• Top FDV on launch day: StarkNet, $19.2 billion.
• Highest airdrop value: Hyperliquid, $2.613 billion, with an average of $28,000 per address.
• Top zero-cost airdrop: Movement, $734.8 million in airdrops.
• Most airdrop addresses: HMSTR, 129 million TG accounts, with an average of $3 per address.
• Top price increase: UXLINK, 15x compared to the closing price on the day of ATH.
• Top price decrease: HLG, down 90.66% over 30 days.
Emerging narrative sectors rise, traditional hot sectors cool down
2024 project valuations are high, and market expectations are optimistic
Frequent speculative operations in the early stages, with volatile prices
Most projects show clear price decline trends in the short term
Projects with larger distribution ratios and fewer lock-up mechanisms perform better
More platforms lead to higher recognition
2024 is a year of market transitions, marked by dramatic volatility in the crypto market. Bitcoin (BTC) surged from a low of $38,500 at the start of the year to surpass $100,000, hitting a new historical high. At the same time, as market sentiment warmed up, the activity of project teams gradually became more frequent.
Compared to only 270 TGE projects in 2023, the number of such projects in 2024 surged to 731, representing a 170% increase. Among these numerous projects, only a few are considered major (big fish) and medium-sized, while the majority remain small or less significant projects. So, how have these projects performed after their launch?
To answer this question, we selected 100 of the more prominent and representative projects of 2024, and conducted a systematic analysis using key data such as financing size, price performance, distribution rules, and more, to reveal the trends and patterns of current airdrop projects. This article will present the data to help readers gain insight into the 2024 airdrop landscape.
🔗 Data table
Click to view the detailed data
This article does not offer investment advice; it only provides objective statistical analysis.
The chart shows the distribution of project types in 2024. As can be seen, VC-backed TGE projects in 2024 are mainly concentrated in traditional hot sectors such as infrastructure, GameFi, and Layer2. These projects typically require longer development cycles, with many of them having been in development over the past few years, only launching in 2024.
This year’s emerging popular narratives revolve around DEPIN, RWA, and AI. While the number of TGE projects in these categories is relatively small, their performance has been very impressive. These sectors may continue to see explosive growth in the coming period.
Traditional hot sectors are gradually cooling down, while emerging narratives are rapidly rising. Focusing on these new narratives may be a better investment direction.
Out of the 100 projects, 79 disclosed their financing information, with an average financing amount of $38.91 million.
Venture capital firms typically conduct rigorous due diligence on projects, reflecting the level of market recognition. The larger the financing amount, the stronger the confidence investors have in the project’s future development. By analyzing the frequency of financing, we can also gauge the heat of specific sectors and the direction of capital interest. However, financing amounts alone cannot fully determine a project’s quality; a multidimensional analysis is necessary.
FDV (Fully Diluted Valuation) is a metric used to evaluate a project’s potential future value. FDV is influenced by several factors before a project’s launch, including financing amount, initial circulating supply, market sentiment, narrative direction, sector heat, liquidity, and trading depth.
To more objectively assess the relationship between a project’s initial valuation and actual financing, we use the FDV/financing ratio at the closing price on the day of listing to divide into ranges and analyze the market performance of projects in different ranges:
FDV/Financing 0-20 Range: Reasonable or Conservative
FDV/Financing 20-100 Range: Overestimated Expectations
FDV/Financing 100+ Range: High-Risk Speculation
Among the 79 analyzed projects, the average FDV/financing ratio is 103.9x, indicating that overall project valuations in 2024 are higher, with optimistic market expectations.
Analyzing ATH (All-Time High) and ATL (All-Time Low) helps us gain a comprehensive understanding of a project’s overall performance in the market and investor sentiment. Evaluating the ATH/closing price and closing price/ATL can assess the project’s profit potential and selling pressure risks, providing data to support judgments about a project’s early stability, reasonable valuation, and investment timing.
Statistical analysis of 100 projects’ price movements reveals the following: 40% of the projects reached ATH on their first day.
1% of the projects hit ATL on the first day.
ATH vs. Closing price average: 245.22%, indicating a 2.45x potential for price growth from the closing price to ATH.
Top-performing projects include UXLINK, WEN, and DRIFT.
Closing price vs. ATL average: 633.52%, meaning that to recover from the historical low to the current closing price, a 6.34x increase is required.
The worst-performing projects include SLN, FRIEND, and DEFI.
The market’s speculative sentiment is strong, with 40% of projects reaching ATH on the first day, indicating that many investors prefer to engage in speculative operations at the initial stage of a project’s launch. This may lead to rapid price corrections afterward.
