2024 Airdrop Secrets Revealed: Exploring Wealth Opportunities and Avoiding Risk Traps

Intermediate1/27/2025, 8:54:33 AM
The airdrop market in 2024 has seen significant fluctuations, with traditional popular sectors (Layer2, GameFi) cooling down, while emerging narratives (DEPIN, RWA, AI) rise. This article deeply analyzes the airdrop trends and patterns of 2024 using 100 hot projects as examples.

🔹 2024 airdrop list

• 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.

💡Core Insights

Emerging narrative sectors rise, traditional hot sectors cool down

  • Traditional popular sectors (infrastructure, Layer2, GameFi) have an average 30-day increase of -1.34%, while emerging sectors like DEPIN, RWA, and AI show an average increase of 41.98%, suggesting investors should focus on new emerging sectors.

2024 project valuations are high, and market expectations are optimistic

  • The FDV/funding ratio of 79 projects on the first day averages 103.9x, indicating that overall project valuations are high in 2024, with optimistic market expectations, but there may be some bubbles.

Frequent speculative operations in the early stages, with volatile prices

  • 40% of projects reach ATH on the first day, and 1% of projects reach ATL on the first day. This shows that most projects experience significant sell-off pressure early on, with many investors inclined to engage in speculative trading, which may lead to a sharp price correction after a surge.

Most projects show clear price decline trends in the short term

  • 62% of projects experience a downward trend within 7 days, and 65% of projects experience a downward trend within 30 days. Most projects face a price decline in the short term after TGE, and as time passes, both the proportion and magnitude of the decline increase.

Projects with larger distribution ratios and fewer lock-up mechanisms perform better

  • Projects with larger distribution ratios tend to be more stable and perform well, with an average 30-day increase of 16.66%. Tokens with lock-up mechanisms tend to perform poorly, with an average 30-day decline of -43.73%.

More platforms lead to higher recognition

  • As the number of exchanges listing a project increases, the average amount of funding and FDV for projects rises significantly, indicating an increase in market recognition and liquidity, which also enhances risk tolerance.

🧑‍💻 Preface

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.

📊 Data analysis

1. 2024 TGE Track 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.

  • Infrastructure projects: 19 projects, with an average 30-day increase of 12.18%
  • Layer2 projects: 12 projects, with an average 30-day decrease of -0.2%
  • GameFi projects: 12 projects, with an average 30-day increase of 2.3%

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.

  • AI projects: 3 projects, with an average 30-day increase of 24.56%
  • DEPIN projects: 3 projects, with an average 30-day increase of 53.56%
  • RWA projects: 3 projects, with an average 30-day increase of 42.17%

Traditional hot sectors are gradually cooling down, while emerging narratives are rapidly rising. Focusing on these new narratives may be a better investment direction.

2. Financing and FDV Analysis

Out of the 100 projects, 79 disclosed their financing information, with an average financing amount of $38.91 million.

  • There are 8 projects that raised over $100 million.
  • The largest proportion of projects (44) falls within the $10 million to $100 million range.
  • There are 26 projects that raised between $200 million and $10 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

  • There are 21 projects in this range, with an average financing amount of $48.83 million. The data shows that 57% of these projects did not exceed their closing price within 7 and 30 days, indicating that these projects have more stable market expectations, relatively reasonable valuations, and lower investment risks compared to other ranges.

FDV/Financing 20-100 Range: Overestimated Expectations

  • There are 33 projects in this range, with an average financing amount of $51.64 million. Statistics show that 63.6% of projects saw their prices weaken within 7 days, and this proportion increases to 75.8% after 30 days. This indicates that investors had higher initial expectations for these projects, but prices experienced significant short-term corrections, posing a certain level of volatility risk.

FDV/Financing 100+ Range: High-Risk Speculation

  • This range includes 24 projects with an average financing amount of $12.72 million. These projects are typically smaller-scale projects that have not raised over $100 million. The data reveals that 70.8% of these projects saw price declines after 7 days, and 54.2% saw declines after 30 days. These projects are often concentrated in hot sectors such as infrastructure, GameFi, and LSD.

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.

3. ATH vs ATL Analysis

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.

4. Short-Term Project Performance Comparison

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:

  • Day 7:

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%.

  • Day 30:

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:

  1. Strong Fundamentals: Projects with strong technical support, clear use cases, or innovative business models tend to attract long-term investor interest, driving prices up.
  2. Narrative Drive: Projects that capitalize on current market trends (such as GameFi, meme coins, DEPIN, RWA, etc.) can attract market liquidity, boosting prices.
  3. Strong Community Consensus: A strong community consensus enhances the market attention and demand for the project, driving prices up. Continuous community support can also ease selling pressure and strengthen long-term stability.
  4. Good Liquidity: Good liquidity helps stabilize prices and boosts investor confidence.

