2026-01-17 08:24:13

Some in the community had already flagged the red flags early on. When insiders warned about questionable practices, few listened. Now it's becoming clearer—the ICO wasn't just ambitious, it was tainted from the start. The funding mechanism itself raises serious questions about how capital was actually raised and deployed. This is exactly why project transparency and early accountability matter in crypto. When projects cut corners on compliance or commit to one story while doing another behind the scenes, it erodes trust in the entire ecosystem.

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.

21 Likes

Reward
21
10
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

LiquidatorFlash

· 01-20 02:29

It's the same old trick. The capital chain clearly has issues, and the collateralization ratio won't last long... We've long needed to keep a close eye on the smart contract audit reports of these projects.

View OriginalReply0

ApeWithAPlan

· 01-19 20:52

I've already said it, these kinds of projects are rotten from the start. Those early warning people were really treated like fools.

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-a606bf0c

· 01-19 20:27

If I had known it would turn out like this, I should have listened to those insiders back then. Now it's a mess everywhere.

View OriginalReply0

DuskSurfer

· 01-19 12:17

Here comes another classic "I told you so" story... Really, it happens every time. Someone yells wolf and no one listens, and now it's too late to regret. This ICO was doomed from the start; anyone who looks at the fundraising mechanism knows there's something fishy.

View OriginalReply0

MemeCoinSavant

· 01-17 08:54

ngl this is just the behavioral economics of selective auditory processing—people literally cannot process red flags when their bags are heavy enough. the correlation between early warnings ignored and subsequent rug probability is frankly peer-reviewed at this point

Reply0

GateUser-afe07a92

· 01-17 08:53

Another project that is rotten from head to toe, people have been calling for help for a long time --- That's why I never touch ICOs without transparency --- Insiders have been warning, yet a bunch of people still rush in, it's really frustrating --- The funding chain is a black box, the entire ecosystem suffers as a result --- The red flags were so obvious early on, and now we’re only reacting? --- Hmm... if compliance can be saved, just save it; with two different stories, trust is gone --- I wondered why so many projects had problems from the start, now I finally understand --- This ICO has been deceiving from the funding mechanism, no wonder people's trust has dispersed --- It's a typical pattern of first deceiving and then shifting blame, just routine operations in the Crypto circle --- An insider had already come out to warn, but no one paid attention to them, serves them right

View OriginalReply0

CodeSmellHunter

· 01-17 08:53

Someone has already said that something was off, but some still choose to believe the story... Now the truth has finally been revealed.

View OriginalReply0

RektHunter

· 01-17 08:51

People have been warning for a long time, but no one listened. Now they finally understand what it means to reap what you sow.

View OriginalReply0

ContractExplorer

· 01-17 08:44

I've already said it, in this circle, whenever there's a project that boasts excessively, it's usually not a good sign...

View OriginalReply0

ShadowStaker

· 01-17 08:35

ngl this is just validator attrition waiting to happen... when governance fails to catch the rot early, network resilience takes the hit. classic move tbh

Reply0