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