VC firms are unloading assets for any price from 2022 to 2024

These firms seem unfazed by the losses, as long as they can sell for something. Are they struggling to stay afloat? A lot of these coins have years left on their VC vesting schedules. Is it even possible to have an altcoin season right now?

Yes, they're essentially bankrupt. They took off thanks to the popularity of VCs, on whom last alt-season shooters rely, whether for due diligence or simply to capitalize on the hype. Perhaps not. Even if they had the chance, they would have to struggle on their own to regain their exposure with prominent protocol upgrades without relying on VCs' popularity. Otherwise, even incentive-based tasks would ultimately destroy their projects.

Going belly up is probably too dramatic in every case, but a lot of them are definitely in portfolio triage mode. When the music stops, VCs stop talking about vision and start talking about liquidity. Paper valuations from 2022 to 2024 were inflated nonsense in a lot of cases, so now they are taking whatever exit the market gives them and moving on. That does not mean every project is dead, but it does mean a lot of those FDV skyscrapers were built out of cardboard. As for altseason, I think it will still happen, just not the old broad-euphoria version where everything with a ticker flies. With this much overhang from unlocks and early investors waiting at the fire exit, a lot of coins are going to get sold into every decent rally. So, when there is an alt run, it will probably be narrower, faster, and a lot meaner than people expect. I have seen this before: the market does not reward "strong community" speeches when there is a conveyor belt of vested supply coming down the pipe.

We have seen it last year how altseason was only happening for the token with the fair distribution. People ain't stupid enough to buy the token that have long vesting owned by VC. This is also the reason why most of tokens pumped were meme tokens. However, those project won't go bankrupt caused by they have tokens allocated to their foundation that can be sold for the operational purpose. Beside that i believe VCs who invested in those projects have received some portion of their allocation at the start. They already made profit by dumped it. You can't really sure those projects were not offering some portions of token to be unlocked to get investment from VCs.

Wow an average 90%+ drop in FDV is quite drastic, I don't know how the VCs are currently locking up tokens, maybe they have already made a return on their initial capital and these are just leftover tokens they get as profit. Even projects that have usecases are worthless if they have been abandoned by the community and now it is easier to switch to a new trend where the old tokens will no longer survive in the market --- like we call it memecoins that fall 99%.

What are the chances that these VC are already selling their locked allocation OTC when the coin reached peak? I don't really believe these VC want to get their token locked for 3-5 years like that when they first invested into the project. I'm sure that some of these VC are selling their token through OTC already when the price of the token was high and there are many demands in the market. Just giving 30% discount for the locked token will get people swarming back then.

A valuation drop of around 10% - 20% is still reasonable in the highly competitive crypto industry, but when it becomes more than 80%, it seems unreasonable. Not to accuse, this decline in valuation is proof that those projects are just hype & a haven for liquidity exits. That's why I don't believe in new projects now in terms of long-term investment, I just make them a hit & run event .

It's just the market (and VCs) realizing that hype and buzzwords can't replace technology and features people actually want. I've seen multiple chains, tokens, protocols and entities launched with much noise and big words just to end up not having any value past the initial hype and people realize that it is just marketing and move on to the next shiny thing. Some of these projects were based on decent ideas but failed to execute, most of them were based on cool features nobody asked for.

How are the VCs who invested into all these projects that did very poorly is able to gather fund in the first place? doesn't they have track record and if they do how it is possible they keep making very bad investment decision? These projects listed on that image are all pretty popular project, they successfully created some buzz around their release and even their pre funding stage but ended up losing 90% of diluted valuation, you can imagine the other project that have no buzz to perform even worse. Yet if you see in some sites like cryptorank, they've got no shortage about information of new projects getting funded by the same VC that funded these.

We should also figure out how much the creators of these projects made. I am betting my life earnings that these guys mostly ended up richer than before. Look at creators of all these projects, take their networth before this project, and look at their networth today and I bet you that most of them are richer. Maybe one or two of them actually reinvested whatever they made into the project and still failed, I can't be sure about ALL of them, but I bet you that 50%+ of them ended up richer.

there's near zero chance the founders didn't get very rich. unless they are degens and just aped with everything they had in some altcoins (which i consider improbable) they all got at least 8 figures richer. some of them - 9 figs richer.

That is exactly what I imagine as well. I did not consider them investing into their things by the way, I assumed if they were any legit, then they would have put everything back into business and crash down with it. But I bet that none of them did that, I just did not want to say that without knowing any of them, there could be maybe one that I am not aware. But my expectation from this situation is that all of these projects made a lot of people poorer, and only the creators got richer.