In the context of expanding fundraising scales, multiple incidents involving unclear fund flows, governance failures, and regulatory investigations have emerged consecutively. Crypto projects are caught between capital pursuit and compliance pressure, with transparency becoming a key indicator of their long-term viability.
In recent years, fundraising activities for crypto projects have significantly intensified, with various public chains, infrastructure, AI+Crypto, and derivative protocols attracting capital attention. However, alongside this, there has been a rising tide of skepticism surrounding fund management, information disclosure, and governance security. From regulatory investigations to operational accidents, and to investors questioning the use of funds, "transparency deficit" has become a recurring keyword in the industry.
Firstly, the lack of transparency in fund usage has buried hidden dangers for many fundraising projects early on. Some projects vaguely describe huge budgets in announcements as "ecological development," "market expansion," or "reserve funds," but lack verifiable execution paths and periodic reports. Investors often only realize they cannot confirm whether funds are genuinely used for the promised development goals when token prices fluctuate or project progress lags.
Secondly, the inadequacy of auditing and custody systems remains a structural issue in the industry. Although more and more teams are actively seeking third-party audits, there are significant differences in audit depth, independence, and continuity. Some projects have yet to establish clear off-chain financial custody mechanisms, and even during the centralized fund management phase, they lack multi-signature or governance committee checks and balances, amplifying single-point risks.
Thirdly, in some early private placements and pre-sales, insufficient disclosure of preferential terms, lock-up arrangements, or incentive structures has exacerbated information asymmetry. Publicly disclosed allocation plans often fail to reflect the true capital distribution and potential selling pressure structure. When market sentiment weakens, such information vacuums are more likely to trigger chain panic.
It is noteworthy that as the industry scales up, the intensity of regulatory intervention has significantly increased. Recent investigations have focused on whether fundraising processes are legal, whether funds are used as promised, and whether there are any violations in internal governance. Although stricter regulations have made the short-term financing environment more cautious, they have also promoted the popularization of compliant fundraising, asset isolation, and on-chain public ledger mechanisms.
From the market response, institutional investors are raising their due diligence requirements, and traditional auditing, legal, and custody institutions are clearly ramping up their digital asset service lines. On the other hand, projects lacking compliance preparation or with weak governance structures are more likely to fall into crisis when facing public opinion or technical errors, with financing windows significantly shortened and trust recovery becoming more difficult.
In this context, a series of self-repair trends have emerged within the industry:
- More detailed fund flow disclosures have become standard for leading projects;
- On-chain custody tools, governance contracts, and public budget mechanisms are continuously refined;
- Community and investment institutions are increasing their governance participation in projects;
- Most teams are incorporating compliance consultants and legal tracks into their early planning.
Overall, crypto fundraising has entered a phase of "transparency competition." While technological innovation and market narratives can still attract attention, the ability to establish credible funding and governance structures has become the core standard for distinguishing short-term speculation from long-term value. For project teams, transparency is no longer just a public relations choice but a matter of survival; for investors, prudently assessing the quality of information disclosure will be more important than chasing concepts.
Related: MoonPay obtains New York trust license, expanding regulated services
Original: “The Trust Gap in Crypto Fundraising: Why Project Transparency Has Become a Survival Threshold”
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
