2025-12-26 16:26:41

Recently, I noticed that the basic information of some newly launched projects is quite poorly organized. Take the recent few coins as an example, the circulating rate and complete token supply data are often missing, which is quite frustrating for those who want to understand the project in depth.

For example, the coin LIT has a market cap of $23.3 billion, roughly ranked around 8739. A project of this size should have more comprehensive information. On-chain contract data needs to be checked manually, and cross-verification is always necessary.

Honestly, if these new coins want to break into the top 20 by market cap, their information transparency must keep up. Investors shouldn't just look at price and narrative when choosing coins; basic tokenomics data should be clearly stated—circulating supply, total supply, unlock schedule—all of which are essential.

For friends interested in in-depth research on a particular coin, it's best to check the contract details on-chain yourself and not rely solely on the exchange's displayed information. Doing thorough homework will be more helpful for making informed decisions.

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.

9 Likes

Reward
9
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

MetaverseLandlady

· 5h ago

Oh wow, a market cap of 23.3 billion and still trying to fool people. The lack of transparency in information is obvious. On-chain data is the most reliable; don't be fooled by the tricks of exchanges. New coins need to show sincerity to enter the top 20. At least understand the tokenomics. I would just pass on projects like this; it's not interesting. I always fetch data directly from the contract myself. It's troublesome, but at least I feel at ease.

View OriginalReply0

DYORMaster

· 5h ago

Exactly right, a bunch of projects organize information like cheap listings and still want to trick institutions into entering the market, hilarious. The problem is that most people are too lazy to do their own on-chain research and have to struggle to explain to me why they need to look at the contracts...

View OriginalReply0

AirdropBuffet

· 6h ago

Really, these project teams are too lazy to organize basic data and still want to raise funds and manipulate the market. --- LIT is already a significant project, yet they still hide behind the scenes. I simply can't trust it. --- Doing your own on-chain research is the way to go; relying on exchange information is really unreliable. --- I’ll pass on tokens that don’t even have clear circulating supply—no point wasting effort. --- It feels like more and more tokens launching now are half-hearted, even lazy about transparency. --- You still have to do your own DYOR; don’t get brainwashed by narratives. --- Projects with vague tokenomics? Want to make it into the top 20? Dream on. --- Why do we have to dig up data on-chain? The project teams should do this themselves.

View OriginalReply0

HodlVeteran

· 6h ago

The bear market has taught me well. Now, when evaluating projects, I first check the smart contract, and I never invest in coins with missing information.

View OriginalReply0

LootboxPhobia

· 6h ago

Sigh, this is the problem. Exchanges are too lazy to update data, and we're just groping around like blind people. Someone should have said this earlier. Reliable projects can't even organize basic information properly, how can they be trusted? Even for LIT, which is a sizable project, there's missing information? Still want to be in the top 20? Dream on, friends. I'm used to digging through contracts myself; after all, information asymmetry is the current situation. People who only look at price narratives when choosing coins have already been harvested. You still need to do your homework properly.

View OriginalReply0