A token's trajectory often hinges on developer credibility—specifically whether they're willing to lock their allocation. Take $rayball as a real example: when the dev committed to locking the remaining 5% of tokens, it helped drive the project from 17k to 410k, a 23x move. That commitment mattered.
Now the question becomes whether newer projects will make the same choice. Transparency on the dev side—posting the contract on the website—is a start, but it only goes so far. With just 10k in initial liquidity, the math shows the risk exposure clearly. No need to point fingers if things go wrong; the numbers tell their own story.
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.
10 Likes
Reward
10
6
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
SchrodingersFOMO
· 01-10 00:56
Locking tokens can truly determine life or death, as the 23x surge of rayball proved... But how many new projects are really willing to do this?
View OriginalReply0
BTCWaveRider
· 01-09 12:55
Locking tokens is truly a litmus test for a developer's integrity; the 23x return on Rayball clearly demonstrates the issue.
View OriginalReply0
SatoshiNotNakamoto
· 01-07 06:50
10k liquidity? That's just a paper tiger. The real test is whether the dev dares to lock the tokens.
View OriginalReply0
YieldFarmRefugee
· 01-07 06:42
The Rayball case still illustrates the issue quite well. Locking tokens can indeed change market confidence... but there's limited to learn from new projects. With only 10k liquidity, there's really not much room for creativity.
View OriginalReply0
LiquidatedDreams
· 01-07 06:39
Is locking up truly the only signal? That wave of Rayball was indeed fierce, but daring to boast with only 10k liquidity? Wake up.
View OriginalReply0
HodlKumamon
· 01-07 06:28
23 times... After calculating, how many sleepless nights of faith does that require to support? Dev lock, to put it simply, is a gamble on oneself.
A token's trajectory often hinges on developer credibility—specifically whether they're willing to lock their allocation. Take $rayball as a real example: when the dev committed to locking the remaining 5% of tokens, it helped drive the project from 17k to 410k, a 23x move. That commitment mattered.
Now the question becomes whether newer projects will make the same choice. Transparency on the dev side—posting the contract on the website—is a start, but it only goes so far. With just 10k in initial liquidity, the math shows the risk exposure clearly. No need to point fingers if things go wrong; the numbers tell their own story.