2025-12-29 18:22:44

This wave of AI hype is fundamentally different from the concept boom of 2015.

In 2015, it was purely a capital frenzy—lacking real application support, driven solely by stories to encourage retail investors to follow the trend, resulting in many projects ending in failure. This time is different. The rise of AI-related projects now is backed by genuine on-chain data growth, actual ecosystem development, confirmed orders, and collaborations. Institutional funds are no longer fooled by flashy narratives; they focus on projects that can deliver real results—hard indicators like on-chain activity, TVL growth, and application implementation.

Just having a concept? Not enough. Without verifiable ecosystem development and revenue data, funds will turn away.

Next year, the AI track will further differentiate. Projects that only tell stories will gradually fall behind, while those with solid business growth and strong future prospects will become increasingly popular. Scarcity always favors those with high certainty and large growth potential.

The main players in this round of market are large funds and institutions. They speak with data and vote with real money. The era of retail follow-the-leader is over.

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.

12 Likes

Reward
12
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

GasBankrupter

· 2025-12-31 04:45

This time is indeed different, but I still have to let the on-chain data do the talking. I also got caught in the hype during the 2015 wave, all air coins. This time, at least there are real orders and TVL supporting it, institutions won't be fooled by stories anymore. But I think, the real differentiation is just beginning, and next year will be clearer. Projects that tell stories, no matter how popular they are now, will cool down. Certainty is king; data will speak. The era of retail investors is indeed over, but with the right top projects, the profit potential is still high. The difference this round is that there is actual application backing it up; the 2015 wave was purely a pump and dump. Still feel like some people are just hyping stories; are on-chain data really that impressive? Institutions have entered the market, and retail investors should really reflect. Not every project can be like Bitcoin. Relying on storytelling is no longer enough; we need to look at TVL and orders. I agree with this. But truly making money still depends on luck and timing.

View OriginalReply0

CounterIndicator

· 2025-12-29 18:44

Honestly, that "storytelling and harvesting" approach from 2015 is really outdated now, but do institutions really look at data? I doubt it, they just keep changing disguises to continue harvesting. I agree partially; hard metrics are definitely important, but how many projects can truly be implemented? The cost of fake data like TVL isn't high either, so how did it become a hard indicator? The era of retail investors blindly following trends is over; now it's the institutions harvesting retail investors, and the essence hasn't changed. Are top-tier projects more popular? We’re watching some of the top coins' issues closely—stop bragging. If a project was truly certain, it would have doubled already. Do we even need to discuss it now? I'm just worried that it will turn out to be a bunch of projects that "look good on-chain data" but are ultimately empty shells. Are those AI projects that institutions are investing in really that reliable? They seem a bit虚 (vague/uncertain) to me. Lack of verifiable data is a valid point, but the key question is: who verifies it? Data can be manipulated itself.

View OriginalReply0

MetaverseMigrant

· 2025-12-29 18:39

There's nothing wrong with that, but the problem is that most retail investors can't tell the difference between real data and hype. Not all institutions are reliable; some are also just storytelling. Top projects are indeed popular, but who can know early on which ones will truly be the top? Projects with high certainty of returns are actually the most average—it's a vicious cycle. People who have lost money have all heard the word "fundamentals." Is this time really different? I'll still wait and see. Data growth is one thing, but the key is whether expectations can be met.

View OriginalReply0

GweiObserver

· 2025-12-29 18:39

That's right, the 2015 wave was really just a pure money grab, and now the competition is much fiercer. Projects that focus on data and real growth, and tell stories, indeed don't last long. Institutional entry has changed the game, and retail investors relying solely on following trends have long been at a disadvantage. TVL and on-chain data are the real hard currency, I agree on that. However, top projects can also dump, so caution is still necessary.

View OriginalReply0

ShadowStaker

· 2025-12-29 18:32

nah, the data narrative is becoming the new story tbh. institutions just swapped marketing for metrics—but they're still chasing yield like everyone else. only difference is better spreadsheets.

Reply0

BugBountyHunter

· 2025-12-29 18:23

I'm just worried it's another tall tale, how can the data be verified? Really? Can on-chain data growth guarantee that the project won't fizzle out? In 2015, they also claimed to have data. Can institutional funds lie? Wake up, everyone. Top projects are popular... what about retail investors? Are they going to get cut again? It still feels like a change of words, but the story is the same, just told differently. Let's wait until the end of the year, then we'll see who's telling the truth.

View OriginalReply0