Possible reasons for short-term declines:

  1. Cooling Market Sentiment: The price on TGE is often driven by FOMO (Fear of Missing Out) sentiment, which may result in overpricing. As the excitement wanes, prices tend to return to a more rational level.
  2. Increased Selling Pressure: After TGE, investors—especially airdrop participants or short-term investors—might cash out, increasing selling pressure and causing prices to decline.
  3. Token Unlocking Mechanism: Many VC-backed tokens have long-term release mechanisms. As tokens unlock, early investors (such as private placement and team members) may choose to cash out, adding to the selling pressure in the market.
  4. Insufficient Liquidity: Some projects may face liquidity shortages or limited trading depth after TGE. Large sell orders can cause prices to drop rapidly, increasing volatility.

5. Impact of Airdrop Distribution Ratio on Price

  • Projects with an airdrop ratio greater than 15%: 15 projects, with an average 7-day increase of 11.87% and a 30-day increase of 16.66%.
  • Projects with an airdrop ratio less than 15%: 76 projects, with an average 7-day increase of 8.31% and a 30-day increase of 3.36%.
  • Projects with a lock-up mechanism: 10 projects, with an average 7-day decline of -16.68% and a 30-day decline of -43.73%.

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.

6. Exchange Selection and Project Performance

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.

  • Binance: 30 projects listed, 7-day price fluctuation -0.02%, 12 projects (40%) increased in price, 30-day price fluctuation -4.57%, 12 projects (40%) increased in price
  • OKX: 31 projects listed, 7-day price fluctuation -13.06%, 7 projects (22.58%) increased in price, 30-day price fluctuation -18.75%, 10 projects (32.26%) increased in price
  • Bybit: 79 projects listed, 7-day price fluctuation +2.27%, 29 projects (36.7%) increased in price, 30-day price fluctuation -4.65%, 28 projects (35.44%) increased in price
  • Bitget: 74 projects listed, 7-day price fluctuation +6.57%, 26 projects (35.14%) increased in price, 30-day price fluctuation +3.3%, 28 projects (37.84%) increased in price
  • Coinbase: 16 projects listed, 7-day price fluctuation -3.68%, 3 projects (18.75%) increased in price, 30-day price fluctuation +26.64%, 6 projects (37.5%) increased in price
  • Upbit: 17 projects listed, 7-day price fluctuation -5.05%, 3 projects (17.65%) increased in price, 30-day price fluctuation +2.94%, 9 projects (52.94%) increased in price

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:

  • Bitget and Bybit performed relatively well over both 7 and 30 days, with Bitget particularly standing out, showing positive price growth over both periods and a high percentage of projects increasing in value.
  • Coinbase performed quite well, especially with a +26.64% increase over 30 days and a solid 37.5% of projects showing price increases.
  • OKX and Binance showed some decline over the past 30 days, with OKX experiencing a more significant drop of about -18.75%.
  • Upbit had a recovery over the past 30 days, showing a +2.94% increase and 52.94% of its projects increasing in price, which is a good performance.

  • Other exchanges: 7 projects, average funding of $6.5 million, average FDV on launch day: $290 million.
  • Listing on 1 exchange: 20 projects, average funding of $28.86 million, average FDV on launch day: $981 million.
  • Listing on 2 exchanges: 33 projects, average funding of $20.68 million, average FDV on launch day: $1.07 billion.
  • Listing on 3 exchanges: 12 projects, average funding of $24.57 million, average FDV on launch day: $3.097 billion.
  • Listing on 4 exchanges: 17 projects, average funding of $31.67 million, average FDV on launch day: $1.783 billion.
  • Listing on 5 exchanges: 9 projects, average funding of $152.15 million, average FDV on launch day: $6.313 billion.
  • Listing on 6 exchanges: 2 projects, average funding of $95.2 million, average FDV on launch day: $6.489 billion.

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.

Disclaimer:

  1. This article is reproduced from [X]. The copyright belongs to the original author [0x老东]. If you have any objection to the reprint, please contact Gate Learn Team, and the team will handle it as soon as possible according to relevant procedures.
  2. Liability Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not constitute investment advice.
  3. The Gate Learn team translated the article into other languages. Copying, distributing, or plagiarizing the translated articles is prohibited unless mentioned.

