Author: Yacht (Duck TATAYA)

As a veteran in the cryptocurrency space, you must be familiar with this meme-like Q&A:

How did you first get into the cryptocurrency space?

A: Introduced by a friend B: Learned about it online C: Informed by financial institutions D: Set up by an enemy.

But coming into 2026, we are gradually facing an increasingly bitter question:

How did the projects you used fade out of the cryptocurrency space?

A: The official announcement ceased operations and stopped services as planned B: On an ordinary day, the official website, frontend, and API became unresponsive

C: Suddenly learned from governance proposals, court documents, or news D: Only realized it had been inactive for a long time upon seeing this article

Data analysis shows a clear distinction in the exit list for 2026: after projects cease operations, their functionalities continue to migrate within the industry. Perpetual contracts, ZK scalability, asset aggregation, on-chain credit, and non-custodial ownership product paradigms did not leave with the original teams, and many capabilities have already entered the default configurations of exchanges, wallets, protocols, and data platforms. For investors, the project status only records the conclusion of the organization, and the flow of functionalities explains what a round of innovation ultimately leaves behind.

BitMEX's shutdown has pushed this distinction to the forefront. Founded in 2014, it launched XBTUSD in May 2016, pioneering Bitcoin perpetual contracts. The funding rate and no expiration date design adapted to the year-round cryptocurrency market, leading perpetual contracts to become the core product of global cryptocurrency derivatives. On July 23, 2026, BitMEX announced plans to close the exchange: entering the phase of only reducing positions on August 26, stopping trading and closing remaining positions on September 23, and subsequently continuing to process withdrawals.

Why can the same company score high historically in product terms yet reach a conclusion in operational history? Historical evaluations care about what it defined, how many users it educated, and which competitors it changed; investment evaluations continue to question where liquidity remains, who controls user entry points, how transaction fees solidify, and what high migration costs exist after technological diffusion. Layering the two sets of scales together, a pioneer’s contributions can easily be erased by operational conclusions, while operational risks can also be obscured by pioneering halos, complicating the assessment standards of whether their efforts were meritorious or not.

Respecting pioneers does not mean abandoning judgments on sustainability. This article selects 110 samples through public data. This group of samples spans seven primary tracks, with a wide variance in project recognition and capital size: decentralized trading and finance 31, consumption, social and entertainment 28, infrastructure and developer services 14, centralized trading and financial services 13, with the rest distributed in organization and fundraising, wallets and data, asset issuance, and RWA. 45 projects disclosed funding amounts, totaling $516.52 million; 65 did not disclose the amounts. The leaders include Loopring with $45 million in funding, ICON with $43 million, Goldfinch with $37 million, and multiple companies supported by institutions like a16z, Pantera, Coinbase Ventures, and Polychain.

The samples cover both high-recognition projects like BitMEX, Loopring, Zapper, Foundation, Goldfinch, and many long-tail teams with limited public discussions and existing materials insufficient to confirm specific exit statuses. Related news ranges from BitMEX and BitMart announcing gradual halting of operations, to Loopring and Zapper taking down products, extending to Goldfinch’s governance winding down, Foundation's failed sale, Poolin entering Chapter 11, AscendEX ceasing operations, and the state conflicts following the Ionic security incident. This body of materials retains records of product history, capital history, and crisis management, providing a common background for tracking functionality migration and value transfer later on.

We hope to obtain the most valuable information from the chain of "project exit - functionality diffusion - value transfer." It breaks down the introductory innovation, industry adoption, and commercial capture into three independent results, allowing investors to see early on: when a function is widely adopted, the commercialization clock of the original project may have already entered the countdown.

Four Core Conclusions:

• After a project exits, functionality continues to migrate. 82 out of 110 projects have had their primary functionalities widely inherited or partially diffused, accounting for 74.5%. The organizational lifespan of Web3 projects often tends to be shorter than that of their product paradigms.
• The speed of replication is compressing the commercialization window. Among the 47 projects established from 2023 to 2025, 39 functionalities have been inherited or diffused, accounting for 83.0%; the corresponding ratio for projects from 2019 to 2022 is 72.7%.
• Capital is highly concentrated, and outcomes remain diversified. The 45 projects that disclosed funding amounts have collectively received $516.52 million, with the top ten absorbing 60.1%. Products like Loopring, Goldfinch, and Zapper have respectively moved toward product sunset, governance maintenance, and orderly shutdown.
• The most common public form of project exit is operational layers becoming unresponsive first. Among the 31 projects with identifiable exit methods, 17 were characterized by product or network shutdowns. Many projects were not recognized by the market until their frontend, API, or team activities ceased, requiring investment monitoring to advance to maintenance, activity, revenue, and team signals.

