sign to avoid VCs but for some reason i'm feeling the opposite.

>>60508886
Of course I know it depends heavily on the variables of what price the VC's got in at and where the other 55% of projects went from there but still...

>>60507878 (OP)
but /biz/ told me those vcs were just scamming retail risk free

>>60508975
Everyone thought they were a vc for a few years there, so “vcs” just became a term for “retail with too much money”. Once all those people are completely broke and killed themselves we can have a reset of the market

>think about applying to token2049 Singapore's startup comp
>decide to look at last year's winner
>500 entries
>winner chosen in September 2024
>the winner literally already went broke and closed down
the absolute state