2024 Airdrop Secrets Revealed: Exploring Wealth Opportunities and Avoiding Risk Traps

Intermediate1/27/2025, 8:54:33 AM
The airdrop market in 2024 has seen significant fluctuations, with traditional popular sectors (Layer2, GameFi) cooling down, while emerging narratives (DEPIN, RWA, AI) rise. This article deeply analyzes the airdrop trends and patterns of 2024 using 100 hot projects as examples.

🔹 2024 airdrop list

• 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.

💡Core Insights

Emerging narrative sectors rise, traditional hot sectors cool down

  • Traditional popular sectors (infrastructure, Layer2, GameFi) have an average 30-day increase of -1.34%, while emerging sectors like DEPIN, RWA, and AI show an average increase of 41.98%, suggesting investors should focus on new emerging sectors.

2024 project valuations are high, and market expectations are optimistic

  • The FDV/funding ratio of 79 projects on the first day averages 103.9x, indicating that overall project valuations are high in 2024, with optimistic market expectations, but there may be some bubbles.

Frequent speculative operations in the early stages, with volatile prices

  • 40% of projects reach ATH on the first day, and 1% of projects reach ATL on the first day. This shows that most projects experience significant sell-off pressure early on, with many investors inclined to engage in speculative trading, which may lead to a sharp price correction after a surge.

Most projects show clear price decline trends in the short term

  • 62% of projects experience a downward trend within 7 days, and 65% of projects experience a downward trend within 30 days. Most projects face a price decline in the short term after TGE, and as time passes, both the proportion and magnitude of the decline increase.

Projects with larger distribution ratios and fewer lock-up mechanisms perform better

  • Projects with larger distribution ratios tend to be more stable and perform well, with an average 30-day increase of 16.66%. Tokens with lock-up mechanisms tend to perform poorly, with an average 30-day decline of -43.73%.

More platforms lead to higher recognition

  • As the number of exchanges listing a project increases, the average amount of funding and FDV for projects rises significantly, indicating an increase in market recognition and liquidity, which also enhances risk tolerance.

🧑‍💻 Preface

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.

📊 Data analysis

1. 2024 TGE Track 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.

  • Infrastructure projects: 19 projects, with an average 30-day increase of 12.18%
  • Layer2 projects: 12 projects, with an average 30-day decrease of -0.2%
  • GameFi projects: 12 projects, with an average 30-day increase of 2.3%

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.

  • AI projects: 3 projects, with an average 30-day increase of 24.56%
  • DEPIN projects: 3 projects, with an average 30-day increase of 53.56%
  • RWA projects: 3 projects, with an average 30-day increase of 42.17%

Traditional hot sectors are gradually cooling down, while emerging narratives are rapidly rising. Focusing on these new narratives may be a better investment direction.

2. Financing and FDV Analysis

Out of the 100 projects, 79 disclosed their financing information, with an average financing amount of $38.91 million.

  • There are 8 projects that raised over $100 million.
  • The largest proportion of projects (44) falls within the $10 million to $100 million range.
  • There are 26 projects that raised between $200 million and $10 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

  • There are 21 projects in this range, with an average financing amount of $48.83 million. The data shows that 57% of these projects did not exceed their closing price within 7 and 30 days, indicating that these projects have more stable market expectations, relatively reasonable valuations, and lower investment risks compared to other ranges.

FDV/Financing 20-100 Range: Overestimated Expectations

  • There are 33 projects in this range, with an average financing amount of $51.64 million. Statistics show that 63.6% of projects saw their prices weaken within 7 days, and this proportion increases to 75.8% after 30 days. This indicates that investors had higher initial expectations for these projects, but prices experienced significant short-term corrections, posing a certain level of volatility risk.

FDV/Financing 100+ Range: High-Risk Speculation

  • This range includes 24 projects with an average financing amount of $12.72 million. These projects are typically smaller-scale projects that have not raised over $100 million. The data reveals that 70.8% of these projects saw price declines after 7 days, and 54.2% saw declines after 30 days. These projects are often concentrated in hot sectors such as infrastructure, GameFi, and LSD.

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.

3. ATH vs ATL Analysis

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.

4. Short-Term Project Performance Comparison

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:

  • Day 7:

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%.

  • Day 30:

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:

  1. Strong Fundamentals: Projects with strong technical support, clear use cases, or innovative business models tend to attract long-term investor interest, driving prices up.
  2. Narrative Drive: Projects that capitalize on current market trends (such as GameFi, meme coins, DEPIN, RWA, etc.) can attract market liquidity, boosting prices.
  3. Strong Community Consensus: A strong community consensus enhances the market attention and demand for the project, driving prices up. Continuous community support can also ease selling pressure and strengthen long-term stability.
  4. Good Liquidity: Good liquidity helps stabilize prices and boosts investor confidence.

