2026-01-17 10:27:55

Looking back at some of the early well-known projects in blockchain, they indeed followed similar paths. From STEEM to BTS and then to EOS, these projects share a common fate—continuous decline, ultimately either fading away or being delisted. Interestingly, this phenomenon seems to point to the same factor behind it all: the founder's level of focus.

People involved in technology are sometimes truly genius-level. Take BM as an example; he was indeed ahead of the industry in DEX architecture. The internal market design from the BTS era is still used in the current DEX ecosystem. No one denies this. But that doesn’t contradict anything—being technically impressive and having a successful project are fundamentally two different things.

The problem is, once the founder’s energy is scattered and they keep switching tracks by launching new projects, investors and the community are the first to feel this instability. Changing a name, rebranding to take a quick profit—these can’t fundamentally change the underlying issues. Many projects fail not because of technical flaws, but because the founders didn’t put their full heart into it.

In fact, focus and aiming for the stars are never mutually exclusive. The key is to choose the right direction and dedicate yourself wholeheartedly to making it succeed. This way, you can stay grounded while also achieving greater things. Many projects’ current states are, in part, a lesson learned from this experience.

STEEM-5,21%

BTS-2,02%

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.

16 Likes

Reward
16
9
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

LiquidationKing

· 01-20 06:36

Haha, BM's approach is indeed impressive, but they are just too restless. They don't finish one project before thinking about the next, which makes investors exhausted every day. After EOS's recent surge, it should have prompted reflection, but they are still changing tactics. Truly speechless. No matter how strong the technology is, it can't save a restless founder. That's the biggest irony. Focus is a luxury, and very few can truly achieve it. Basically, it's greed. Wanting to become rich overnight, but end up not doing anything well. Looking at the projects that are doing well now, it's because the founding teams are really dedicated to their work. There's no other secret.

View OriginalReply0

MEVSandwichVictim

· 01-20 00:52

It's so heartbreaking. That guy BM is just an example—technically talented but lacking the entrepreneurial mindset. Switching tracks is like changing clothes.

View OriginalReply0

P2ENotWorking

· 01-19 13:26

Speaking of BM's DEX logic, it's indeed impressive, but why is it that the project just can't get off the ground? Irony. EOS was so popular at the beginning, but now it's nothing. It really is the founder's fault. Constantly jumping between new projects, community trust drops to zero. No wonder no one is willing to take over. Technical geniuses ≠ business geniuses. This equation has been proven too many times in the crypto world. Instead of gazing at the stars, it's better to solidify what you're doing now. Too many projects die due to fickleness. The tactic of cutting leeks and changing masks has become stale; investors are not fools. Once focus is lost, the project is finished. Just look at STEEM—still a bloody lesson to this day.

View OriginalReply0

CryptoWageSlave

· 01-19 10:06

BM is indeed a technical genius, but just knowing how to code is useless if that's all there is. --- At the end of the day, it's still a matter of people. No matter how strong the technology is, it can't save a heart that changes with every whim. --- After going through EOS's entire process, I understand now: the founder not being focused is more deadly than poor technology. --- It's another story of rebranding and riding on the coattails of others, but if there was any sincerity, it wouldn't be like this. --- Focus truly is a scarce commodity; most people have the mindset of wanting to get rich overnight. --- The logic behind BTS is still in use today, which shows that the technology itself is fine; the problem is that people's hearts have dispersed. --- Looking at these projects, you realize that even genius founders eventually become experts at switching tracks. --- Decline isn't due to poor technology; it's because the founders are tired of playing and want to find the next hot spot. --- Reading this, I feel quite speechless. Why is it so difficult to focus on something so simple? --- The tactic of renaming and rebranding probably has to continue. As long as people are willing to buy, it won't stop.

View OriginalReply0

InfraVibes

· 01-17 10:49

Really, being a tech genius ≠ project success; this equation has never been proven or disproven. --- BM's DEX design was indeed brilliant, but then one project after another, it feels like a repetitive cycle of cutting leeks. --- The key is balance. Focused effort doesn't mean being stagnant, but you also can't be all things to all people. --- So, those big figures in the crypto world who drop everything to start something new—really should read this article. --- The chains of STEEM, BTS, and EOS each illustrate the consequences of "founders fleeing." --- Having technical skills alone isn't enough; if community confidence is lost, it's game over. That's just how it is. --- I just remembered, isn't that the old saying: "Choice is more important than effort"? But in the crypto world, there are too many choices. --- Damn, changing names and identities repeatedly really works every time. What are investors really after?

View OriginalReply0

TommyTeacher

· 01-17 10:42

In short, it's just a matter of being restless and distracted; no matter how smart the technology is, it can't save you. --- BM is indeed impressive, but being a genius and neglecting your main business is just a waste. --- So, is it the technology that’s lacking or the founders? Just listen and you'll know who's passing the buck. --- Focusing on this is easy to say, but how many actually stick with it? Most end up becoming masters of cutting leeks. --- Switching tracks is even more painful than a single cut; at least after the cut, everyone knows what’s going on. This kind of fickleness is actually the most heartbreaking. --- If one project fails, just start a new one? I've heard this logic too many times; every time it's just putting old wine in a new bottle.

View OriginalReply0

GweiTooHigh

· 01-17 10:39

Really, BM switching tracks is basically just boredom. Being technically strong doesn't mean you can hold onto a project. The downfall of these old projects all boil down to the curse of the founder being unfaithful. It's quite a pity when you think about it—having good cards but ruining it yourself. Damn, I get angry just looking at STEEM. If this continues, who will be next? The interesting question is, why are tech geniuses always particularly restless? Is it true or not?

View OriginalReply0

GasFeeTherapist

· 01-17 10:33

BM this guy is a typical example, excellent technically but terrible at management, changing projects more often than changing wives --- Basically, it's the founder's inattentiveness, which the community can clearly feel, and the coin price will honestly reflect that --- I still remember the enthusiasm for STEEM, but what happened? The project team had already started messing with other things --- Being technically awesome ≠ knowing how to make a product, these two are really not the same --- So it's really a focus issue, no need to make it more complicated than it is --- Looks like we need to find a founder who has both technical skills and the stability to focus on one project, it's tough --- It's ridiculous, having great stuff but insisting on messing it up completely --- That DEX logic is indeed impressive, but the people involved are long gone, awkward --- This summary is quite honest; many rug pulls actually happen like this

View OriginalReply0