Revisiting the Projects that I introduced Before

This article is written for general informational purposes and does not provide legal, business, investment, or tax advice. Investment decisions should not be made based on this article, nor should it be used as guidance for accounting, legal, or tax matters. References to specific assets or securities are for informational purposes only and are not recommendations for investment. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect the views of any associated institutions, organizations, or individuals. Please note that the opinions expressed in this article are subject to change without prior notice.

It has already been three years since I started introducing crypto projects. Sometimes as an individual, sometimes as a part of a company, I introduced various projects. I curated and introduced projects that I thought were new, novel, and interesting, and as a result, I have covered quite a lot of projects. With this accumulation of archives, there is something I have wanted to do for a long time, which is to revisit the projects I introduced in the past.

This can be seen as a sort of warranty service for crypto research, a status update, or a follow-up observation. This article is a collection of answers to the following questions:

• Are the projects I introduced back then still doing well?

• How have the expectations and concerns mentioned about that project back then been reflected over time?

• How keen was my foresight in evaluating the projects?

The projects that I’ll revisit in this article are mostly those that were covered to a significant extent in my previous writings. However, there are exceptions that have been excluded as follows:

• Story Protocol, M^0 Labs: Since these two projects were introduced in 2024, I excluded them, believing that not enough time has passed to revisit them yet.

• Iskra: Excluded because it was introduced through sponsorship at that time.

• Simperby: Excluded because it is an open-source project and it would be inappropriate to evaluate it on the same criteria as general for-profit projects.

• The Idols NFT: Excluded from this article as it is an NFT project and differs in nature from other projects.

The final projects to be reviewed are 24 in total: Index Coop, FloorDAO, Audius, Royal, Good Karma Record DAO, Octopus Network, Fairside Network, LayerZero, NFTBank, Upshot, Abacus, Seatlab, Ceramic Network, Ants Review, Molecule, VitaDAO, Fleming Protocol, Sudoswap, Druglike, Berachain, Y2K Finance, Saga, Smilee Finance, and Argus Labs. My previous writings on these projects can be found on my personal blog(sadly only korean version are left), Medium, and Four Pillars site.

The evaluation criteria are frankly just my preference & taste, but to make it a bit more intuitive for the readers, I selected several questions and converted my thoughts into a 4.5-point grading system (4.5 → A+, 4.0 → A0, 3.5 → B+, … 1.5 → D+, 1 → D0, 0 → F). The questions that form the basis of the evaluation criteria are as follows:

1. Did it survive? : The first question to ask in the tough crypto industry is whether it survived.

   • No → F

   • Yes → +1

2. Did it achieve notable results? : This question examines the achievements from the time I introduced the project to the present.

   • No → +0

   • Mediocre → +0.5

   • Yes → +1

3. Did it find PMF? : This checks whether the project has found Product-Market Fit, indicating it is on track. The criteria for finding PMF are subjective; if I feel it has, then Yes, otherwise No.

   • No → +0

   • Yes → +1

4. Is the project interesting enough to cover now? : Unlike the previous questions, this one evaluates the future potential and possibilities of the project. As the crypto industry is still in its early stages, potential remains a crucial criterion for evaluation.

   • No → +0

   • Mediocre → +0.5

   • Yes → +1

5. Is the project a game changer? : Some projects have the potential to create a new narrative or change the wave of the crypto industry itself. These are what I call game changers.

   • No → +0

   • Yes → +0.5

Before proceeding with covering each project, let's first go over some precautions.

• As can be seen from the evaluation criteria, the criteria are very subjective. Since the reason for introducing the projects in the first place was based on my subjective criteria, it is fair that the re-evaluation also follows my subjectivity. However, this means that some may find it difficult to accept my evaluation.

• Both in the past and now, I do not evaluate crypto projects as investment, so factors like token prices are not considered. This does not mean token prices are unimportant, but at least they are not part of my evaluation criteria when introducing a project. My writings are never investment recommendations, and this article evaluates the projects themselves, not as investment assets.

• Given that the timing and sectors of each project are all very different, it might be inappropriate to evaluate them on a single 4.5-point scale. However, I judged that the advantage of conveying my thoughts intuitively through this scale outweighs the mentioned drawback, so I ultimately decided to use this method.

• Lastly, unlike when I used to spend about two weeks to a month examining each project in detail, this time I had to review many projects quickly, so I could not spend the same amount of time. Therefore, there may be some errors or overlooked details. If any are found, I would appreciate it if you let me know.

