There's a hard ceiling on how much institutional capital will flow into assets with rug-pull risk. Major funds and liquid investors simply won't participate when the fundamentals are that shaky—it's just not in their mandate.
This is precisely where on-chain ownership becomes the real differentiator. Without genuine ownership tied to the blockchain, you're basically just competing for narrative and trading volume. That's a house of cards.
Ownership changes everything. It's the difference between speculating on hype and actually building something with long-term stakeholder alignment. When you own something on-chain, you've got real skin in the game. Institutions notice that.
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.
6 Likes
Reward
6
5
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
SerLiquidated
· 1h ago
Basically, institutions are just cowardly. Projects without on-chain ownership are indeed castles in the air.
View OriginalReply0
GasFeeLady
· 12h ago
ngl, the "skin in the game" narrative hits different when you're actually watching the gas metrics spike during liquidity crunches... institutions aren't just reading whitepapers, they're reading the chain state
Reply0
LiquidityWhisperer
· 12h ago
In plain terms, projects without on-chain ownership are just storytelling to hype up the buzz; institutions simply won't touch them.
View OriginalReply0
WenMoon42
· 12h ago
In plain terms, without true on-chain ownership, it's just gambling. Institutions have long seen through this, and no matter how great the narrative is, it can't compensate for poor fundamentals.
View OriginalReply0
SnapshotBot
· 13h ago
The on-chain ownership system sounds good, but in reality, it still depends on whether the team is reliable... Is it really that simple for institutions to enter the market?
There's a hard ceiling on how much institutional capital will flow into assets with rug-pull risk. Major funds and liquid investors simply won't participate when the fundamentals are that shaky—it's just not in their mandate.
This is precisely where on-chain ownership becomes the real differentiator. Without genuine ownership tied to the blockchain, you're basically just competing for narrative and trading volume. That's a house of cards.
Ownership changes everything. It's the difference between speculating on hype and actually building something with long-term stakeholder alignment. When you own something on-chain, you've got real skin in the game. Institutions notice that.