1. Where do functionalities flow after projects disappear

Exiting does not take away all product legacies. Out of 110 projects, 42 have had their primary functionalities widely inherited or commercialized, 40 have experienced partial inheritance or neighboring diffusion, totaling 82, accounting for 74.5%. This statistic does not involve patent ownership; it concerns whether similar capabilities can continue to fulfill user tasks after the original product leaves the market.

Divided by track, functionality migration presents three paths. Decentralized trading and finance have 31 projects, of which 25 have experienced inheritance or diffusion, and 21 achieved widespread inheritance; wallets, data, and tools have 9 projects, with 8 leaving identifiable legacies; all 6 samples in asset issuance, RWA, and payments have entered widespread inheritance. Trading routing, asset aggregation, stablecoin settlement, and on-chain credit modules can easily integrate into larger funding and account systems, and functionalities can still create trading and data value after being absorbed.

Among the 28 projects in consumption, social, and entertainment, 27 have had inheritance or diffusion, reaching a proportion of 96.4%, with 26 belonging to partial diffusion. This structure is critical: what's left by consumer products are often interaction designs, incentive mechanisms, content mechanisms, or community gameplay, which will transform in adjacent products and are less likely to be preserved in complete industry standards. Centralized trading and financial services have 13 projects, with only 4 able to be defined as widely inherited. The matchmaking, custody, risk control, and licensing capabilities of trading platforms are highly coupled; single functionalities can be replicated, but the entire institutional capability transfer is slower.

This intersection diagram provides a more useful judgment on the number of projects within a single track: the degree of modularity in functionality influences the diffusion speed, and whether the original project can integrate modules into distribution, accounts, liquidity, and fee systems determines value attribution after diffusion. A dashboard that can be quickly embedded by wallets may have had significant historical influence, but its independent fee space could quickly narrow; a product that needs underwriting, compliance, and balance sheet coordination will have a slower replication speed and higher long-term operating costs.

42 widely inherited projects indicate user education has been completed, while 28 unverified projects suggest another type of risk: the market may never have formed a clear task, or existing materials are insufficient to identify its legacy. The two leave different insights: the former focuses on checking what scarce resources remain after competitors replicate, while the latter focuses on verifying whether the problem itself has a stable budget. The more successful the innovation diffusion, the more investors should track data, brand, liquidity, protocol revenue, and channel control, rather than remain focused on the functionality list.

2. The speed of replication has outpaced commercialization

There are 98 valid projects based on their year of establishment. Among 7 projects established in 2018 or earlier, 4 have experienced inheritance or diffusion, accounting for 57.1%; from 2019 to 2022, the ratio is 32 out of 44, or 72.7%; for projects established from 2023 to 2025, it has risen to 39 out of 47, or 83.0%. Manual coding cannot prove that competitors have copied these projects one by one, and newer startups may also choose highly homogeneous product directions from the start. But regardless of whether the source is direct imitation, open-source combination, or concurrent topics, the commercial consequences are similar: the scarcity period of functionalities is shortening.

This set of period differences needs careful interpretation; nevertheless, the investment implication remains clear: in an environment of open-source code, modular infrastructure, mature liquidity providers, and standardized SDKs, similar products can emerge faster. Technology valuations thus need to incorporate “lead half-life”: how long it takes for competitors to redo core functionalities, how long it takes the platform to embed it, and how much cost users incur to complete migrations. The initial value still exists, but it resembles a finite-term option.

