Infinex removes the $2,500 cap and switches to fair distribution, a distress signal in the fundraising dilemma

Under the pressure of poor performance in token public fundraising, Infinex announced significant adjustments to its sales mechanism. The investment cap of $2,500 per user was removed and replaced with a “maximum-minimum fair distribution” mechanism, while still retaining priority rights for Patron holders. This is not an optimization but a forced mechanism overhaul, driven by the embarrassing reality that fundraising progress is far below expectations.

Three Major Adjustments to the Sales Mechanism

Removal of investment cap, allowing users to decide their own amounts

Originally, each user could only invest up to $2,500. Now, this limit has been completely lifted. In theory, wealthy users can contribute more funds. This seems open, but more reflects a “survival instinct”—during difficult fundraising times, the project needs to attract large-scale investments.

Change from random allocation to fair distribution mechanism

This is the core change. The original method used random allocation, meaning how many tokens you receive depended on luck. The new mechanism adopts a “maximum-minimum fair distribution” approach, ensuring all participants receive tokens proportionally before supply runs out, with any excess contributions refunded. This change directly addresses the fundamental issue of the original mechanism—an unfair distribution method that made many users feel disrespected.

Patron priority rights retained, but details pending

Infinex previously raised $67.7 million through Patron NFTs, which granted these NFT holders priority in the public sale. The new mechanism preserves this right, but the specifics of how priority will be granted will only be confirmed after the sale ends. This indicates the project team is balancing fairness with commitments to major investors.

The Fundraising Dilemma Behind the Scenes

According to the latest news, Infinex’s token public sale started on January 3, and by nearly 27 hours later, on January 5, it had raised only $460,000. Earlier data showed that in 30 hours, $491,000 was raised, with a target of $5 million. This means less than 10% of the goal has been achieved.

How embarrassing is this figure? Founder Kain Warwick previously lowered the fundraising target from $15 million to $5 million, yet still failed to attract buyers. Even on January 3, Warwick paid a $50,000 bet to Multicoin co-founder after losing a bet on ETH price, reflecting some market skepticism about his judgment.

Why is the market so cold?

The issue isn’t the project’s potential itself but the sales structure. A one-year lock-up period is a huge barrier—your funds are locked for 12 months before you can access them, which is unacceptable for most participants. Coupled with the original $2,500 cap and the random allocation mechanism, the entire public sale design indeed has problems.

The recent adjustments attempt to address these pain points, but whether they can reverse the situation remains uncertain. The market’s indifference toward Infinex more reflects the current cautious attitude in the crypto space toward new projects, especially those requiring long-term lock-ups.

Founder’s persistence and risks

It’s worth noting that on January 5, Kain Warwick stated that he has personally funded Infinex for the first 18 months and would continue to do so if necessary. This demonstrates the founder’s determination but also exposes a risk—if the public sale ultimately fails, the project’s sustainability depends entirely on the founder’s personal funds.

Summary

Infinex’s adjustment to its sales mechanism is an honest acknowledgment and correction. Removing caps and switching to fair distribution are indeed more reasonable changes. However, this adjustment is fundamentally forced, reflecting the project’s difficulties in the market. Whether it can turn the tide depends largely on whether the market truly supports this cross-chain aggregated DeFi platform. The founder’s commitment provides some confidence, but the market’s cold response behind the fundraising dilemma cannot be instantly solved by mechanism tweaks. The key follow-up is whether this new mechanism can attract more participants before the January 6 sales deadline.