2026-01-14 11:24:45

Recently participated in a comparative experience of two popular fundraising projects, and the data is quite interesting.

Liquid Trading raised 7.6 million, and the overall participation process was relatively acceptable in terms of wear and tear. Ostium Labs raised a larger amount, reaching 23.5 million, with a valuation of 250 million, but choosing this route indeed incurs significantly higher wear and tear costs.

A detail worth noting—Liquid's expected points and actual points issued show a considerable gap; the actual settlement often results in 2-3 times more. This difference in expectation management is quite interesting.

In terms of funding stages, Liquid is in the relatively early seed round, while Ostium has already completed a larger-scale fundraising, showing a clear difference in project maturity. There were also quite a few participants last week, but overall returns still depend on the project's tokenomics design.

Comparing the fundraising progress and participation costs of these two projects, the choice of route depends on your risk tolerance.

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.

6 Likes

Reward
6
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

token_therapist

· 9h ago

Wow, Liquid's expected share actually increased by 2-3 times? How intense is that? It feels like an unexpected surprise during the beta testing phase.

View OriginalReply0

SighingCashier

· 9h ago

Haha, Liquid's expected points are 2-3 times higher? That’s pretty outrageous, feels like a game of wordplay. Ostium’s wear and tear is really painful. A scale of 23.5m looks intimidating, but the costs are right there. Early projects vs. large funding, it still depends on how much risk your account can handle. How can the gap be so big? The expectations management is just... Liquid is cheap, but the data transparency is questionable. I'm actually more concerned about token economic design; just looking at the funding amount isn’t very useful. Seed rounds and later-stage funding are not even on the same line. The returns eaten up by wear and tear can’t be made up for with more points.

View OriginalReply0

BlindBoxVictim

· 9h ago

Wow, Liquid's expectation management this time is really top-notch. Did they actually score 2-3 times more than expected? That's a win or at least not a loss.

View OriginalReply0

AirdropHarvester

· 9h ago

Uh, Liquid expects to triple the distribution? Is this operation real or is there a data issue?

View OriginalReply0

SellTheBounce

· 9h ago

Expected to increase by 2-3 times, it sounds like just promising a big pie to the bagholders. To put it simply, the larger the funding, the higher the wear and tear. That's the market's truth. When there's a rebound, you should sell, don't wait. Early-stage projects look attractive, but you need to ask yourself—there's always a lower point. Why not be patient and wait?

View OriginalReply0