The contrast between BitMEX and Hyperliquid showcases the differences between initial offerings and systematic capture. BitMEX defined Bitcoin perpetual contracts, completing the most expensive user education. Hyperliquid took over a mature category, integrating order book, margin, liquidity, developer distribution, and fee recirculation into a unified system. In Hyperliquid, trading fees flow to HLP, the assistance fund, and deployers, the assistance fund automatically converting fees into HYPE and destroying them; Builder Codes allow applications to charge on-chain fees for orders sent on behalf of users; HIP-3 enables deployers to create perpetual markets on a shared HyperCore order book and margin stack, and undertake oracle, leverage, and settlement responsibilities.

Through complete quarterly data, we can see the scale of this closed loop. According to DefiLlama under the second quarter of 2026, the Gross Protocol Revenue of Hyperliquid Perps was recorded at $193.65 million, of which Perp Fees were $177.27 million, Builder Code Fees were $16.38 million, and Earnings totaled $143.12 million. These figures indicate how fees traverse through the DEX product stack and form distribution relations among developers, liquidity, and protocols.

Latecomer platforms can start from a mature demand, shifting the center of competition to systemic capabilities: unified liquidity reduces market cold-start costs, developer fees transform external entry points into distribution partners, market deployment mechanisms expand categories, and fee destruction establishes value return. BitMEX's historical contributions still stand, while Hyperliquid illustrates that there is a longer race after the initial offering—locking products, distribution, liquidity, and economic systems into a positive cycle.

3. Technological leadership did not translate into the right to survive

Technical advantages require conversion into survival capabilities by forming user tasks, distribution advantages, charging abilities, and long-term maintenance budgets in sequence. If any layer disconnects, technology may be inherited by the industry, while the original project cannot sustain operations. Loopring and Zapper, starting from technical architecture and product definitions, ultimately encountered the same problem: initial advantages did not solidify into sufficiently stable ecological positions and cash flows.

Loopring was one of the early Layer 2 projects that combined ZK-Rollup, dedicated trading architecture, non-custodial wallets, and DEX. It helped the industry understand the value of off-chain execution, main chain verification, and self-custody trading, disclosing approximately $45 million in financing, with representing investors including Fundamental Labs, Eden Block, and Zero Age Ventures. As generic Rollups, EVM-compatible environments, and larger developer ecosystems matured, the focus of competition shifted from single execution performance to tool compatibility, application composability, liquidity, and user entry points.

Dedicated architectures can enhance the efficiency of specific trading tasks but require teams to continuously attract applications, market-making resources, and business collaborations. Loopring failed to convert its technological head start into a sufficiently sized ecosystem and adoption scale. On June 28, 2026, the official website switched to a farewell page saying, “Loopring Has Shut Down,” the core DEX went offline, and the project arranged to return user assets through contract upgrades, with LRC also losing its main product utility. The cessation of operations was directly confirmed by the official website; insufficient adoption, architectural limitations, and business expansion reasons were supported by team explanations retained by credible media.

Zapper's lead is more aligned with product definition. It began in 2019 to aggregate positions, yields, and redeemable rewards from multiple DeFi protocols into a unified interface, subsequently expanding to trading aggregation, NFTs, mobile, and APIs, presenting complex on-chain combinations in a way that ordinary users could understand as asset accounts. Zapper has cumulatively disclosed about $16.5 million in financing, including $1.5 million in seed rounds and $15 million in Series A led by Framework Ventures.

The user task of the asset dashboard has been validated, but sustained operations still need to cover multi-chain indexing, protocol adaptation, data updates, and API service costs. Meanwhile, wallets, exchanges, and data platforms can make similar interfaces default features, narrowing the independent product distribution and payment spaces. DeBank and Rabby provide a reference set of mechanisms: DeBank extends address and protocol data into pay-as-you-go APIs and address touchpoints, and Rabby embeds data capabilities into frequently-used wallet entry points. The contrast here only explains the layers of charging and distribution that Zapper lacks and does not form a judgment on the operational safety or investment value of ongoing projects.

On July 8, 2026, a media-sourced founder's statement announced Zapper's orderly exit; the website, mobile, and API ended services on August 3. These materials can support operational duration and service scope. The team did not disclose revenue, cash consumption, or transaction negotiation details, thus “functionality being absorbed by platforms, independent fee space being compressed” can only be inferred from commercial mechanisms.

