2026-01-16 01:42:59

There's an interesting phenomenon: some projects on this platform that originally had very poor incentive design suddenly see a policy shift and immediately start crying in the community. With such a big reaction, do you think they are truly innocent and wronged, or did they already have an idea? These types of projects usually didn't prioritize user rights in their initial planning. When the external environment changes, they start shifting blame. Other projects had already prepared contingency plans in advance, but these projects only now think of seeking help—ironically, the ones truly harmed are the loyal community members who have been following closely.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

20 Likes

Reward
20
10
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

RatioHunter

· 01-19 01:39

Haha, this is the current state of Web3. Project teams should have thought of this long ago. Basically, they were caught off guard because they didn't do their homework. The most vocal projects are the most guilty. It's really unfair—those who were prepared all along shouldn't be crying now. The community members who stick around are the ones who are truly suffering. They invest so much but end up taking the blame for the project team, how ironic. These types of projects don't plan ahead in the early stages and just shift the blame later, it's pointless.

View OriginalReply0

StakeOrRegret

· 01-18 03:54

The bigger the reaction, the more obvious the guilt. --- Planning ahead and last-minute efforts are worlds apart. --- The ones hurt the most are always retail investors, sigh. --- These types of projects are just luck-based gambling, not taking risk control seriously. --- Community members are the real victims, taking the blame for others. --- It was clear from the start what these projects were really about. --- Whenever policies change, they start crying poverty—just a farce. --- Good projects have already been safeguarded; only the bad ones panic now. --- The scapegoat artists are online—don't believe them. --- It's pitiful how many people believe in these projects.

View OriginalReply0

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

· 01-16 19:40

Haha, the bigger the reaction, the more it shows you're guilty. Why didn't you do it earlier? This is a typical scapegoat, only crying poor when the spotlight is gone. Really, those projects that were prepared early on are now unaffected, the contrast is obvious. The ones who are truly pitiful are the retail investors who got cut early on. You should have judged the project's attitude from the start. I think these kinds of projects should have been shut down long ago. Don't keep harming the community. The problem isn't the policy; it's that the project teams never really took people seriously.

View OriginalReply0

StakoorNeverSleeps

· 01-16 05:43

Pretty realistic, I've been tired of this routine for a long time. Bad projects love to scramble at the last minute, who can you blame? This wave is all deserved, greed in the early stages leads to losses now, retail investors are the unluckiest. Cry so loudly that it seems more suspicious, probably just showing signs of guilt haha. It was about time to regulate, so these trash projects don't keep scamming the little guys. I'm truly amazed, as soon as there's any movement, they start shifting blame—professional-level finger-pointing. Having a contingency plan early on and scrambling at the last minute, the gap becomes obvious. The most pitiful are those retail investors who truly believed, only to be exploited.

View OriginalReply0

PumpDetector

· 01-16 02:09

nah these projects screaming bloody murder the second winds shift... classic tell tbh. if your tokenomics were actually solid you wouldn't be in panic mode rn. reading between the lines—the ones that prepped ahead never make this much noise, smart money already knew what's coming. retail holders always catch the knife on these plays.

Reply0

StealthDeployer

· 01-16 01:54

Ah, you’ve been exposed, haven’t you? I saw through it a long time ago. Those projects had terrible initial designs and ended up abandoned. Who would believe their act of pretending to be pitiful now? --- The truly unlucky ones are the community members who got completely duped by these people. --- As soon as the wind shifts, they start whining. Why didn’t they do something earlier? Projects with a bit of brains would have prepared a plan already. --- This is a classic master of shifting blame. They don’t take users seriously during the planning phase. --- Looking at their reactions, you can tell they’re hiding something. If they were truly innocent, they wouldn’t be causing such a fuss. --- Haha, now they’re finally asking for help. Isn’t it a bit late, buddy? --- The incentive mechanism is already a mess, and now they’re blaming policies. That’s a brilliant move.

View OriginalReply0

ForkLibertarian

· 01-16 01:52

Why weren't they so active before? Why are they only complaining now? You should have seen it clearly earlier; the bigger the reaction, the more obvious the guilt. Oh, here comes the season of shifting blame again, and retail investors are the ones suffering. Designs are trash and you still want to pretend to be a victim? Laughable. The ones who should really be crying are those community brothers who got cut. This is what you call karma, who can you blame? Once policies change, the truth is exposed, very ironic. Thinking about it, you were late to defend your rights. Why didn't you act earlier? Stop pretending. Is it really that hard to prepare a contingency plan?

View OriginalReply0

MetaverseHomeless

· 01-16 01:49

Once the policy changes, the attitude changes. Why didn't you do it earlier? Are you really that scared to cry so fiercely? Honestly, it's because there's no plan. These projects are truly top-notch; their skill in shifting blame is exceptional. Long-time community members are the most wronged, bearing all the blame. Wait, why didn't these projects care about user rights during early funding rounds? A classic case, usually underperforming, now starting to put on a show.

View OriginalReply0

TokenTaxonomist

· 01-16 01:45

ngl, let me pull up my spreadsheet here... the ones throwing the biggest tantrums? statistically speaking, they're exactly the ones who never stress-tested their tokenomics against regulatory scenarios. it's just cryptographic darwinism at this point. their incentive structures were taxonomically incorrect from day one.

Reply0