The projects that received an F grade are Abacus, Ants Review, Druglike, Fleming Protocol, and Good Karma Record DAO. Projects that receive an F grade are either terminated or effectively in a state of termination. Abacus was terminated due to financial difficulties, and Druglike was shut down due to a lack of demand. The remaining projects have essentially ceased updates at the MVP stage, with no recent social media activity, indicating they are effectively terminated.

The projects that received a D0 grade are Ceramic Network, Octopus Network, Saga, and Seatlab. A D0 grade can be summed up as "still alive, but...". These projects are still active but have not met any of the other evaluation criteria positively, thus receiving a D0 grade.

Ceramic Network, envisioned as a data layer for decentralized identity and data, has not gained significant traction or need in this area. While there are projects like Orbis, Cyberconnect, and Audius using Ceramic Network, and it has added many features since its introduction, nothing particularly stands out to me.

The nature of infrastructure projects without tokens makes it difficult to gain public interest. Additionally, the trend in crypto X social projects has shifted in recent years from decentralized narratives like Lens and Orbis to financial narratives like Friend Tech and Fantasy Top, affecting Ceramic Network's relevance. However, developers building on Ceramic Network might have a different perspective, so additional research is necessary for checking the full sentitment.

Octopus Network, noted for its ecosystem allowing easy onboarding of appchains, has pivoted to the Omnity Network, a cross-chain interoperability protocol. The main reason Octopus Network did not gain much attention is likely the lack of attractive appchains within its ecosystem, a common issue shared by its competitors like Cosmos and Polkadot.

Currently, Omnity Network operates on ICP instead of NEAR, acting as a bridge between various chains, including Bitcoin and several Bitcoin Layer 2s. Personally, I do not find it particularly intriguing, possibly because I am not interested in the Bitcoin or ICP ecosystems.

Saga aims to implement an appchain ecosystem targeting onchain games and NFTs, but it has not garnered significant attention. While many chainlets have launched and some recognizable names appear in partnership lists, it feels like that's all there is. They seem to be attempting to maintain user interest with seasonal airdrops, but its effectiveness is questionable.

The commonality between Saga and Octopus Network is that both are non-Ethereum appchain ecosystem projects, and their lack of popularity can be attributed to these narratives not gaining traction. From late 2022 to early 2023, there was an expectation that projects like Saga and Octopus Network, which facilitate easy chain launches, would onboard more established brands onchain, but this did not materialize. Furthermore, most newly launched appchains opted to become Ethereum L2s, making RaaS projects like Conduit and Caldera more popular than non-Ethereum projects like Saga and Octopus Network.

Seatlab, an NFT ticketing project, had high expectations but seems to be used only occasionally for small events, which is not particularly meaningful. The idea of NFT ticketing might make sense conceptually, but in reality, unless it involves blockchain-related offline events, it seems unnecessary.

The projects that received a D+ grade are Audius, Fairside Network, FloorDAO, Y2K Finance, NFTBank, and Sudoswap. The projects I graded D+ fall into two groups: 1) those with minimal achievements to date but some future potential (Audius, Fairside Network, FloorDAO, Y2K Finance) and 2) those with decent achievements but limited future prospects (NFTBank and Sudoswap).

Audius is an onchain music streaming platform that has survived in the scene for quite a while. My main curiosity was about how many people actually listen to music through Audius. According to Audius's dashboard, there were about 4M plays in June 2024, which seems like a considerable number at first glance. However, compared to a relatively minor music streaming platform like Amazon Music (4th in market share), Audius's play count is only 0.0162% of Amazon Music's (assuming 82.2M users listening to music for an average of 30 minutes a day).

While itsdisappointing compared to traditional music streaming platforms, it's a good news that Audius has been focusing on monetization for artists recently. Initiatives like the ‘Unlock your Earning’ campaign in the waitlist, the Premium Album update in May this year, and licensing agreements with US performing rights organizations in June offer more monetization methods for artists. The best way to onboard more artists to Audius is to show that they can earn more money using the platform. Despite its shortcomings so far, Audius's efforts to monetize artists make its future somewhat promising.

Fairside Network garnered attention by offering crypto users insurance coverage for various loss events under one product within their compensation limit. The biggest issue with Fairside Network is that it has not launched even after more than two years since its introduction. Although their Twitter is active and the founder appears on various podcasts, the lack of launch is a significant question mark for me.