Placing these two cases back into the financing base of 110 projects reveals a pronounced capital structure concentration. Of the 45 projects disclosing funding amounts, a total of approximately $516.52 million was recorded, with a median of around $5.28 million; the top ten absorbed 60.1%, while 65 other projects did not disclose amounts. Undisclosed values remain empty and are not counted as zero.

Three high-recognition case studies exhibited different endpoints: Loopring, after receiving $45 million, moved toward product sunset; Goldfinch, after receiving $37 million, entered governance maintenance, Prime completed redemption, and the legacy pool continues its recovery; Zapper, after receiving $16.5 million, orderly shut down. It is clear that technological leadership and financing abilities cannot replace commercial closure; capital can extend verification windows, but long-term positioning still depends on whether adoption, distribution, charging, and maintenance budgets can connect.

4. Responsibility-intensive innovations bear their survival costs outside the chain

Some Web3 products bear far more than just software maintenance. Underwriting, custodianship, asset isolation, legal reclamation, licensing, customer service, and crisis management all require ongoing organizations and budgets. This collection of obligations is termed “responsibility density” in this article: the closer a product is to credit, custody, real assets, and centralized trading, the more off-chain obligations it has, and the easier the interface between the technical system and operational system becomes a source of risk. Goldfinch, Foundation, Poolin, and AscendEX each expose such responsibilities across four stages: credit execution, service continuity, corporate liabilities, and customer exit.

Goldfinch, established in 2020, is one of the earlier DeFi protocols to push on-chain credit to not require crypto collateral from real-world borrowers. The project disclosed approximately $37 million in financing, with representative investors including a16z, Alliance, and SV Angel. It expanded the asset boundaries of DeFi and brought borrower screening, financial information verification, default handling, judicial execution, and cross-border recovery into the protocol's long-term costs.

In June 2026, GIP-87 proposed to halt new product development and growth investments, transitioning the protocol to maintenance mode and winding down Goldfinch Prime. Governance materials showed that the original protocol facilitated around $100 million in loans over more than two years, with several borrowing pools experiencing severe performance issues; the adoption scale of Prime was also insufficient to justify continued investment. The proposal stipulated a fixed budget of $150,000 for transitions, maintenance, and recovery of legacy assets, intending to transfer recovery rights and resources to a U.S. trust. An update on July 7 confirmed that Prime investors had completed redemption of all principal plus one month's interest, while the legacy lending pool still awaited repayments or recoveries.

The responsibility breakpoint for Goldfinch lies in credit execution. On-chain records can enhance capital flow visibility, while the assets, liabilities, collateral disposals, litigation priorities, and jurisdictions of borrowers remain contingent on off-chain realities. Prime redemptions and legacy pool recoveries correspond to two sets of asset processes, and merging these narratives would overestimate the settlement progress. RWA yields also need to deduct default losses, legal costs, governance budgets, and capital occupation to approach the actual returns for investors.

Shifting from credit execution to digital asset presentation, Foundation exposes a different type of responsibility. Founded in 2020 as one of the early NFT markets emphasizing creator ownership and non-custodial trading, it received support from institutions such as a16z, Variant Fund, and Standard Crypto, though public materials did not disclose verifiable cumulative funding amounts. The platform previously attempted a sale to a third party, but the transaction was not completed; the team no longer had the financial and operational conditions to restore and long-term maintain the platform, with the official website confirming the permanent offline status in April 2026.

The responsibility breakpoint of Foundation lies in the service layer surrounding digital assets. NFTs and smart contracts continue to reside on-chain, with users still controlling assets in their wallets; NFTs within listed contracts need to be manually unlisted, and the long-term availability of media relies on additional redundancy, while discovery, indexing, and social relationships require new frontend engagement. The official commitment is to maintain the IPFS gateway until April 27, 2027, allowing time for community migration. Non-custodial arrangements protect ownership, yet the frontend, metadata, customer service, and migration support still incur real budgets.

Poolin pushes the responsibility further into the company’s balance sheet. Founded in 2017, it started with cryptocurrency mining pools, later expanding into wallets, wealth management, and mining investments. The mining pool's hash rate, block output, and on-chain revenue exhibit high observability, while custodial wallet liabilities, inter-company transactions, and high fixed costs distribute across off-chain contracts and legal entities. The more products there are, the more user asset ownership, creditor priorities, and collateral arrangements require separate verification.

