These projects raised $1.2B and wasted it: how chains failed to deliver ROIs

Crypto has seen mega raises from new chains, with up to $1.2B tied up in high-profile projects. Fundraising remained active in the past year, but multiple projects failed to deliver. 

Some of the high-profile chains launched in recent years have tapped up to $1.2B in financing. At the same time, most new networks underperformed, according to CryptoRank data. 

Among the top 10 recent raises, all 10 are down over 96% from their peaks. Kadena was left to community efforts and essentially became a dead chain with no transactions and no liquidity. 

Moonbeam only carries around 200 daily users, while Scroll generates under $500 in daily fees, despite a $80M raise. Another high-profile project, Berachain, habitually has under $100 in daily fees. Most projects lost on all metrics, including their communities, liquidity, and deployed apps.

It is not unusual for new crypto projects to fail, but the loss is more extreme for those chains that attracted significant VC resources. While funding is an indicator of confidence and sentiment, even high-level raises are not enough to create lively projects. 

Over-funded chains lost their activity

It is not unusual for over-hyped chains to lose their activity levels. Polkadot, a network from an earlier bull market, currently carries only a handful of daily transactions, with just 6,249 accounts. 

Other networks, like BOBA, BLAST, CELO, MANTA, and others, were only hot during airdrop or incentive seasons. The immediate drop in activity showed the growth was not organic, and there was not much real demand for chains beyond Ethereum, Solana, and BNB Chain. 

Another problem with new networks was the need to use market makers to make their tokens liquid. In the case of MANTA, it was market makers that crashed the project and wiped out its reputation. 

In the past, even dead chains could promise future development. However, in 2026, the clear winners have emerged, leaving other networks to be forgotten or shut down. 

Which chains have the lowest developer activity?

One proxy indicator for a chain’s success may be developer activity and smart contract launches. Developers are rare in general, and teams tend to deploy only on the most liquid networks. While some chains offer incentives, the initial spike in development is often followed by a freeze, with no new app launches. 

Non-EVM chains outside Solana are especially affected. The difficulties of mastering other languages and a new tech stack prevent teams from trying new chains, unless specifically incentivized. 

As a result, high-profile projects like Moonbeam only attracted 217 developers, while over 10K are deploying on Solana. Most developers focused on EVM chains and L2 chains, and were active on legacy networks from previous cycles. Some of the top fundraisers like Kadena did not even build a serious developer community. 

In the coming years, more dead chains may fall to the side, as Web3 apps are taking liquidity into account. Alternative L1s are often redundant, and VC backers are becoming even more selective.