2026-01-17 10:28:21

The top of the gainers list can still lose $100, I need to reflect on this carefully🤔

Losing money is a textbook-level pain, but after the pain, there must be reflection. Blindly following the trend will only make the next loss more shocking.

Recently, I looked at DUSK's on-chain data and realized how absurd my previous investment logic was. Its market cap has already entered the forefront of privacy and compliance tracks. You might think the on-chain activity should be bustling. But the reality is—daily active addresses have long been fluctuating around a few thousand, which is quite quiet compared to public chains with tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of addresses.

At first glance, this seems like evidence of "lack of project popularity," but upon reflection, it actually indicates DUSK's true positioning: it is not competing for retail users at all, but targeting institutional-level, high-net-worth B-end applications. There are fewer active addresses, but if you calculate the average transaction amount, it might be far beyond expectations.

The problem is, many people (including myself) evaluate this type of chain with the mindset of assessing retail public chains. The data doesn't lie; in fact, it confirms its focus. This loss has taught me a lesson—before investing next time, I must first ask: who exactly is this project for?

DUSK31.52%

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.

7 Likes

Reward
7
4
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

TokenUnlocker

· 10h ago

Can you still lose money even if you're at the top of the gainers list? Laugh out loud, this is my daily routine. Really, the more I look at on-chain data, the more I realize I was too simplistic before. Fewer active addresses ≠ a dying project; the key is who is actually using it. Next time, I need to figure out whether this thing is meant for institutions or retail investors, or I'll keep getting cut.

View OriginalReply0

MEVSupportGroup

· 11h ago

Another painful lesson in losing money, the top gainer on the rise list is forcibly trapped, hilarious The institutional trading on the B side and retail trading are completely different, but most people can't tell the difference and rush in Next time before investing, ask yourself if you're qualified to play in this track

View OriginalReply0

LightningClicker

· 11h ago

Oh no, falling into the trap of chasing gains and selling at a loss. This time, I don't feel the tuition was paid in vain. Wait, fewer active addresses actually indicate institutional activity? I need to think more about this logic. Another story of a coin I don't understand but is rising, and ending up with the worst losses. Doing on-chain data analysis isn't about following the hype; it's about where the money flows. I get that now. In simple terms, I bought the wrong sector; I was out of my mind at the time. Using retail thinking to evaluate B2B projects, no wonder it failed. This wave really calls for reflection.

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-40edb63b

· 11h ago

Gains ranking first can also lose money, how outrageous is that... --- B-end institutional trading indeed has a different approach; less data doesn't mean no prospects --- It's again the result of following the trend; we need to learn to look at real on-chain data --- I hadn't considered the perspective of average transaction amount; next time, be sure to clarify the positioning before investing --- The most expensive lesson is losing money; hope it wasn't a waste of money --- Chains like DUSK, which are institutional-oriented, are indeed easily misunderstood by retail players --- Having few active addresses is really a hidden signal; I didn't realize this before --- Blindly following the gains ranking is so common, brother --- Spending money to learn a lesson is too costly; we need to find ways to avoid it

View OriginalReply0