I still believe Fairside Network could be more user-friendly than Nexus Mutual, and since Nexus Mutual dominates the crypto insurance market (TVL: $232M), Fairside Network has substantial potential. However, the fact that it hasn't launched in over two years prevents me from giving it a higher grade than D+.

FloorDAO uses OlympusDAO's PoL (Protocol Owned Liquidity) mechanism to provide liquidity for the NFT market. Last April, FloorDAO implemented ve-tokenomics by locking up its native token $FLOOR and granting voting power proportional to the lock-up period in its V2 update, which caused some issues.

• Noise arised from the token holders as the difference between the Treasury Value and the Market Cap of $FLOOR persisted.

• Users were divided over the lock-up mechanism, the main feature of V2.

• As the NFT market declined, FloorDAO's Treasery Value decreased, and they struggled to add new NFT collections.

To address these issues, in June, FloorDAO announced a merger with NFTX under the support of Merit Circle and introduced a new project, ƒlayer. For details on ƒlayer, refer to the whitepaper. In short, NFT holders can deposit their NFTs into ƒlayer and receive 'Floor Tokens' corresponding to the NFT collection's floor value immediately and receive the remaining value when the NFTs are sold. This gives NFT holders a certain level of immediate liquidity for their NFTs.

Given that FloorDAO's mechanism was closely tied to NFTX, I see the merger more as a rebranding than a pivot. For ƒlayer, the key will be attracting user interest through the rebranding event, especially in the current struggling NFT market. While FloorDAO's past performance has been disappointing, I am giving it a D+ in support of the rebranding effort.

Y2K Finance attracted attention as a protocol for hedging against stablecoin de-pegging events when such events were a hot topic. I had high hopes for Y2K Finance for two main reasons. First, I believed the demand for hedging against de-pegging events would continue to grow with the increasing number of stablecoins and LSD tokens. Second, I thought betting on de-pegging events would appeal to degens.

However, Y2K Finance's performance has been disappointing. Its TVL peaked at $13M at the end of 2022 but has steadily declined to around $150K. There have been updates, such as V2, which automated user positions' rollover and significantly improved UX. They also introduced Volatility Vaults and Turbo Options, betting on volatility and offering modified call/put options. However, these products have not achieved significant results, with TVLs of $15K and $2K, respectively.

Looking back, I think the main reason Y2K Finance has not met expectations is that it only partially meets the needs of users wanting to hedge against de-pegging events and degens looking for speculation. Users wanting to hedge might find it simpler to short the stablecoin directly or use Nexus Mutual. Meanwhile, degens might find memecoins or other derivative projects like GMX more appealing.

However, Y2K Finance recognizes these issues and is adding more derivatives and improving UX. Therefore, it's too early to label Y2K Finance a failure, and the initial grounds for my expectations remain valid, so it warrants further observation.

NFTBank, an application for comprehensive NFT portfolio management, was previously focused on NFT valuation mechanisms. Back then, some people around me used NFTBank to manage their NFT portfolios, and I had high expectations for its use of machine learning for NFT valuation, surpassing competitors. However, it does not seem to have gained the expected attention.

There have been many feature updates. With V2, NFTBank allowed users to manage multiple accounts at once and supported the Ronin chain, showing its intent to focus on the onchain gaming ecosystem. However, as the NFT and onchain gaming sectors have not grown as expected, NFTBank seems to be affected.

To turn things around, NFTBank must frequently attempt targeted efforts like supporting the Ronin chain and focusing on the onchain gaming ecosystem.

Sudoswap is an onchain NFT marketplace that utilizes the AMM mechanism, differing from traditional NFT marketplaces. When I introduced Sudoswap, I argued that even if it couldn't beat OpenSea, it would be successful if it achieved a relationship similar to that of Binance and Uniswap. I predicted that in the best-case scenario, Sudoswap could capture about 11.37% of the NFT marketplace market (the market share of DEX in the overall token trading volume at that time).

As of now, Sudoswap ranks 8th among NFT marketplaces, capturing only 0.34% of the market, proving my prediction wrong. Unlike with fungible tokens, users have preferred offchain projects like Blur or Open Eden for NFT trading. The lower protocol fees and freedom of LP pools offered by Sudoswap were less appealing to NFT traders than the airdrop expectations and point systems of other platforms.

While Sudoswap's future doesn't look as bright as before, I believe it has played a significant role in diversifying NFT marketplaces. Though it hasn't captured significant trading volume, Sudoswap demonstrated the possibility of NFT trading purely through onchain mechanisms using AMM, which is meaningful in its own right.

