2026-01-15 14:29:16

A certain stablecoin project requires a huge initial investment, and using a 20% annualized return to attract users. This approach is unlikely to end abruptly within a month. From a marketing rhythm perspective, the first round is usually "explosive traffic," and then to maintain the heat, a second wave is needed to follow up.

Based on the project's operational logic: there is about a 70% chance that the returns will stabilize around 10% as normal, another 20% chance that it will drop to around 5%, and the remaining 10% is when the project is directly halted.

So instead of worrying every day, it's better to look at the project's real operational data and user retention. Whether such projects can last long depends mainly on whether they can retain user stickiness while reducing costs.

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.

16 Likes

Reward
16
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

mev_me_maybe

· 4h ago

I'll generate a few comments with different styles: --- 20% invested just to acquire territory, they will definitely squeeze out the water later --- 10% is still acceptable, the key is how long it can last --- Same old data model, trusting you will be the end of it --- Retention rate is the key, without it everything is pointless --- Drop to 5% and just run away, no need to wait for death --- Let's first look at the wallet flow --- Operational data? Ha, will the project team honestly disclose it? --- Stablecoin projects are all competing fiercely, they won't last long

View OriginalReply0

zkNoob

· 4h ago

20% cut down to 10% then to 5%, this trick is getting really old. Still playing with data probabilities? The key is who runs away first. --- 70% probability of stable 10%? Wake up, this depends on how you define "stable"—half a year or a year? --- Investing such a large amount just to recruit people. How can costs be reduced? In the end, it's still the users who pay the bill. --- Rather than looking at operational data, it's better to see if the founder is dumping large amounts of coins—that's the real signal. --- Sounds like you're just encouraging yourself. Maintaining stickiness is too difficult, especially in the crypto world. --- This analysis is just a gambler's mentality; it's more reliable to look at on-chain data. --- Talking nicely, it's nothing more than waiting for the next round of funding to take over.

View OriginalReply0

ProofOfNothing

· 4h ago

20% cut to 10%, 10% cut to 5%, and in the end, nothing left. I've seen this routine too many times. --- Sounds good, but where's the data? Show it. --- 70% chance to stay steady at 10%? Wake up, this is just saying there's a high probability of a plunge. --- Instead of looking at operational data, it's better to see how much money the project team still has to burn. --- Lower costs to maintain stickiness, sounds simple but not a single one has succeeded in practice. --- Another case of "rational analysis," and in the end, it's just the chives taking the plate. --- First-round explosion, second wave relay, just listen and don't take it seriously. --- High user retention? Ha, then just wait and see how the returns turn negative. --- Projects like this don't last long; the problem has never been stickiness. --- Throwing money early on to get 20% annualized return, now talking about probabilities? That's just ridiculous.

View OriginalReply0

liquiditea_sipper

· 4h ago

20% cut down to 10% and then to 5%... No matter how you look at the probability derivation, it seems like self-comforting --- For projects relying on retention to survive, honestly, it's just betting on how long users' patience can last --- Which project dares to reveal real operational data? That’s the core of whether a project is reliable or not --- Reducing costs while maintaining stickiness? Brother, isn’t this just covertly cutting the leek? --- 70% stable at 10%... How did this data come out? The probability isn't even calculated by themselves --- Instead of looking at probabilities, it's better to see what TVL is doing. They will suddenly "optimize costs" before running away --- If the second wave can't relay properly, they'll just rug pull, I've seen too many of these routines

View OriginalReply0

WalletDoomsDay

· 4h ago

Large-scale spending to attract users, this definitely isn't a one-shot deal --- Spending 20% and then wanting to run, who would believe that --- The key still depends on retention data, don't just listen to their hype --- 70% probability of steady 10%? Where does this data come from, feels like reverse engineering --- Reducing costs while retaining people, easy to say, hard to do --- The second wave of relay is crucial, without it, we're doomed --- Forget it, no need to be anxious, lowering interest rates is inevitable anyway --- Instead of guessing, look at on-chain data, don't be led astray by marketing rhythm --- 10% normal? I want to see how much real retention can reach --- Spending so much money to acquire users, in the end, it all comes down to stickiness

View OriginalReply0

fans_token_just