On July 22, 2026, Poolin Technology PTE. LTD., Lonestar Taproot LLC, and Lonestar Dream, Inc. applied for Chapter 11 in the U.S., with the case being jointly administered by the New Jersey bankruptcy court. This legal process confirms that the three debtors are entering restructuring but does not mean that all mining pool services concluded on the same day. Client and other creditor recovery outcomes will depend on asset sales and restructuring, with equity values sidelined behind creditor claims. The responsibility breakpoint of CoinPrint lies between product accounts and the company’s balance sheet: observable hash rates cannot replace the need to penetrate custodial liabilities and intercompany transactions.

AscendEX consolidates technology, permissions, and customer exits on a single platform. It provides spot trading, exchanges, staking, lending, and other cryptocurrency asset services. The official communication confirmed to users that the platform ceased operations as of July 1, 2026, listing the MiCA authorization gaps, broader financial and operational factors, and the failure of strategic counterparties to complete arrangements. Withdrawals were subsequently shifted to manual reviews, with processing times and amounts uncertain.

The responsibility breakpoint of AscendEX lies between platform commitments and user asset withdrawals. Trading volumes can only describe matching activities, while the validity of licenses, asset isolation, withdrawal delays, related party exposures, and crisis communications determine asset availability during pressure periods. These four cases illustrate that smart contracts can automatically execute established rules, yet identity, assets, legal procedures, and residual users still require organizational承担. When income cannot cover these inherent obligations, technological adoption also struggles to support long-term services.

5. Projects often choose to exit silently

The evidence distribution of the 110 samples is highly skewed. Regarding exit statuses, only 7 projects can be directly confirmed by official websites, governance documents, or legal documents, 24 projects received support from reliable sources or retained complete official statements by the media; the remaining 79 projects still lack sufficient materials to confirm specific exit statuses, accounting for 71.8% of the samples. The primary reasons are even harder to trace: 4 projects have official, governance, or legal documents providing direct explanation, 8 have received support from reliable sources, 1 can only be inferred from event chains and operational signs, while the reasons for the remaining 97 projects are unknown, resulting in a 88.2% unknown reason rate. As a result, only 31 projects could confirm specific exit methods, and only 13 could confirm primary causes.

Among the 31 confirmed projects, 17 manifested as product or network shutdowns, accounting for 54.8%; 7 had orderly exits, accounting for 22.6%; 4 entered bankruptcy liquidation, accounting for 12.9%; while each governance resolution, sudden halt, and failed sale accounted for 1. Product or network shutdowns have become the most common public endpoint, indicating that many exits are first reflected in frontend, API, network, or team maintenance stopping, while formal reasons often appear much later.

The evidence gap also shows track differences. Among the 14 projects in infrastructure and developer services, 12 lack sufficient materials to confirm specific exit statuses, resulting in a proportion of 85.7%; this group has no identifiable primary reasons. This result describes the completeness of public disclosures, and cannot imply that infrastructure projects are easier to fail. Teams focused on backend, developers, or protocol layers often lack broad user attention, making them more likely to exit in low visibility ways upon maintenance cessation.

The timeline further illustrates that “exit” is a set of events: announcements, stopping new business, service shutdowns, asset returns, and legal disposals can be weeks or even years apart. Loopring and Zapper's core services have concluded; Goldfinch is in maintenance and legacy recovery; Poolin is in legal proceedings; parts of BitMEX and BitMart's nodes are located after the reporting cutoff; Ionic has not been forcibly positioned by date. For data teams, event tables retain time, business scope, and unknown statuses, making it more suitable for continuous updates than a single closure label.

6. Navigating through cycles requires a composite system

The 110 exit cases collectively illustrate that single technical advantages struggle to independently sustain long-term valuations. More robust projects usually connect six types of capabilities: real demand provides budgets, distribution lowers customer acquisition costs, product stacks extend user relationships, revenues cover operational and risk expenses, balance sheets absorb fluctuations, and responsible entities handle off-chain obligations. Any one of these links relying heavily on subsidies over the long term will transmit pressure to other components.