The projects that received a C0 grade are Royal and Smilee Finance. Royal has shown limited results so far but holds promise for the future, while Smilee Finance has had decent results and some potential for future growth, leading to their C0 grades.

Royal garnered attention for allowing artists to sell shares of their songs as NFTs, enabling holders to earn a portion of the royalties, thus aligning incentives between artists and fans. However, Royal ultimately decided to terminate this service due to its lack of scalability and insufficient interoperability with other onchain protocols, and opted to pivot.

Currently, Royal is preparing two major services: Sonic and IRL. Sonic is branded as an "AI song generation experiment," with its first offering being an EDM AI music generation model called 3DM. This model, trained on over 1,000 project files from EDM artist 3LAU, allows users to create high-quality EDM tracks with a few clicks. Users can access the model using one of 333 access tokens, and by burning these tokens, they can claim ownership of the tracks they create. I find this initiative interesting, as this kind of campaign is only possible by 3LAU, who is a founder of Royal. The other service, IRL, has not yet revealed additional details, but its slogan, "Uniting the digital world of cryptocurrency with physical world experiences," suggests it will offer Phygital services.

I think Royal is worth watching because it quickly pivoted from a limited service to developing interesting new services in the AI x music and Phygital sectors, which I find personally intriguing. The onchain music sector, which has been stagnant for a while, seems to be finding new opportunities with the application of AI. I am particularly interested in the developments of Crate and Royal in this field.

Smilee Finance caught my attention for reasons similar to Y2K Finance. Just as Y2K Finance offers a hedge against de-pegging events, Smilee Finance provides a hedging service against IL (Impermanent Loss), a problem that liquidity providers inevitably face.

I rated Smilee Finance more favorably compared to Y2K Finance for the following reasons:

• Smilee Finance, being relatively new and yet to launch its token, has maintained user interest and TVL close to its initial launch levels according to the data. However, like Y2K Finance, it needs to be monitored continuously as it might face similar challenges post-token launch.

• Both Smilee Finance and Y2K Finance are set to launch on the Berachain mainnet. Smilee Finance is expected to have unique synergy with Berachain's PoL (Proof of Liquidity) mechanism. Berachain's PoL mechanism requires all users to participate as liquidity providers to receive token rewards, meaning all users are exposed to IL. Consequently, the demand for IL hedging is expected to grow, increasing the demand for Smilee Finance's services.

The projects that received a C+ grade are Argus and Upshot. Argus has shown limited achievements but holds promise for the future and potential to be a game-changer. Upshot received this grade due to its mid achievements as an NFT valuation protocol and the anticipation surrounding its recent pivot.

Argus is an onchain game studio and infrastructure project. The World Engine by Argus promises to provide game developers with a development environment and performance akin to traditional game development while leveraging the nteroperability, which is the strength of blockchain. Since introducing Argus in the second half of 2023, not much has changed. The World Engine has been made fully open-source, and some optimizations have been completed, but the first onchain game using the World Engine has yet to be unveiled. In hindsight, expecting the launch of a game, which requires significant time and effort to develop, within less than a year was perhaps unrealistic.

I consider Argus a potential game-changer because the success of the first onchain game launched by Argus or using the World Engine could shift the landscape of the onchain gaming industry. In the broader context of the onchain gaming industry, Argus is somewhat niche, while the mainstream is represented by the Optimism ecosystem's Redstone. Nonetheless, my greater expectation for Argus stems from two main factors:

1. Difference in Focus: Personally, I feel that the Redstone ecosystem is highly interested in Fully Onchain Games and the new gameplay they enable. In contrast, Argus also aims for Fully Onchain Games but with a stronger emphasis on combining the best aspects of traditional and onchain games. Argus founder Scott mentioned in a past podcast that he envisions a future where game developers ask, "Why not build onchain?" and I believe this goal is in the right direction.

2. Personal Experience: I previously used Argus's World Engine during an interchain hackathon, while I haven't used Redstone. Although I haven't used Redstone and can't make a direct comparison, I found that even our team, as game development newbies, could easily learn and use the World Engine, giving me a positive outlook on Argus.

