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.
7 Likes
Reward
7
4
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
ProposalManiac
· 8h ago
Complete decentralization sounds appealing, but few projects truly dare to give up all permissions; this must be seen through.
Mouse trading has long been an industry-understood game that can't be detected through official documents.
A clever mechanism design does not equal to outperforming the market; there are enough lessons from history.
Audit reports are like health check-up reports; projects that seem fine can still suddenly fail. Don't rely too much on that paper.
Community consensus building is the easiest to fake; a few big players incite others, creating a false illusion of cohesion.
View OriginalReply0
BlockchainFries
· 8h ago
That's a good point, but I still think that after checking all five points, there are still quite a few people who end up getting cut off.
View OriginalReply0
FallingLeaf
· 8h ago
That's right, but I find that most people simply can't do these 5 points, especially in the community part, which is easily influenced.
---
Decentralization sounds good, but I've never seen a truly fully decentralized project; there's always someone behind it.
---
Contract audits are so full of water; some audit reports are just for show.
---
Market manipulation has long been an industry rule of thumb; who dares to say they haven't done it?
---
Community cohesion is the most虚 (meaningless or superficial); today's loyal fans can turn against you tomorrow, I've seen it many times.
---
The 5 standards sound good, but I really haven't found any projects that can pass all of them.
---
The problem is that most people don't look at these when choosing projects; they only look at price increases and influencers' promotions.
---
The decentralization point is the funniest; some project founders directly control the Telegram groups to manipulate, is that called decentralization?
---
I really don't understand technological innovation; anyway, if it goes up, it's innovation; if it falls, it's just cutting leeks.
---
The bottom line of contract security has long been broken; many projects with the same code can still have issues.
View OriginalReply0
AirdropFatigue
· 8h ago
That's right, but I find that many people just don't listen... only realizing after suffering heavy losses
---
Decentralization sounds good, but the projects that truly implement it are few and far between
---
I totally agree with the power of the community. Without genuine believers supporting a project, even the best mechanisms are useless
---
Many people still look for cheap contract audits and end up suffering big losses
---
Mouse trading is really hard to prevent; internal information gaps are just that terrifying
---
I just want to ask, how can you tell if the community is made up of genuine believers or bots?
---
The level of technological innovation is the easiest to fall into traps; what seems novel is often just a name change
---
Being so cautious every time, yet I still miss some opportunities... how do you strike this balance?
---
No matter how many standards there are, you still have to rely on your own intuition; otherwise, it's just copying others
---
All five points are correct, but honestly, when it comes to actual execution, compromises are still made
想要在加密市场中规避风险?这5条标准或许能帮你过滤掉绝大多数陷阱项目。
首先看项目的治理结构——真正靠谱的项目往往采取完全去中心化设计,没有中心化项目方,发起人身份保密,合约权限彻底放弃。其次排查内部人士权益——确保没有老鼠仓这类明面暗操作。
再看技术创新度。项目是否有独特的机制设计?上涨逻辑是否合理自洽?这直接影响长期价值。同时合约安全是底线——代码必须经过充分审计,安全系数要达到业界标准。
最后一点往往被忽视但最关键——社区力量。有没有一批真正坚持进行长期共识建设的核心成员?社区氛围和凝聚力很大程度决定了项目的生命周期。
严格按这5项原则去审视每个项目,基本能规避掉九成以上的风险陷阱。