The 245.22% ATH growth compared to the 633.52% ATL decline highlights that the market’s selling pressure risk far outweighs the profit potential. This data reflects that in the early stages of a project’s launch, the price often rises quickly due to heightened market sentiment, but it may soon decline because of selling pressure or token unlocking.
The main goal is to analyze the short-term performance of projects. By comparing the closing price on the first day (TGE) with the price changes over the next 7 and 30 days, we can better understand the project’s performance and trends in the short term.
As can be seen from the chart:
62% of projects have a price lower than the closing price on TGE, with an average decline of 27.03%.
38% of projects have a price higher than the closing price on TGE, with an average increase of 60.34%.
65% of projects have a price lower than the closing price on TGE, with an average decline of 37.42%.
35% of projects have a price higher than the closing price on TGE, with an average increase of 74.26%.
The majority of projects face a price decline in the short term following their TGE, with both the decline percentage and magnitude increasing over time.
Although most projects see a price drop, a small portion of them perform well in the short term, with significant price increases. Some quality projects can gain higher market recognition in the short term and achieve notable price growth.
Top performers include ISLAND, GRASS, and RUNESTONE, while F AARK and HLG performed the worst.
Possible reasons for the short-term rise:
Possible reasons for short-term declines:
The data suggests that projects with a larger airdrop ratio tend to perform more steadily in the short term, while projects with a strong lock-up mechanism underperform expectations, experiencing larger price fluctuations.
The choice of exchange and the number of exchanges a project is listed on can significantly impact its market performance. To better understand how projects perform on different exchanges, Lao Dong compiled data from several major exchanges, including the number of listings, price fluctuations, and the effect of FDV liquidity. This analysis helps assess the performance of projects listed on different exchanges, allowing for more informed investment decisions.
Judging from the numbers above
Coinbase and Upbit list fewer coins, and they tend to be more cautious in selecting projects. This is likely related to their focus on long-term stability and compliance, avoiding projects that are still in the experimental phase or high-risk ones.
Bybit and Bitget, on the other hand, list more coins and are more aggressive. These exchanges focus on attracting users and increasing market share by frequently listing new projects. This strategy helps them rapidly expand in the market, drawing substantial trading volume and liquidity.
In terms of short-term price performance:
As the number of exchanges a project lists on increases, both the average funding and FDV on launch day rise significantly. This indicates a higher market recognition, better liquidity, and an enhanced ability to resist risks, which can attract more investors.
• Top FDV on launch day: StarkNet, $19.2 billion.
• Highest airdrop value: Hyperliquid, $2.613 billion, with an average of $28,000 per address.
• Top zero-cost airdrop: Movement, $734.8 million in airdrops.
• Most airdrop addresses: HMSTR, 129 million TG accounts, with an average of $3 per address.
• Top price increase: UXLINK, 15x compared to the closing price on the day of ATH.
• Top price decrease: HLG, down 90.66% over 30 days.
Emerging narrative sectors rise, traditional hot sectors cool down
2024 project valuations are high, and market expectations are optimistic
Frequent speculative operations in the early stages, with volatile prices
Most projects show clear price decline trends in the short term
Projects with larger distribution ratios and fewer lock-up mechanisms perform better
More platforms lead to higher recognition
2024 is a year of market transitions, marked by dramatic volatility in the crypto market. Bitcoin (BTC) surged from a low of $38,500 at the start of the year to surpass $100,000, hitting a new historical high. At the same time, as market sentiment warmed up, the activity of project teams gradually became more frequent.
Compared to only 270 TGE projects in 2023, the number of such projects in 2024 surged to 731, representing a 170% increase. Among these numerous projects, only a few are considered major (big fish) and medium-sized, while the majority remain small or less significant projects. So, how have these projects performed after their launch?
To answer this question, we selected 100 of the more prominent and representative projects of 2024, and conducted a systematic analysis using key data such as financing size, price performance, distribution rules, and more, to reveal the trends and patterns of current airdrop projects. This article will present the data to help readers gain insight into the 2024 airdrop landscape.
🔗 Data table
Click to view the detailed data
This article does not offer investment advice; it only provides objective statistical analysis.
The chart shows the distribution of project types in 2024. As can be seen, VC-backed TGE projects in 2024 are mainly concentrated in traditional hot sectors such as infrastructure, GameFi, and Layer2. These projects typically require longer development cycles, with many of them having been in development over the past few years, only launching in 2024.
This year’s emerging popular narratives revolve around DEPIN, RWA, and AI. While the number of TGE projects in these categories is relatively small, their performance has been very impressive. These sectors may continue to see explosive growth in the coming period.
Traditional hot sectors are gradually cooling down, while emerging narratives are rapidly rising. Focusing on these new narratives may be a better investment direction.