Similar to NFTBank, Upshot provided real-time NFT value prediction services through machine learning models. However, Upshot has since pivoted and is now developing Allora Network, a decentralized AI network service, under the name Allora Labs. For detailed information on Allora Network, refer to their whitepaper. In summary, Allora Network allows consumers to request specific AI computations, and multiple models submitted to the network perform these tasks, with the most accurate answers receiving greater rewards. While its objective is similar to BitTensor, the differences include:

1. Meta Inference System: Models on Allora Network submit not only their results for a given computation but also accuracy predictions for results submitted by other models. Allora Network claims this dual submission enhances the final result's accuracy delivered to consumers.

2. Incentive Structure: Allora Network applies different incentive mechanisms for Workers, who perform the actual computations, and Reputers, who evaluate the results submitted by Workers, aiming to provide better results.

3. Result Verification: Allora Network uses zkML to verify that the results submitted by each model are derived as claimed.

Although I am not an expert in the onchain AI sector and haven't deeply explored Allora Network, Upshot has been providing NFT value prediction services through machine learning since its inception. This suggests that the technology and experience from their NFT valuation service have been retained and expanded to a broader application, potentially giving Allora Labs an edge over competitors.

Previously, I introduced Abacus, NFTBank, and Upshot under the assumption that as the NFT market grew, a system for more accurate NFT valuation would be needed and flourish. This assumption proved incorrect as the NFT market did not grow, and accurate valuation was not as crucial for traders as anticipated. Interestingly, the current status of these projects varies greatly. Abacus has been discontinued, NFTBank remains in place, and Upshot has pivoted.

Unlike NFTBank and Upshot, which relied on machine learning models and data for NFT valuation, Abacus used an economic incentive mechanism involving multiple participants. I initially found Abacus's approach the most intriguing and believed it would succeed if it worked properly. However, as the NFT market stagnated, Abacus's method faced the most difficulties, while Upshot quickly adapted to the rising onchain AI narrative by retaining its technical expertise and pivoting. This analysis highlights how services with similar initial goals responded differently to challenges, providing valuable insights.

The project that received a B0 grade is Index Coop. I have a somewhat positive outlook on Index Coop's achievements so far and its future potential. Unlike the previous projects, I believe Index Coop has found its Product-Market Fit (PMF) to some extent, which is why I gave this grade.

Index Coop offers a variety of crypto index products. In the past, I believed that the products offered by Index Coop could significantly influence the normies adoption of crypto investments to the level of the stock market. Unfortunately, looking at Index Coop's TVL, this prediction seems to have been incorrect. TVL peaked at the end of 2021 and has steadily declined to around $75M currently.

Nonetheless, I believe Index Coop has found its PMF because it is the first project that comes to mind when thinking of crypto index products. Among projects that specialize in providing crypto index products, Index Coop remains as the icon. Of course, this raises the separate question of whether crypto index products can gain more popularity, and I must agree that to retail investors, crypto index products might feel as paradoxical as a "warm iced Americano." However, Index Coop is making efforts to increase its exposure through various B2B partnerships. Partnerships with wallet solution providers like Argent and Safe and exchanges like eToro and Matrixport aim to increase exposure to retail investors, while partnerships with institutional digital asset custody services like Copper aim to increase exposure to institutions.

Additionally, considering that Index Coop has maintained its position in the industry since 2021 and continuously upgraded by launching four new products (dsETH, gfcETH, ic21, cdETI) in 2023 alone, I believe Index Coop has somewhat established its footing. Therefore, I think it is one of the first-gen DeFi projects to revisit when market conditions improve.

The projects that received a B+ grade are Berachain, LayerZero, and VitaDAO. All three projects have received high marks in terms of its past achievement. While Berachain has yet to find its PMF, it has received positive evaluations in other areas. LayerZero and VitaDAO may not be game-changers yet, but they have found their PMF to some extent and hold promising potential, earning a B+ grade.

I initially introduced Berachain because I believed it was a rare Layer 1 project that combined both culture and technology, and this belief remains unchanged. In terms of achievement, Berachain has created one of the most loyal communities in the crypto space and was the first to propose the Proof of Liquidity (PoL) concept, which has been benchmarked by other projects like Initia and Concrete. In V2, they introduced a new EVM framework called Beaconkit. As for potential, Berachain is mentioned alongside Monad as one of the most anticipated projects for the latter half of this year, so there's no need for further explanation.

I consider Berachain a potential game-changer for two main reasons. First, it has the potential to revive the alt-Layer 1 season, which many thought was over. Projects launching with large valuations and growing from the start have fallen out of favor, and alt-Layer 1 projects have failed to capture the same level of excitement as before. However, I believe Layer 1 projects, being large and straightforward, can appeal to retail investors more than any other type of project. The second reason is that Berachain's success would write a new chapter in the crypto project's success playbook. There has never been a project like Berachain before, and if it can maintain its hype post-launch, many in the crypto industry will need to study how Berachain prepared, launched, and led the project.