Possible reasons for short-term declines:

  1. Cooling Market Sentiment: The price on TGE is often driven by FOMO (Fear of Missing Out) sentiment, which may result in overpricing. As the excitement wanes, prices tend to return to a more rational level.
  2. Increased Selling Pressure: After TGE, investors—especially airdrop participants or short-term investors—might cash out, increasing selling pressure and causing prices to decline.
  3. Token Unlocking Mechanism: Many VC-backed tokens have long-term release mechanisms. As tokens unlock, early investors (such as private placement and team members) may choose to cash out, adding to the selling pressure in the market.
  4. Insufficient Liquidity: Some projects may face liquidity shortages or limited trading depth after TGE. Large sell orders can cause prices to drop rapidly, increasing volatility.

5. Impact of Airdrop Distribution Ratio on Price

  • Projects with an airdrop ratio greater than 15%: 15 projects, with an average 7-day increase of 11.87% and a 30-day increase of 16.66%.
  • Projects with an airdrop ratio less than 15%: 76 projects, with an average 7-day increase of 8.31% and a 30-day increase of 3.36%.
  • Projects with a lock-up mechanism: 10 projects, with an average 7-day decline of -16.68% and a 30-day decline of -43.73%.

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.

6. Exchange Selection and Project Performance

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.

  • Binance: 30 projects listed, 7-day price fluctuation -0.02%, 12 projects (40%) increased in price, 30-day price fluctuation -4.57%, 12 projects (40%) increased in price
  • OKX: 31 projects listed, 7-day price fluctuation -13.06%, 7 projects (22.58%) increased in price, 30-day price fluctuation -18.75%, 10 projects (32.26%) increased in price
  • Bybit: 79 projects listed, 7-day price fluctuation +2.27%, 29 projects (36.7%) increased in price, 30-day price fluctuation -4.65%, 28 projects (35.44%) increased in price
  • Bitget: 74 projects listed, 7-day price fluctuation +6.57%, 26 projects (35.14%) increased in price, 30-day price fluctuation +3.3%, 28 projects (37.84%) increased in price
  • Coinbase: 16 projects listed, 7-day price fluctuation -3.68%, 3 projects (18.75%) increased in price, 30-day price fluctuation +26.64%, 6 projects (37.5%) increased in price
  • Upbit: 17 projects listed, 7-day price fluctuation -5.05%, 3 projects (17.65%) increased in price, 30-day price fluctuation +2.94%, 9 projects (52.94%) increased in price

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:

  • Bitget and Bybit performed relatively well over both 7 and 30 days, with Bitget particularly standing out, showing positive price growth over both periods and a high percentage of projects increasing in value.
  • Coinbase performed quite well, especially with a +26.64% increase over 30 days and a solid 37.5% of projects showing price increases.
  • OKX and Binance showed some decline over the past 30 days, with OKX experiencing a more significant drop of about -18.75%.
  • Upbit had a recovery over the past 30 days, showing a +2.94% increase and 52.94% of its projects increasing in price, which is a good performance.

  • Other exchanges: 7 projects, average funding of $6.5 million, average FDV on launch day: $290 million.
  • Listing on 1 exchange: 20 projects, average funding of $28.86 million, average FDV on launch day: $981 million.
  • Listing on 2 exchanges: 33 projects, average funding of $20.68 million, average FDV on launch day: $1.07 billion.
  • Listing on 3 exchanges: 12 projects, average funding of $24.57 million, average FDV on launch day: $3.097 billion.
  • Listing on 4 exchanges: 17 projects, average funding of $31.67 million, average FDV on launch day: $1.783 billion.
  • Listing on 5 exchanges: 9 projects, average funding of $152.15 million, average FDV on launch day: $6.313 billion.
  • Listing on 6 exchanges: 2 projects, average funding of $95.2 million, average FDV on launch day: $6.489 billion.

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.

Disclaimer:

  1. This article is reproduced from [X]. The copyright belongs to the original author [0x老东]. If you have any objection to the reprint, please contact Gate Learn Team, and the team will handle it as soon as possible according to relevant procedures.
  2. Liability Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not constitute investment advice.
  3. The Gate Learn team translated the article into other languages. Copying, distributing, or plagiarizing the translated articles is prohibited unless mentioned.
Start Now
Sign up and get a
$100
Voucher!
It seems that you are attempting to access our services from a Restricted Location where Gate.io is unable to provide services. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. Currently, the Restricted Locations include but not limited to: the United States of America, Canada, Cambodia, Cuba, Iran, North Korea and so on. For more information regarding the Restricted Locations, please refer to the User Agreement. Should you have any other questions, please contact our Customer Support Team.