2025-12-25 05:25:21

Recently, there is a phenomenon worth pondering—take a look at the top-ranked DeFi tokens by market cap; the flow patterns of funds are truly perplexing.

Let's consider AAVE, UNI, and CAKE. These are projects that the community has high expectations for. But what is the reality? Money flows in, yet there is no clear value return mechanism. Some funds are diverted for other purposes, some are used for cross-chain deployment, and some are simply subsidies for other ecosystem projects—what's the result? Token holders see no corresponding returns.

This is quite amusing. If even these leading projects are playing the game of fund shifting, what can smaller and medium-sized tokens expect? Think about how deep the trap might be.

What truly tests a project is never market cap ranking, but whether it can transparently and clearly tell the community: how is the money actually being used? Once spent, what can it give back to us?

AAVE0.82%

UNI0.55%

CAKE1.04%

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.

15 Likes

Reward
15
3
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

BearMarketHustler

· 6h ago

Well said, these big coins are just taxing our intelligence... Who the hell knows where the money went? UNI has long become an air coin, running chains every day, but not giving holders any dividends. What is this? AAVE's governance token tricks are played very smoothly, but in the end, it's still those institutions that benefit. Really, instead of trusting their market cap rankings, it's better to look at the price trends... Heartbreaking, isn't it? The key is whether liquidity mining offers real returns; if not, it's just pure leek-cutting. In the past two years, I haven't seen a single DeFi project that has properly accounted for its books; it's all smoke and mirrors. Honestly, compared to the tricks of these top projects, I trust the essence of small coins more—at least no one is being polite with you. That's why I don't touch CAKE; it's too good at fooling people. Have you noticed? The bigger the project, the more reluctant they are to give direct dividends to holders, afraid it will affect their fundraising stories. Basically, it's just empty-handed whitewashing, raising funds and expanding, while token holders get trapped.

View OriginalReply0

CascadingDipBuyer

· 6h ago

Basically, it's all about cutting leeks, even the leading projects are no exception. AAVE at least has governance, but UNI and CAKE are even more outrageous; money goes in and it's like throwing water on the ground. I've said it before, don't just look at market cap when evaluating projects, look at cash flow— that's the real deal. If this continues, what are ordinary people still playing DeFi for? Might as well just lie flat.

View OriginalReply0

TokenStorm

· 6h ago

On-chain data shows that the fund flows of these top tokens are indeed suspicious. A few days ago, I backtested UNI's burn mechanism, and it can't keep up with the inflation rate. I've seen through it long ago; market cap ranking is just a cover-up. The real consideration is whether the tokenomics model is self-consistent. But anyway, since I've already gone all in, what else can I say? I can't understand AAVE's cross-chain subsidy logic, or rather, I simply don't want to understand it. Anyway, holding the tokens is just gambling on someone else taking over later. This is the eye of the storm, brother. The projects ranked higher can hide their problems better. Smaller tokens actually need to pretend to be more transparent. Isn't that ironic? Money flows in but doesn't circulate back. Isn't this a standard Ponzi scheme? They just call it ecosystem building with a different name.

View OriginalReply0