The first check is necessity. Projects must clearly explain user tasks, usage frequency, alternatives, and net benefits from their on-chain structures. Removing tokens or governance layers should lead to a significant drop in product value, showing that Web3 components have undertaken necessary functions. Whitepapers, real businesses, and token economics need mutual confirmation to avoid separating technical narratives from revenue sources.

The second check is real demand and distribution. User growth should break down into natural retention, subsidy retention, paid conversions, and channel costs; developer products need to track active keys, paid calls, customer concentration, and renewals; trading products should differentiate between passive volume from market conditions and stable shares. The contrast of Zapper with DeBank and Rabby shows that high-frequency entry points and multi-tiered charging can increase commercial choices, while single free tools are more easily absorbed by platforms.

The third check is value return. Protocols generating trading volumes, TVLs, or yields do not guarantee that operational entities obtain budgets. It is necessary to delineate the paths of fees from users to market makers, deployers, vaults, tokens, and teams, and then confirm security, compliance, customer service, and development expenditures. The BitMEX—Hyperliquid contrast illustrates that once products are accepted by the industry, distribution incentives, shared liquidity, and fee rules will determine where value remains.

The fourth check is the balance sheet and responsibility density. RWA, trading platforms, custodianship, and leveraged operations require penetrating legal entities, collateral, asset isolation, liquidation priorities, withdrawal capabilities, and judicial jurisdictions simultaneously. On-chain transparency must be combined with underwriting, collateral management, liquidity arrangements, and responsible parties to enter structured risk assessments.

The fifth check is maintenance degradation. Establish weekly or monthly signal tables, placing release rhythms, code contributors, API availability, natural activity, fees, withdrawal times, and team changes in the same timeline. If operational signals worsen over two consecutive observation periods, initiate manual verification; increase risk weights if deteriorations occur over three consecutive observation periods without official explanation. This framework is more timely than waiting for database updates and better suited for data teams to reproduce.

The sixth check is real synergy in Web3+. AI, RWA, social, and gaming combined with on-chain systems need to bring verifiable ownership, programmable settlement, open distribution, or new risk pricing capabilities. Stacking keywords does not form a competitive moat. The more compliant ones are, the more compliant they become; the more innovative, the more innovative. Institution-facing products require stronger asset isolation, disclosure, and risk control; frontier products can maintain experimental speed while clarifying safety budgets, permissions, data migration, and responsibility boundaries.

These six checks point to a change in valuation objects. When code, SDKs, and liquidity infrastructures make replication faster, the premium on initial functionality starts to have a clear shelf life. Investors need to continue to inquire: which distribution segment does the project control, what long-term expenditures does revenue cover, how is risk absorbed via which balance sheets, and who completes maintenance and disposal once the team departs. Demand, distribution, revenues, maintenance, and responsibilities create a closed loop, allowing technological leadership to have a chance to solidify into organizational advantages.

Industry scarcity is also migrating. Inventing a new feature remains challenging, while ensuring long-validated functions work together long-term is more scarce. Security, assets, compliance, and user responsibilities cannot fork as rapidly as code; they require stable budgets, continuous decision-making, and entities that can be traced. The competitive advantage of the next round of projects may very well come from this low visibility yet high-intensity organizational capability.

Thus, historical contributions and investment outcomes require two sets of measures. The former evaluates what projects have validated and spread, while the latter measures how much distribution, revenue, and responsibility capability projects have retained. BitMEX, Loopring, Zapper, and Goldfinch have written perpetual contracts, ZK scalability, asset aggregation, and on-chain credit into the industry product history; their operational conclusions remind capital that innovation diffusion may enhance social values while shortening the time for original projects' exclusive value.

After the fall of numerous stars, what remains are the product paradigms inherited by the industry, the commercial gaps exposed, and a set of stricter system requirements. The next round of truly scarce projects will be those that can keep users consistently coming back, retain value within the system, find bearers of risk, and secure long-term budgets for maintenance. Technological leadership and financing capabilities cannot replace commercial closure. The best legacy left by pioneers is to allow later arrivals to see earlier: for an innovation to reach infrastructure status, it needs a complete system to support its success.

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。