I have recently been writing $SIGN content, and suddenly stopped halfway to think for a while.
The main investor of SIGN is YZi Labs, which was originally Binance Labs and changed its name earlier this year.
This is Binance's strategic investment department, leading with $25.5M, which is quite a sum. Then SIGN went live on Binance and completed creator tasks in the Binance Square. I write articles here to earn rewards, and ordinary users see the content in the square and buy it if they are interested.
The entire chain is closed within the Binance system.
It's not really a conspiracy theory; this is normal business logic. Investors help projects find traffic, project parties incentivize content creators with tokens, creators help spread the project, and retail investors buy in on the platform. Each role acts according to its own interests, but the question is, in this structure, who ultimately bears the risk?
Creators receive fixed rewards, and the payment is received once the writing is completed, regardless of how the project performs later.
The project party bought exposure through creator tasks, with the cost being tokens, which are printed out. YZi Labs invested in early shares at a cost far below market price. Retail investors who come in last buy at secondary market prices, bearing all the risks of whether the project can be implemented.
This structure is quite common in the crypto space, not just #Sign地缘政治基建 ; many projects operate this way. However, when the investors, the platforms, and the content distribution channels are all part of the same company, the information asymmetry becomes more severe.
YZi Labs knows the real progress of SIGN, while ordinary users can only see the content in the square and the announcements from the project party.
$SIGN The current circulation is only 16.4%, meaning that over 83% of the tokens have not yet been released. The shares of YZi Labs and other early investors are gradually released according to the vesting schedule, with the next unlocking on April 28th for early investors. There is no public data on how much the cost basis of these people's holdings differs from the current secondary market price, but it can be reasonably inferred that the difference is not small.
I'm not saying that projects invested in by Binance are necessarily bad.
Binance Labs has historically invested in many projects that later succeeded. However, the fact that the investors and the platform are the same entity means that this project has a natural traffic advantage within the Binance ecosystem, which can make the project's hype data look better than the actual situation.
The views and interactions on the square, the number of participants in creator tasks, these numbers will be amplified under the push mechanism.
But the actual number of real users on-chain, the actual number of attestations made, and the applications truly implemented by partners are what determine the project's value, and this data is currently not visible.
I will continue writing.@SignOfficial The content, because this is a creator task, the rewards are real. But writing content and buying tokens are two different things; I have never confused this line.
This is a personal opinion and does not constitute investment advice!