Haseeb's viewpoint continues a clear historical line in the crypto space: many projects fail not due to competition, but due to misjudgment of "product-market fit." Over the past decade, failures surrounding token economics, community mobilization, and on-chain incentives have shown that relying solely on narratives and funding struggles to cross the threshold of real usage.

In terms of capital pathways, the funds that truly persist often flow towards infrastructure, trading, settlement, custody, and scenarios with clear willingness to pay, rather than high-valuation projects driven only by vision. Entrepreneurs who ignore the pitfalls recorded by their predecessors are essentially investing scarce time and cash flow into directions that the market has already proven to yield poor returns.

This is very similar to the early paths of the internet and mobile internet: initially, many teams believed that "if we just build it, the market will grow itself," but ultimately, those who win are usually the ones who understand user boundaries, distribution costs, and unit economic models earlier. The historical comparison in the crypto field is particularly evident; many project failures are not due to insufficient technology, but rather treating tokens as products and funding as validation.

Essentially, this involves the simultaneous occurrence of capital concentration and technological substitution: funds will concentrate on a few protocols and applications that truly solve problems, while old narratives are replaced by more efficient tools and clearer demands. The saying "do not walk into an inevitable and avoidable death" refers to how resource misallocation can be rapidly amplified in the highly volatile crypto industry.

ABAB News · Laws of Cognition

The most expensive cost of entrepreneurship is repeating others' failures.
Narratives can secure funding, but products can retain users.
Resources will always reward those closer to real needs.