2026-01-04 19:31:58

Warden Protocol kicks off its TGE on January 22nd, and the narrative here is pretty compelling. We're looking at $2.5M in annual revenue already flowing through the system, 17M users actively engaging with the platform, and zero venture backing—which is massive in this space.

Here's where it gets interesting: the founders bootstrapped the entire operation themselves, putting in $6.5M of their own capital to construct this AI agent infrastructure layer. The result? 50M interactions already processed through the system. That's not theoretical—it's real volume from real users.

The funding structure matters more than people realize. Because there are no VC investors sitting on token bags, you don't get the inevitable dump that happens at TGE when early backers take profits. This is an infrastructure play in the agent space, and the token mechanics reflect that different risk profile.

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.

17 Likes

Reward
17
9
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

LiquidatedNotStirred

· 8h ago

Without VC backing, achieving these results is indeed impressive, but I still feel like I've heard this kind of argument too many times before.

View OriginalReply0

ZKProofEnthusiast

· 18h ago

No VC backing is indeed rare, but the 17M user data needs to be verified... Feels like they're hyping the concept again --- The 50M interaction volume is being hyped quite aggressively. How genuine is it? Without VC backing, it actually tests the team's execution ability more --- Don’t be brainwashed by zero funding. Without VC, no one to support the platform. Can they really hold up after TGE? --- AI agent is a highly competitive track. Investing their own money might be even riskier... --- Wait, 2.5M annual revenue for 17M users? This unit price seems a bit suspicious. Is the calculation correct? --- Lacking VC indeed reduces arbitrage opportunities, but the infrastructure layer needs to truly survive to be meaningful. It’s still too early to tell --- The bootstrap story sounds good, but infrastructure projects without ecological support are still pointless. Let’s see what happens next

View OriginalReply0

ForkThisDAO

· 01-06 20:14

No VC endorsement is actually a plus? 17M users + 50M interactions are indeed impressive, but I'm worried the hype will cool down after TGE.

View OriginalReply0

ProofOfNothing

· 01-05 14:47

No VC backing sounds great, but can it really withstand a bear market? To be honest, it still depends on whether it can maintain this growth moving forward.

View OriginalReply0

AirdropJunkie

· 01-04 19:56

Having no VC background has become a selling point; I like this logic.

View OriginalReply0

OnlyOnMainnet

· 01-04 19:53

Lack of VC background is actually a plus; I buy into this logic. Real data is right here—17M users and 50M interactions are not just hype.

View OriginalReply0

MEV_Whisperer

· 01-04 19:53

No VC backing, actually an advantage? I buy into this logic. The founder who invested 6.5M themselves can't run away.

View OriginalReply0

GoldDiggerDuck

· 01-04 19:48

Not having VC funding is indeed powerful, reducing the risk of a bunch of whales dumping the price.

View OriginalReply0

MainnetDelayedAgain

· 01-04 19:34

According to the database, since January 22nd TGE has passed. How many days has the project team’s "zero VC funding" hype been fermenting? Anyway, I’m waiting for that inevitable selling pressure to appear.

View OriginalReply0