Shed more light on the story of your product with the founders show

The Founders Show – March Events 📅 The web3 landscape is changing Join us for conversations with web3's biggest builders on what these changes mean for its future Limited sponsored and co-branded spots available Send us a DM to request a spot

🎙️ The Founders Show 72: The ‘Barbell’ Economy: Why Utility Tokens Are Dying in the Middle ▸ Is utility broken, or just mispriced? ▸ Will fundamentals matter again? ▸ Should crypto embrace equity-like models? Join us next Thursday at 4 PM UTC 📍 x.com/i/spaces/1AKEmOObWBOKL

what a panel this week join us this Thursday 4pm UTC

> 2 great projects > rewarding 2 great questions > $50 each LFG

Idea: > join a tier-1 project > farm millions on Polymarket based on insider trading > airdrop it to the community or unleash it as pure buying power WHO’S BUILDING THIS?!

I guess Web3 startups have a failure rate around 97-99%. Yes, web2 startups failure rate is also brutal, but Web3 has unique challenges: - dumb builders - thinking community = users - token is a burden not a feature 1. Dumb builders Yes, we all heard about “no PMF”, but here are my two cents: - In Web2 you can quickly validate demand → build an MVP and run paid ads. - Roughly, LTV:CAC > 3x scalability and you're fine. in Web3 too many builders are “building” something that never had any demand. And they don’t even hire marketers who could find it out. The first moment they realize it is TGE. 2. Community ≠ users In web3 acquisition is easier than retention. But: - Followers are not users - Engagement is not adoption - Airdrops and points bring temporary users who leave after TGE Why? See #1 And let's not blame people. We all use Phantom, Rabby, Hyperliquid, Uniswap etc. Build something real. 3. 90% projects don't need a token Let's be real. Most of the project launch token because it’s the only way they can raise. Investors would never ever invest if it were equity-only deal. Even strong startups with revenue struggle. They come up with buyback programs and burn their revenue instead of scaling their biz. Yes, sometimes zero utility strong narrative can pump. But for that you have to be in the narrative and play on emotions and expectations. Usually if the chart becomes the product, you're gone. Final thoughts You can build well and still fail because: • MMs dump on you to make revenue • CEX demands are insane • poor tokenomics • no revenue streams • narratives rotate and leave you behind etc. Web3 does not reward "just" effort. You need to: - find product-market fit - work on retention - choose the right timing - be lucky

🚫 Why I’m not going to cover @alturax (even though the rewards look good) I’ve spent the last few days reviewing AlturaX, especially after their Cookie campaign launched with 0.5% supply for creators. On paper it looks attractive. 
But here’s the truth from a product, market, and strategy perspective: 1. Their strategies aren’t unique Delta-neutral vaults, funding rate capture, basis trades, GMX-style LPs…
This is commodity DeFi.
Every fund and quant desk runs the same strategies. You can’t build a moat around “funding rate goes brrr”. 2. Market-neutral strategies don’t scale Funding spreads disappear with size.
Basis trades collapse when too much capital enters.
LP returns get diluted by liquidity. Meaning:
➡️ Early APYs look good
➡️ But they drop fast when TVL grows
➡️ And the narrative collapses with them There’s no sustainable edge here. 3. No real moat Nothing in AlturaX’s model is defensible: - no unique tech - no exclusive infrastructure - no proprietary execution - no new category Anyone can replicate this in a week. 4. The “Stream Finance collapsed” narrative is not a moat It’s good storytelling…
but it doesn’t create product-market fit. Saying “we’re transparent” works until: - liquidity crunch - bad risk assumptions - shrinking spreads - execution issues - or simply market conditions kill the APY Transparency doesn’t scale returns. 5. Long-term survival probability is low Realistically? 20–30% chance the project survives the next 18–24 months. 
Not because the team is bad, but because the category is brutally hard, competitive, and fragile. 🥤 So should you farm the campaign? Probably yes, as the rewards are quite good on paper. If you’re a mid/large KOL. 
But as an investment?
As a long-term hold? I’m passing. DeFi needs real innovation.
This is not that.

I’ve been exploring new AI x Infra projects lately, and it's been kinda difficult to find a decent one. Yesterday my friend @_jamisky sent me @Xyberinc, and I decided to check it out. Briefly, Xyber team is building the operating system for onchain AI apps, agents and machines that: → launch fairly → evolve through modular upgrades → scale with real users → and stay verifiable onchain I like their credible attempt to give AI systems rails with: - verifiable execution (TEE) - onchain memory - agent interoperability - upgradeable logic - community ownership - a marketplace for skills, plugins, and abilities And now they opened a $250,000 @xeetdotai campaign. For me it a good chance to explore the ecosystem and see how their scoring compares to Cookie/Kaito. I’ll share more breakdowns as I dig deeper. If you’re joining the campaign too, let me know. I’m curious who else is testing Xeet.

gm gm CT I've checked myself on @xeetdotai and here is a breakdown. I'm searching for an InfoFi campaign that would be worth joining for a small account like mine. But the main criterion is that the project has to have a PMF and a doxxed team with experience. Do you know any?

Snapshot is taken. TGE in one week. It's been a long journey, and I'd like to share some thoughts on why I joined this Cookie campaign: 99% of crypto projects never reach real product-market fit. Narratives rotate every cycle, but only a few categories consistently prove real demand: DeFi, DEXes, wallets, payments, DePIN (yet very niche). These are the products people actually use. I believe @almanak is one of the rare examples in this cycle that contribute to our space and will stay because of the real demand. A DeFi startup that figured out AI is good for reasoning and coding, but the strategies have to be executed by code. They built a system where both retail and funds found real value: - quants build complex strategies in minutes - LPs earn stable yield with secure and efficient code-based strategies And the community itself deserves credit. People didn’t just speculate. They invested time, capital, and effort into helping Almanak grow. The snapshot is taken. Now we watch the launch of one of the most promising DeFi x AI projects in the space. The next week will be fun.

1k comments 1k likes 1k reposts So cheap And then everyone asks why the token dumps 90% 2 weeks after TGE

It's not a time to retire dead metrics. It's time to build something real. Metrics are good, but we're operating in a completely broken space: - projects have 1-2k active followers but make it 100-200k, because exchanges and investors want to see traction ( credibility) - but engagement rate does not match the number of followers, so you start a quest campaing - now you have to increase TVL, so you go to syndicates and funds and offer them sweet terms (they will leave as soon as these terms are over) - let's also grow our user base -> announce a points campaign and potential airdrop as time flies, you start thinking it's all real until at TGE you realize that you're actually 100 times smaller than you thought. A harsh reality is that there are about 20 apps that people really use (Hyperliquid, pump fun, prediction markets, bridges, wallets, DePIN, and DeFi apps). Delete 99% of Coinmarketcap and we will lose nothing.

3/ The industry pushes projects inflate numbers to appear legitimate, since exchanges expect visible traction according to @Yatzeey from @yaynetwork He cited sustainable growth requires focusing on real community building, and that most incentive-driven users will leave postTGE

Ethereum reposted @almanak Probably nothing