A brief comment on the Celestia and Polychain sell-offs: Everyone wants to make money, so are coin prices destined to return to zero?

2025/07/10 16:00

Author: Pavel Paramonov, Founder of Hazeflow

Compiled by: xiaozou, Golden Finance

This article analyzes the recent Celestia and Polychain sell-offs - Polychain sold $242 million worth of TIA. I think this is both a good and bad thing, and this article will delve into why and what lessons we can learn from it.

A brief comment on the Celestia and Polychain sell-offs: Everyone wants to make money, so are coin prices destined to return to zero?

1. Do you expect investors not to make money?

Many people (including excellent researchers) described this as extremely predatory and uncertain behavior by Polychain. How could a company that is considered a first-tier fund sell such a large amount of its holdings to the open market to impact the price of the currency?

First, Polychain is a venture capital fund whose job is to profit from assets purchased during periods of illiquidity (I can’t believe I even need to explain this).

Polychain not only took the risk of investing in Celestia in its early stages, but also bet on the then-new concept of "external data availability layer". This concept was quite advanced at the time and many people did not believe it (especially those in the "Ethereum camp").

Imagine someone discovering Spotify in 2008 and believing that people would listen to music through streaming services instead of CDs and MP3 players. That person would be considered crazy. This is the financing situation when you are not only the newcomer in the industry, but also trying to create a new market in the data availability throughput field.

Polychain’s job is to take risks and earn rewards, just like everyone else. Founders take the risk that their company may fail, and ordinary people also take certain risks when making choices every day.

We all make choices and take risks; the only difference is the nature and scale of the risks.

Polychain is not the only investor, there are several other venture capital funds involved.

A brief comment on the Celestia and Polychain sell-offs: Everyone wants to make money, so are coin prices destined to return to zero?

Interestingly, no one blames them because their transaction data is more difficult to track.

But the Polychain sell-off alone was not enough to cause such a dramatic price crash. It must be pointed out that this accusation against Polychain alone is unfair for the following reasons:

  • Their job is to take risks and make money, and they do it pretty well.
  • They are not the only ones selling; other investors are also taking action.

Are these moves good for investors? Of course.

Are these actions ethical for the community? You know.

A brief comment on the Celestia and Polychain sell-offs: Everyone wants to make money, so are coin prices destined to return to zero?

2. Do you expect the team not to make money?

Well, you probably do. There is a serious profitability problem in crypto: most protocols are not profitable, and they don’t even consider profitability. According to DefiLlama, Celestia currently only makes about $200 a day (the daily salary of a senior software engineer in Eastern Europe) while giving out about $570,000 in token incentives.

A brief comment on the Celestia and Polychain sell-offs: Everyone wants to make money, so are coin prices destined to return to zero?

This is just the profit and loss data on the team chain. We know nothing about its off-chain profit and loss, but I believe that the operating costs of a team of this size are also quite high. Nowadays, there are indeed some KOLs who seriously declare: "Web3 protocols should be profitable, and companies should make money." Are we crazy to take this view seriously?

Yes, we were crazy, but the core problem was not the business model. The key point was that the team saw the token sale as profit and built a business model around it without ever considering the consequences. If the token sale equals the business model, then why is there any need to consider the business model and cash flow? Right? But the problem is that investors' money is not infinite, and neither are tokens.

At the same time, venture capital is all about betting on startups that have great potential for success. Many companies are not profitable, but they may offer something revolutionary or interesting enough to attract others to explore and develop the idea.

Anyway, you can't expect the core team to never sell, right? The fact is: when your protocol is not profitable, money has to come from somewhere. The foundation has to sell some tokens to pay for infrastructure, salaries, and a host of other expenses.

A brief comment on the Celestia and Polychain sell-offs: Everyone wants to make money, so are coin prices destined to return to zero?

At least, paying operating expenses is one of the reasons for selling that I am willing to believe. Of course, there may be other reasons and different perspectives: on the one hand, they "dumped" and hurt the community; on the other hand, after all, they built this protocol and created market enthusiasm, maybe they have the right to sell at least some of the tokens? Note that it is part, not all.

Ultimately, this is a reflection of the token/equity problem and why crypto VCs don’t like equity very much. Compared to private placement or waiting for an exit, selling in the public market is more convenient and the time cycle is shorter.

3. Token economics is not the core issue, the token itself is

Obviously, investors are increasingly preferring token investments over equity. We are in the era of digital assets, so isn’t it natural to invest in digital assets?

But this trend is not as simple as it seems. Interestingly, many founders themselves realize that their products may not really need tokens, and they prefer to raise funds through equity. Despite this, they still face two major challenges:

  • As I said before, most crypto-native VCs don’t like equity (harder to exit).
  • Equity valuations are usually lower than token valuations, and people always want to raise more money.

This situation not only creates a dilemma, but also directly incentivizes teams to choose a token model. Token issuance can attract more investors because it provides a clear public market exit path, making it easier to raise funds. For the team, this means higher valuations and more development funds.

The core equity value of your company is not affected. You can retain 100% equity while raising a large amount of capital through these "artificial" tokens. This approach also attracts a wider group of investors who are specifically looking for token investment opportunities.

Unfortunately, in the current environment, token models make retail investors poor and VCs rich in 99% of cases. Or as Yash puts it: infrastructure/governance tokens are just meme coins in suits.

However, when TIA went live, it did bring huge returns to retail investors - from $2 to $20. People thanked the team for making them rich and staked tokens to get various airdrops. Yes, we had that time, it was the fall of 2023...

Once the price started to drop, people suddenly started spreading a lot of panic about Celestia: rumors that the team was behaving strangely, that the token economics were predatory, that on-chain revenues were mocked, and so on.

