What Makes Crypto Projects Actually Succeed (PART 2)
(Missed Part 1? Check my previous post for problem-solution fundamentals)
At part 1 I covered projects that improved existing solutions. Here are the first-movers that created entirely new categories:
The First-Mover Advantage:
Polymarket: Prediction Markets for Everyone
Made prediction markets accessible when most were clunky, low-liquidity experiments. Turned a niche concept into mainstream adoption during election cycles.
Clear value prop: Bet on real-world events with actual liquidity and simple UX.
$TAO : Decentralized AI Pioneer
First to crack the decentralized AI incentive model when everyone knew centralized AI was problematic but nobody had working alternatives.
Timing advantage: Launched before AI exploded mainstream, positioned perfectly for the narrative shift.
$SYRUP : Institutional DeFi Bridge
First mover in institutional-grade lending and yield when TradFi players wanted DeFi exposure but needed compliance and risk management.
Market creation: Built infrastructure for a segment that didn't exist in DeFi before.
Back to First Principles:
The most successful projects either:
Solve existing problems 10x better (Hyperliquid, $PENDLE )
Create entirely new categories (Polymarket, Bittensor, Maple)
This same principle applies to pre-launch opportunities like #DALPYCOIN - projects that can create their own niche or approach existing concepts with fresh execution often see the strongest adoption.
Both approaches work, but require different timing and execution.
The Investment Insight:
Category creators carry higher risk but offer asymmetric upside. Problem-solvers have more predictable adoption but face more competition.
My approach: Mix both types. Problem-solvers for steady gains, category creators for home runs.
The key is recognizing which type you're investing in and sizing positions accordingly.
Which approach resonates more with your investment style?