Can new L1 chains exist without VC backing? Taking LOGOS (LGN) as a case study

Hey all, I've been keeping an eye on the crypto scene for a while now, and I've noticed two main trends with altcoins: - either it's just another meme or a fork with zero innovation, - or it's a massive VC-supported L1 where retail investors end up with scraps and everything’s all about marketing. So I wanted to throw out a question: Do you think there's still space in 2025 for a new independent L1 chain that's built by a small team without relying on big VC funds? I'm not just asking for the sake of discussion; I'm actually working on one and would love to get some feedback from you guys. Here's what I'm creating LOGOS (LGN) Quick rundown: - A unique L1 blockchain, coded in Rust it’s not an ERC20/BEP20 token or an EVM clone. - Fixed supply of 81,000,000 LGN, with a deflationary model (a part of fees gets burned, no inflation). - Mainnet is up and running: we have a node, explorer, and a non-custodial web wallet already in action. - Internal tests show we can handle about 2000+ transactions per second with quick finality. - We’re emphasizing privacy and performance: features like phase-mixing delay on transaction endpoints, a strict nonce policy, anti-spam measures, and Prometheus metrics are included. I don’t have a big fund behind me for a long time, it was just me coding and operating nodes. Now that the chain can handle load, I’m starting to roll out the first public announcement along with a small airdrop/presale to attract real users and validators. Here’s why I think this could still be worth it: I feel like: - there are lots of L1s out there, but many are either too complex or over-engineered, - or they’re too centralized, controlled by just a handful of players, - or they’re driven solely by hype without any real infrastructure. I aimed to create LOGOS as a "boring but solid" L1: - a straightforward account model, - clear and strict rules.

You'll never know but you're getting the timing wrong. It doesn't matter if you're in a small or big team, with or without money. People look at how useful the project is and what you're proposing. But I think that doing it at the end of the bull run, it's kind of not a good timing you're doing here. The market knows the cycle of it and that's why if you're going to do it this time, even on how good it is and very useful, but you'd see that the cycle is the one determines how a project can be successful. You'll also see that there will be less interest when you suppose to do it by the end of the bull cycle.

The reason L1 need VC is because market is too competitive and they need fund for development, bootstrap, incentivizes, and listings. We've actually got tons and tons of L1 already out there in the market, some of them falling by the days because no revenue. I don't think creating new L1 is really a wise thoing in this market even worse is without VC. That's the truth.

I don't really disagree with you. You're right that the L1 space is overcrowded and extremely competitive, and that most networks fail due to lack of funding, incentives, or real usage. For us, building without VC is not about ideology or claiming we can outcompete well-funded ecosystems. It's simply the constraint we're operating under, and we're designing LOGOS accordingly. The scope is intentionally narrow: predictable execution, ordered transaction processing, and bridges designed to survive retries and failures. We're not trying to win listings or liquidity wars. If this approach doesn't find real users, that's a fair outcome. But we prefer to validate usefulness first, before scaling economics. Appreciate the honest perspective — these are risks we're fully aware of.

I don't really disagree with your point. You're absolutely right that the L1 space is extremely competitive, and that most networks fail because they can't sustain development, incentives, or real usage — even with funding. For us, avoiding VC is not about ideology or claiming we can outcompete well-funded ecosystems. It's more about scope and the constraints we're consciously operating under. One important distinction is that LOGOS wasn't launched as a concept or a promise. The core technology was built first: the network, node, wallet, and explorer were running before we started any broader market exposure. LOGOS is being developed with a very limited and pragmatic goal: predictable execution, stable behavior under load, and bridges designed to survive retries and failures. We're not trying to outspend anyone on incentives or listings. If this approach fails to find real users, that's a fair outcome. But we prefer to validate real-world usefulness first, before scaling economics or considering external funding. Appreciate the honest take — these are exactly the risks we're aware of.

Just to clarify the current state: LOGOS is not a concept or a whitepaper-only idea. The network is live, and core components are already operational. The initial phase is intentionally modest. The goal is not rapid expansion or hype, but validating that an independent L1 can function reliably under real conditions. For transparency: there is an early presale running to support continued development and infrastructure costs. This is high-risk and clearly not for everyone. Constructive feedback and critical questions are welcome.