2026-01-01 19:21:09

Sometimes when evaluating projects, I don't want to be brainwashed by good stories. I prefer a reverse approach—first assume it will fail, then work backward to find the most likely fatal flaw. If I can identify a critical weakness, I treat it as a risk indicator; if I can't find any particularly deadly points no matter how I look at it, I am willing to continue paying close attention. This might sound like a contrarian mindset, but it's actually a methodology to prevent impulsive decisions. The market is most likely to deceive people with stories that "seem particularly reasonable."

The worst-case scenario for the APRO project unfolds roughly as follows:

**First critical point: the direction is right, but the model is too heavy.**

Words like verifiable, accountable, credentials, and settlement stacked together inevitably lead to a slow path. The problem with a slow path is that it’s hard to sustain enthusiasm through emotions and hot trends. Once the hype dies down, attention wanes, and the ecosystem's attitude becomes much more pragmatic. Partners start asking only one question: how many new users and transactions can you bring me? If you can't answer, you get placed on the backup list and gradually marginalized.

**Second critical point: compromising oneself to chase the hype.**

This is the classic path to decline for most projects. Originally, they wanted to establish a serious process system, but the market found it too slow, too costly, and not "sexy" enough. So they start hiding the heavy parts and emphasize lightweight offerings like rapid pricing and generalized data services. It sounds more aligned with mainstream trends and easier to share and spread.

But what is the cost of this compromise? It dismantles your moat. Because speed and low cost are things that all competitors can copy. Once you move closer to your competitors in this direction, differentiation disappears.

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.

5 Likes

Reward
5
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

BlockBargainHunter

· 3h ago

Slow road dies, fast road also dies, this is the dilemma of APRO --- To put it simply, no matter how polished the story is, it can't fix the fundamental flaws of the model --- Thinking in reverse is indeed effective, but most people are still caught in the narrative cycle --- Once the moat is dismantled, it can never be rebuilt, and this point is said very harshly --- After the hype fades, the true colors of partners can really scare people awake --- Few people understand this logic, and the market is still betting on emotions --- The cost of compromise, it sounds simple, but in reality, no one can resist the temptation --- So the question is, are there any projects that can truly hold onto their original non-compromising principles? --- APRO's path indeed has no retreat; either you laugh last or become a laughingstock --- A heavy model is naturally disliked by the market; this is a structural problem

View OriginalReply0

Token_Sherpa

· 3h ago

yeah the moat collapse scenario hits different... seen this exact playbook kill like 5 projects already ngl

Reply0

ForkMonger

· 3h ago

nah this is just protocol darwinism in action... watch how fast they pivot from "verifiable" to "move fast and break things" when metrics start looking mid

Reply0

PrivateKeyParanoia

· 3h ago

This reverse thinking approach is indeed brilliant, much more reliable than most people blindly chasing stories. I agree with the "slow" issue of APRO, but I think the real dead end might be even more ruthless—once the ecosystem partners find that your verification costs outweigh the benefits, they'll abandon you directly. I laughed at the part about compromise; this is a typical case of "living to survive," but in the process, the differentiation is lost, essentially turning into another mediocre data service. By the way, is this a diss towards a certain project or a general observation? Regarding the moat, you're right—speed and cost-effectiveness are always the easiest to copy, unless you have something that others can't replicate.

View OriginalReply0

MetaverseHermit

· 3h ago

This reverse verification method is indeed perfect. Instead of listening to stories, I want to know how the project dies. --- I see through the APRO trap. In the end, it will still be crushed by the market's "sexiness." --- That's right, once you start compromising, it's over. Remove the moat, and all that's left is a price war. --- Taking the slow route is indeed tough, but compromising quickly leads to an even faster death. No matter who you choose, you can't bet right. --- So the core issue is whether it can withstand the cold period. The answer is basically here. --- The most feared are projects that "sound very reasonable," which ultimately become mediocre. --- The pattern is too heavy and destined to be routine; the market prefers light and airy stories. --- The moment you compromise, you've already lost. There's nothing worth watching. --- Reverse verification is the right way; most people are just blinded by good stories. --- If APRO can truly withstand the pressure of not compromising, then it's a real project. The probability is low.

View OriginalReply0

ProveMyZK

· 3h ago

This analysis is thorough; slow paths are indeed the easiest to be abandoned by the market. --- Understanding this reverse logic, but to be honest, most people can't do it; it's too easy to be carried away by stories. --- The step of compromise is the harshest kill; by the time you realize it, you've already become a big target. --- If APRO can truly resist the temptation of not compromising, then it's definitely worth a look. --- Quick price feeding... just listen to it; anyone can do it, and the moat disappears instantly.

View OriginalReply0

OnlyUpOnly

· 4h ago

Slow progress indeed tests patience the most; most projects can't hold on for a few months and start to compromise. --- This reverse thinking actually asks yourself: what if the worst happens? Then bet that it won't be that bad. It feels much more reliable than blindly chasing the hype. --- I agree with the logic of APRO, but the key still depends on whether the team can withstand the pressure of declining early enthusiasm. --- One compromise leads to full concessions, and eventually it turns into another mediocre project—this is too common. --- Reverse reasoning is indeed the ultimate; it can see through pitfalls better than any positive analysis. --- The quick price feeding approach is essentially drinking poison to quench thirst; sooner or later, it will be crushed by opponents. --- Once the moat is dismantled, there's really no more differentiation, and that's the most terrifying.

View OriginalReply0