Naturally, since the mainnet has not yet launched, Berachain has not found its PMF. The reaction to the testnet has been enthusiastic, but this includes users aiming for an airdrop. Therefore, we need to look at liquidity and activity post-mainnet launch and TGE to determine if Berachain has found its PMF. Berachain's current challenges include: 1) familiarizing users with the new PoL mechanism, 2) generating excitement among users tired of the airdrop meta, and 3) inevitable competition with another major project, Monad.

When LayerZero's whitepaper was first released, many, including myself, expected it to be a competitor or complement to IBC. Riding on this anticipation, LayerZero currently holds 17.19% of the total bridge market share, with a TVL of $1.33B, according to L2BEAT. This figure includes canonical bridges directly created by chains like Polygon and Ronin, so LayerZero is undoubtedly the top third-party bridge. Competitors like Connext and Wormhole have significantly smaller shares, at 7.23% and 6.28%, respectively.

It's important to note that this data is from the pre-airdrop period. Generally, metrics for projects differ significantly before and after an airdrop, so making positive future assessments based solely on pre-airdrop figures might be inaccurate. Indeed, looking at LayerZero's metrics, there was a sharp decline in key figures starting in April 2024, when the airdrop approached. Therefore, a more comprehensive evaluation requires careful observation over the next few months.

VitaDAO is a BioDAO that supports research related to aging and longevity. It is the earliest and biggest BioDAO. After seeing too many DAOs that were not properly managed, I expected VitaDAO to follow a similar path. Contrary to my expectations, however, VitaDAO appears to be thriving.

VitaDAO's achievements to date include:

• Evaluated over 200 projects and funded 23, investing over $4.5M.

• Launched two IP-NFTs: VITA-FAST in 2023 and VITARNA in 2024.

• Successfully hosted two pop-up city events: Zulalu in Montenegro in 2023 and Roatan in Honduras in 2024.

• Launched Matrix Biosciences, the first biotech company funded by a DAO.

With the growing interest in longevity and aging, as seen in Bryan Johnson's Don't Die movement, I believe VitaDAO, which supports non-mainstream research across national borders, has the potential to grow even further. As someone interested in Scifi narratives, I see VitaDAO, along with Molecule (to be introduced later), as leading projects in this movement.

The only project that received an A+ grade is Molecule. Molecule, an early-stage biotech research funding marketplace project introduced alongside other SciFi projects, received positive responses to all questions in this article, earning it an A+. Let's take a closer look at each aspect.

Performance & PMF

One of Molecule's most notable achievements is the successful funding of various BioDAOs through its platform. Molecule has facilitated the creation of new BioDAOs via its bio.xyz service. Multiple BioDAOs, including the previously mentioned VitaDAO, HairDAO, and ValleyDAO, all originated from this platform. In 2023, BioDAOs like AthenaDAO, HairDAO, and ValleyDAO launched IP-NFTs and completed funding for various research projects through Molecule. Seeing numerous niche research areas receive funding and progress through Molecule's IP-NFTs, I believe Molecule has found its PMF to a certain extent.

Potential

Currently, Molecule is preparing to launch a service called Catalyst, a platform designed to connect researchers and investors to secure funding for more early-stage research. While the exact features of Catalyst are not yet known, if it is an updated version of the Molecule marketplace, it could potentially support a broader range of niche early-stage research projects through IP-NFTs.

Game Changer

I view Molecule as a game-changer because it demonstrates another use case for crypto. The fundamental utility of crypto, as I see it, is the ability to easily transfer economic value across borders, and Molecule applies this to a new field of early-stage research. If niche research, often overlooked in traditional systems, can receive support through crypto and provide economic value to investors and health benefits to society, it proves a powerful new use case for crypto.

In reviewing a total of 24 crypto projects, I found that approximately 20% of the projects introduced in the past have since been discontinued, and my predictions about the appchain narrative and NFT valuation were entirely incorrect. This experience exposed my poor foresight but also provided a fascinating opportunity to reassess the current state of the projects I covered before. Observing the strategies that once similarly positioned projects have employed to survive offered significant insights into running crypto projects. I'll revisit these projects and the new ones I cover this year around the same time next year. For any crypto researchers reading this, I recommend conducting your own version of this kind of revisiting.