588 days, 300+ Web3 projects fall: who's still at the table?
Source: Foresight News Author: Eric Original title: In 588 days, 300+ Web3 projects sank into the deep sea and sailed a thousand sails by the side of a sinking ship, and the disease tree is ahead of time. On the way to prosperity, any industry must go through a round of “dead bodies are everywhere” of elimination, and Web3 is no exception. According to Foresight News's review of public information, since 2025, at least 78 Web3 projects with a total funding amount of more than 1.5 million US dollars have been announced to be shut down. Of these, 69 projects that can confirm the amount of financing have taken away more than 900 million US dollars in total. If you count the small projects that didn't get financing from institutions and died silently, the total number is far over 300. This means that over the past nearly 600 days, an average Web3 project died every two days, or was famous or unknown. Of the 75 projects counted by Foresight News, 37 were shut down throughout 2025, while 41 were shut down in just half of 2026, and 17 were shut down in a single quarter in the second quarter, setting the highest number in a single quarter since this round of clearance. The “hot” DappRadar, Zapper, and established exchanges including BitMEX and AscendEX (formerly BitMax) in the last round of the bull market have all put an end to their business careers in nearly two years. The reshuffle did not stop as the market picked up; on the contrary, it accelerated. After receiving millions of dollars or even tens of millions of dollars in financing, every team that has stepped into this new world has had the proud ambition of “laughing at the sky and going out. Are our generation people from Fenghao?” But after a few years of being baptized in the market, these cold and cruel numbers are still in front of everyone's eyes. Emerging markets are also markets, and Web3 isn't more gentle than other industries. “Not being able to support myself” is the number one “cause of death”. Looking at the “cause of death” of 75 projects, the first one ranked was “insufficient funding,” with 31 projects falling on this issue, accounting for more than 40%; followed by “insufficient market demand,” and 17 companies shut down as a result. The two added up are close to two-thirds of the total. In other words, the vast majority of projects die for only one reason: they have never been able to support themselves. The expressions used by these projects in the shutdown announcement are similar. Many of them say “after trying our best to find a path to sustainable development, we have not found a path to sustainable development.” The subtext of this sentence is: At the beginning of the project, there was actually no idea how to do it, or the initial idea was very different from the actual situation in the market. Some industry observers rated this wave of bankruptcy as “a direct reflection of the failure of the business model and the breakdown of the capital chain, rather than simply fluctuating market sentiment,” which can be described as hitting the head. The investment logic of the primary market has completely changed in the past two years. The first question investors meet is no longer “how much room do you have for imagination”, but “how to make money.” The first batch of projects whose revenue did not cover operating costs or tell a new story fell after the financing floodgates were tightened. The OSL Institute summarized this shift in its annual report as the industry moving from the “first half” to the “second half”: a growth model driven by rising asset prices and innovative agreements came to an end, and the market moved “from narrative to delivery.” To put it more bluntly, the market and capital are no longer willing to pay for “experiments,” and the project's self-hematopoietic ability has become a necessity. Compared to the reason they wanted to be clear, the five projects that announced that the “model is unsustainable” seemed much more honest. For example, Goldfinch, which made unsecured credit loans, lost blood and shut down due to continued bad loans to emerging market companies; the social game Fantasy.Top, which is a popular social game that relies on tokens to motivate, makes it difficult to sustain the incentive model after the popularity recedes. The “unsustainable model” is a very interesting reason for the collapse. Most unsecured credit loans in traditional financial markets are based on big data or personal past credit records to set reasonable limits. As an emerging “lending company,” Goldfinch dares to provide unsecured credit loans in emerging markets without credit data. This is not a problem that can be solved by cryptocurrency and Web3 alone. Obviously, the reason for the birth of this company with a total financing amount of nearly 40 million is hard to convince. I don't know how top institutions like a16z were fooled into entering the market. Additionally, some companies have died due to regulation. Mango Markets shut down through a community vote after reaching a settlement with the SEC...