Out of the 100 projects, 79 disclosed their financing information, with an average financing amount of $38.91 million.
Venture capital firms typically conduct rigorous due diligence on projects, reflecting the level of market recognition. The larger the financing amount, the stronger the confidence investors have in the project’s future development. By analyzing the frequency of financing, we can also gauge the heat of specific sectors and the direction of capital interest. However, financing amounts alone cannot fully determine a project’s quality; a multidimensional analysis is necessary.
FDV (Fully Diluted Valuation) is a metric used to evaluate a project’s potential future value. FDV is influenced by several factors before a project’s launch, including financing amount, initial circulating supply, market sentiment, narrative direction, sector heat, liquidity, and trading depth.
To more objectively assess the relationship between a project’s initial valuation and actual financing, we use the FDV/financing ratio at the closing price on the day of listing to divide into ranges and analyze the market performance of projects in different ranges:
FDV/Financing 0-20 Range: Reasonable or Conservative
FDV/Financing 20-100 Range: Overestimated Expectations
FDV/Financing 100+ Range: High-Risk Speculation
Among the 79 analyzed projects, the average FDV/financing ratio is 103.9x, indicating that overall project valuations in 2024 are higher, with optimistic market expectations.
Analyzing ATH (All-Time High) and ATL (All-Time Low) helps us gain a comprehensive understanding of a project’s overall performance in the market and investor sentiment. Evaluating the ATH/closing price and closing price/ATL can assess the project’s profit potential and selling pressure risks, providing data to support judgments about a project’s early stability, reasonable valuation, and investment timing.
Statistical analysis of 100 projects’ price movements reveals the following: 40% of the projects reached ATH on their first day.
1% of the projects hit ATL on the first day.
ATH vs. Closing price average: 245.22%, indicating a 2.45x potential for price growth from the closing price to ATH.
Top-performing projects include UXLINK, WEN, and DRIFT.
Closing price vs. ATL average: 633.52%, meaning that to recover from the historical low to the current closing price, a 6.34x increase is required.
The worst-performing projects include SLN, FRIEND, and DEFI.
The market’s speculative sentiment is strong, with 40% of projects reaching ATH on the first day, indicating that many investors prefer to engage in speculative operations at the initial stage of a project’s launch. This may lead to rapid price corrections afterward.
The 245.22% ATH growth compared to the 633.52% ATL decline highlights that the market’s selling pressure risk far outweighs the profit potential. This data reflects that in the early stages of a project’s launch, the price often rises quickly due to heightened market sentiment, but it may soon decline because of selling pressure or token unlocking.
The main goal is to analyze the short-term performance of projects. By comparing the closing price on the first day (TGE) with the price changes over the next 7 and 30 days, we can better understand the project’s performance and trends in the short term.
As can be seen from the chart:
62% of projects have a price lower than the closing price on TGE, with an average decline of 27.03%.
38% of projects have a price higher than the closing price on TGE, with an average increase of 60.34%.
65% of projects have a price lower than the closing price on TGE, with an average decline of 37.42%.
35% of projects have a price higher than the closing price on TGE, with an average increase of 74.26%.
The majority of projects face a price decline in the short term following their TGE, with both the decline percentage and magnitude increasing over time.
Although most projects see a price drop, a small portion of them perform well in the short term, with significant price increases. Some quality projects can gain higher market recognition in the short term and achieve notable price growth.
Top performers include ISLAND, GRASS, and RUNESTONE, while F AARK and HLG performed the worst.
Possible reasons for the short-term rise:
Possible reasons for short-term declines:
The data suggests that projects with a larger airdrop ratio tend to perform more steadily in the short term, while projects with a strong lock-up mechanism underperform expectations, experiencing larger price fluctuations.
The choice of exchange and the number of exchanges a project is listed on can significantly impact its market performance. To better understand how projects perform on different exchanges, Lao Dong compiled data from several major exchanges, including the number of listings, price fluctuations, and the effect of FDV liquidity. This analysis helps assess the performance of projects listed on different exchanges, allowing for more informed investment decisions.
Judging from the numbers above
Coinbase and Upbit list fewer coins, and they tend to be more cautious in selecting projects. This is likely related to their focus on long-term stability and compliance, avoiding projects that are still in the experimental phase or high-risk ones.
Bybit and Bitget, on the other hand, list more coins and are more aggressive. These exchanges focus on attracting users and increasing market share by frequently listing new projects. This strategy helps them rapidly expand in the market, drawing substantial trading volume and liquidity.
In terms of short-term price performance:
As the number of exchanges a project lists on increases, both the average funding and FDV on launch day rise significantly. This indicates a higher market recognition, better liquidity, and an enhanced ability to resist risks, which can attract more investors.