$AVAX has seen a flurry of on-chain development recently, but price performance has been lackluster—is this the calm before the storm, or another case of “much ado about nothing”?
Take a look at its list of investors: a16z, Polychain, Galaxy Digital, and even the now-collapsed Three Arrows Capital... With this lineup, you’ve basically got half of the top capital in the crypto space involved.
The numbers speak even louder—52% of its investment comes from the US. Wall Street money is known for its sharp instincts, and when they collectively bet on a project, it does say something.
In the long term, AVAX is aiming for more than just being another public chain; it’s more like building foundational infrastructure. Avalanche’s high TPS and subnet architecture are genuinely noteworthy from a technical standpoint. If the ecosystem really takes off, the potential is significant.
But then again: having institutional backing doesn’t guarantee profits. Just look at the lesson from Three Arrows—even the most prominent VCs can make mistakes. When it comes to investing, you still have to assess your own risk tolerance.
So the question now is: do you trust the institutions’ judgment, or do you believe more in the market’s caution?
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.
14 Likes
Reward
14
5
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
MissingSats
· 12-05 04:51
Institutional vision? That's a joke—if even Three Arrows can mess up, what makes a16z immune?
View OriginalReply0
DefiPlaybook
· 12-05 04:50
If all three major VCs are betting on a project, what does that say? It shows that VCs aren’t all that special—their judgment might not be much better than ours.
Just take institutional endorsements as background noise; in the end, on-chain data tells the real story. TVL is actual money on the line.
View OriginalReply0
ChainSauceMaster
· 12-05 04:49
Even Three Arrows Capital can make mistakes—do you really dare to copy institutional moves?
View OriginalReply0
GateUser-cff9c776
· 12-05 04:46
Institutional insight? Those Wall Street guys have already been slapped in the face by Three Arrows, and now they still want to make a fuss about the 52% of American capital. This logic truly is a work of art.
AVAX’s technology is indeed solid, but from the supply and demand curve, the flat price is the real market vote. It’s not the calm before the storm; more likely, it’s just a Schrödinger’s bull market.
Rather than trusting institutions, it’s better to trust your own risk tolerance—there’s really nothing wrong with that.
View OriginalReply0
Ser_This_Is_A_Casino
· 12-05 04:40
Even Three Arrows Capital can go bust, and a16z's judgment isn't necessarily always accurate. In the end, you still have to bear the risk yourself.
$AVAX has seen a flurry of on-chain development recently, but price performance has been lackluster—is this the calm before the storm, or another case of “much ado about nothing”?
Take a look at its list of investors: a16z, Polychain, Galaxy Digital, and even the now-collapsed Three Arrows Capital... With this lineup, you’ve basically got half of the top capital in the crypto space involved.
The numbers speak even louder—52% of its investment comes from the US. Wall Street money is known for its sharp instincts, and when they collectively bet on a project, it does say something.
In the long term, AVAX is aiming for more than just being another public chain; it’s more like building foundational infrastructure. Avalanche’s high TPS and subnet architecture are genuinely noteworthy from a technical standpoint. If the ecosystem really takes off, the potential is significant.
But then again: having institutional backing doesn’t guarantee profits. Just look at the lesson from Three Arrows—even the most prominent VCs can make mistakes. When it comes to investing, you still have to assess your own risk tolerance.
So the question now is: do you trust the institutions’ judgment, or do you believe more in the market’s caution?