It’s good to find problems and point them out, but it would be terrible if those who once praised Celestia now consider it a “dumping ground” simply because of its price action.

4. What conclusions can we draw from this?

VCs are rarely your friends. Their core business is making money, your core business is making money, and the core interest of VC LPs is also making money.

Don’t blame VCs for selling: their tokens are unlocked, they have full ownership of their assets and can do whatever they want with them.

The people who should really be blamed are the VCs who are selling while tweeting about the bullishness of tokens: this is deceptive behavior and should never be tolerated.

Business models should not be designed around token sales alone. Either come up with a profit model or stay non-profit with cutting-edge technology - as long as you do it well, the market will pay for it.

The token economics are transparent to everyone: if the team tokens are unlocked, they certainly have full control over their assets. But if you are a firm believer in the project, a large-scale sell-off is questionable.

Equity investment is not very popular, and the valuations of some tokens are inflated and lack indicator support.

Teams should pay great attention to token economics design at the earliest stage, otherwise they may pay a heavy price in the future.

Technological innovation has nothing to do with token prices.

When the K-line goes up, everyone is happy; when the K-line goes down, problems are exposed. It is truly tragic if the same group of people are praising a project one moment and then slandering it the next.

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

Hainan Huatie Hornet strategically invests in digital asset trading platform XMeta

Hainan Huatie Hornet strategically invests in digital asset trading platform XMeta

PANews reported on July 10 that Hainan Huatie announced that its shareholding company Hainan Huatie Hornet Digital Technology Co., Ltd. completed a strategic investment in Nanchang Ex Aimu Technology Co.,
Share
PANews2025/07/10 22:51
NEXBRIDGE Completes $8 Million Series A Funding, Led by Fulgur Ventures

NEXBRIDGE Completes $8 Million Series A Funding, Led by Fulgur Ventures

PANews reported on July 10 that NEXBRIDGE and its trading platform NEXPLACE completed a $8 million Series A financing led by Fulgur Ventures, aiming to expand the compliant digital asset
Share
PANews2025/07/10 22:13
KULR Expands Bitcoin Holdings to 1,021 BTC, Reports 291% BTC Yield

KULR Expands Bitcoin Holdings to 1,021 BTC, Reports 291% BTC Yield

NYSE-listed firm KULR Technology Group , a sustainable energy management and a self-declared “Bitcoin First” company, has expanded its digital asset treasury with a fresh multimillion-dollar Bitcoin acquisition. KULR has acquired 90 BTC for ~ 10 million at ~ $108,884 per #bitcoin and has achieved BTC Yield of 291% YTD. As of 7/9/25, we hodl 1021 $BTC acquired for ~ $101 million at ~ $98,627 per bitcoin. $KULR pic.twitter.com/aXyB0AABsr — Michael Mo (@michaelmokulr) July 10, 2025 In a press release shared with CryptoNews, the firm said with additional bitcoin purchases totaling approximately $10 million, KULR now holds 1,021 BTC, valued at about $101 million. The latest acquisitions were made at a weighted average price of $108,884 per bitcoin, including fees and expenses. This move is in line with the company’s Bitcoin Treasury Strategy, first announced on December 4, 2024, under which up to 90% of its surplus cash reserves are allocated to bitcoin. KULR joins a growing list of companies that have added Bitcoin to their balance sheets as a treasury strategy. This includes MicroStrategy, a business intelligence firm and one of the largest corporate holders of Bitcoin. BTC Yield Emerges as Key Performance Indicator A core component of KULR’s strategy is its proprietary metric: BTC Yield. This figure, which reached 291.2% year to date, measures the percentage increase in the ratio of bitcoin holdings to Assumed Fully Diluted Shares Outstanding. According to the firm it intends to reflect the effectiveness of the company’s bitcoin acquisition tactics. Complementary metrics include BTC Gain (633 BTC), BTC Dollar Gain ($70.3 million), and a multiple of Net Asset Value (mNAV) currently at 2.24. KULR notes these metrics are designed to capture the value-accretive nature of its treasury operations, rather than serve as traditional financial indicators. Cautions on Interpreting BTC Metrics While BTC Yield offers insight into KULR’s Bitcoin-centric strategy, the company cautions that it should not be considered a proxy for earnings performance or liquidity. It excludes liabilities and does not reflect overall financial health. KULR said that its stock price is influenced by a broader set of variables beyond bitcoin holdings. Investors are advised to use BTC Yield as a supplemental tool and refer to the company’s full financial statements and SEC filings for a comprehensive view of its position, says the firm. KULR Price Action – Modest Gain KULR Technology is trading at $6.58 today, up 2%, reflecting modest intraday gains. KULR continues to show investor confidence, supported by its Bitcoin-driven narrative and endorsements by analysts. That said, it remains a volatile, technically uncertain stock. KULR Boosts Mining Capacity with New Deployment in Paraguay This month KULR said it has also deployed 3,570 Bitmain S19 XP 140T Bitcoin mining machines in Asuncion, Paraguay, raising its total mining capacity to 750 PH/s across multiple sites. $KULR Technology recently announced our deployment of 3570 Bitmain Miners, located in Paraguay. For more information check out our recent press release. https://t.co/nLT41EbHuc #KULR #bitcoin #bitcoinmining pic.twitter.com/CTLTC2HGtD — KULR Technology (@KULRTech) July 9, 2025 This expansion highlights KULR’s dual approach—mining Bitcoin and purchasing it on the open market—allowing the company to flexibly and efficiently grow its BTC treasury.
Share
CryptoNews2025/07/11 00:10