Spend another 24 hours organizing, striving for perfection! Hope everyone finds the content more detailed and comprehensive!

In the previous issue, we only selected three exchanges: Binance, OKX, and Coinbase. This time we updated the listing rates for Bybit and Upbit, improving the metrics for better statistical results.

In this issue, we updated:

- Unaccounted VCs

- Increase Bybit listing rate

- Increase Upbit listing rate

- Average listing rate of VCs

- Excellent VC evaluation

- More objective quantitative scores

- More intuitive UI interface

A total of 73 VCs were selected, including 35 domestic VCs, 30 foreign VCs, and 8 exchange VCs.

[Advance Declaration]: This rating is based solely on the criteria of token listings, and does not involve the overall strength and brand influence of VCs.

Ranking by market share/growth/listing effects of exchanges Binance/Coinbase/OKX/Bybit/Upbit, the conclusions are as follows:

T0 level:

Continue Capital, Placeholder, YZi Labs (Binance Labs)

T1 level:

IOSG Ventures, Hack VC, Bain Capital Ventures, Mint Ventures

T2 level:

Paradigm, Sequoia Capital China, Sequoia Capital, Multicoin, Polychain, etc.

T3 level:

a16z, Dragonfly, Coinbase Ventures, 1kx, etc.

T4 level:

Circle Ventures, Hashkey Capital, DCG, Bankless Ventures, etc.

T5 level:

Hash Global, Haun Venture, BTX Capital, Incuba Alpha

Based on VC regional rankings, the conclusions are as follows:

Foreign VCs > Exchange VCs > Domestic VCs

Ranking by average level of VC tokens listed:

We identified 31 'excellent' VCs that are above the average level for better reference, details are shown in the figure.

T0 level VCs include Continue Capital, Placeholder, YZi Labs (Binance Labs)

Comprehensive score > 1.5, these VC invested projects have the highest probability of significant outcomes, following them will likely yield substantial results.

Details as shown in the figure

T1 level VCs include IOSG Ventures, Hack VC, Bain Capital Ventures, Mint Ventures

Comprehensive score >= 1.2, these VC invested projects have a relatively high probability, which can be focused on.

Details as shown in the figure

T2 level VCs include Paradigm, Sequoia Capital China, Sequoia Capital, Multicoin, Polychain, etc.

Comprehensive score >= 0.9, these VC invested projects are mostly in the upper midstream, which we can focus on for reference.

Details as shown in the figure

T3 level VCs include a16z, Dragonfly, Coinbase Ventures, 1kx, etc.

Comprehensive score >= 0.6, these VC invested projects are mostly in the midstream, we can comprehensively reference other VC co-investments.

Details as shown in the figure

T4 level VCs include Circle Ventures, Hashkey Capital, DCG, Bankless Ventures, etc.

Comprehensive score >= 0.3, these VC invested projects have a very low probability, we can comprehensively reference other VC co-investments and be cautious in our efforts.

Details as shown in the figure

T5 level VCs are Hash Global, Haun Venture, BTX Capital, Incuba Alpha, we no longer maintain statistics.

Based on the ranking of VC regional types, we found that regardless of where the VCs are from, the probability of listing tokens on Bybit is the highest, while the probability on Upbit is the lowest.

It can be seen that Upbit has strict requirements for tokens, which also reflects the strong listing effects of Upbit.

Comprehensive statistics show: Foreign VCs > Exchange VCs > Domestic VCs

Details as shown in the figure

To summarize

In this version, our statistical range is broader, aiming to provide a wider reference standard. Bybit and Upbit are exchanges with merged volume, growth, and listing effects, which we should pay attention to.

After adding Bybit and Upbit, we find that while there are slight differences from the previous content, the overall results are not far off; the ability of strong VCs to list tokens is indeed very strong.

Discussing only the results, we found that strong VCs like a16z, Dragonfly, Coinbase Ventures, etc., do not have strong listing abilities in the projects they invest in, which is contrary to our common sense.

In our analysis, the projects involving T0 and T1 level VCs are the most certain, and also have the highest potential returns.

When considering whether a project is worth early investment, we look at which levels the participating VCs correspond to, in which regions, what types they are, and what the average listing rates are.

Comprehensive judgment of the data we listed will provide significant reference value for our profit-taking and primary market endeavors.