Crypto account nine_ states that most projects fail due to false propositions, chaotic internal management, and severe factional struggles
The crypto account nine_ stated that most project closures stem from four issues: chaotic internal management, severe factional struggles, money being spent freely on subsidies and high salaries, and projects being initiated solely to secure venture capital funding, with minimal funds allocated for development and operations.
It describes a second-level phenomenon of salary and development inversion. Other employees receive high salaries while development expenditures are very low. The team organizes exhibitions, conferences, and travels everywhere, resulting in low conversion rates. The development side continuously siphons off money from user funds, with senior management also participating.
The post summarizes the essence in two sentences: the proposition itself is a false proposition, and coupled with a lack of in-depth product development, it ultimately leads to what he calls a "vampire" structure that drains resources. The transfer of benefits is described as funds being divided immediately upon receipt, rather than being lost in the market.
This is not an audit, nor does it name specific companies, amounts, or timelines. All four reasons point to the expenditure structure: subsidies, salaries, conferences, and internal transfers take precedence, while development and operations come last. Factional struggles are listed separately, indicating that the division of decision-making power precedes product failure.
The only verifiable aspect is the viewpoint itself. The post does not provide examples of closures, financing amounts, or user loss figures, nor does it correlate "development siphoning off user funds" to specific contracts or addresses. The judgment stops at the order of expenditures and whether the proposition holds.
The buyers are venture capitalists and users who invest in projects based on narratives, while the sellers are teams that distribute money through subsidies, salaries, conferences, and internal transfers. The event is driven by this expenditure list. Funds did not go into development and operations but rather into factions and commissions. Those who benefit are insiders who first receive budget allocations, while those under pressure are investors who entered based on product commitments, only to later find the proposition unviable.
High salaries can coexist with low development ratios. There can be many conferences, but conversion can be nonexistent. The post treats these two matters as part of the same account.
Source: Public Information
ABAB AI Insight
The crypto financing cycle from 2021 to 2022 ran through this expenditure order. Projects first secured seed and private funding, then used tokens or quotas for conferences, subsidies, and inflated team costs, with development progress maintained by roadmaps. The collapse paths of Three Arrows Capital, Celsius, and FTX differ, but a common item in their public bankruptcy materials is: external funds first advanced to related parties and expansion, with risks only exposed at the time of redemption. Venture capitalists bought narrative positions in that round, not actual revenue from launched products.
Capital paths typically involve two sets of accounts. One is for investors, detailing recruitment, marketing, and ecosystem subsidies. The other is internal, detailing conferences, travel, high salaries, and related addresses. Development budgets are compressed to the bare minimum needed for demonstrations, while user funds are siphoned off through fees, treasury, or undisclosed wallets. When senior management participates in siphoning, supervision and benefit converge, and factional struggles merely divide the remaining budget.
Comparable examples include the related transactions and executive expenditures exposed around WeWork's 2019 IPO prospectus, as well as the structures of crypto exchanges using customer assets to support related transactions in 2022. The industry's position is in the recounting phase post-liquidation: new projects still use financing amounts to prove themselves, while the reasons for old projects' failures are summarized in lists. What truly hasn't changed is that proposition validation relies on user retention, not conference attendance.
This is capital concentration. The mechanism is that once money arrives before products, control shifts from user verification to internal distribution. False propositions cannot sustain revenue and can only survive through the next round of financing or user balances. Subsidies and high salaries convert cash into loyalty, while conferences convert cash into appearance, and a low development ratio ensures there are no products to counter the appearance. The vampires are not external competitors but those within the organization who already have the authority to sign checks.
ABAB News · Cognitive Laws
Projects that distribute money first will not prioritize product development.
Conferences buy appearance, not conversion.
When the supervisor and beneficiary are the same person, the account will run dry first.