PROJECT SELECTION: COMPLETE CHECKLIST
«Altseason — Invite Only»
CRYPTO CAMP ACADEMY
Project Fundamentals
What the project does, its fundamentals, what problem it solves, whether it is truly useful (not just speculative), and whether the roadmap goals are realistic.
The team and the founder.
A real, professional team with a certain number of full-time developers, and a CEO with experience and relevant education.
Investors
Analysis of investors and investment rounds, token price at which different rounds were purchased.
Tokenomics
Project tokenomics and token distribution, lock-ups for team and participants.
Project Fundamentals
Fundamental analysis (FA) of a crypto project helps determine its long-term value and investment potential. Unlike technical analysis, which focuses on charts and price movements, fundamental analysis evaluates the core characteristics of the project: its technology, team, token economy, demand, real-world use, and risks.
Here’s a clear plan to help assess the fundamental value of a crypto project:
Here’s a clear plan to help assess the fundamental value of a crypto project:
Project fundamentality in the crypto market
Which level blockchain is the project — L0, L1, L2, L3? And what are the use cases of the network token — is it only for speculation or does it have real utility?
Priority ranking:
Priority ranking:
- L0 projects – blockchains on which other blockchains and ecosystems are built.
- L1 projects – independent blockchains with their own ecosystem.
- L2 projects – solve important tasks on L1 blockchains.
- DeFi infrastructure – key protocols in the ecosystem; dominant players in their sector: DEXs, lending protocols, bridges, AI infrastructure, etc.
- Other ecosystem projects – lower-level, like games, wallets, exchanges, etc.
- Utility Token – used to pay for services within the ecosystem (example: BNB, MATIC).
- And others.
- If the only use of the token is speculation, it’s not an immediate red flag, but it clearly indicates that the project is not fundamentally strong.
What problem does the project solve? Does it have real utility, or was it created just for fun?
What specific problem does the project solve?
Is this problem real, or is it fabricated for marketing purposes?
Is there demand for the solution (which companies, users, or investors are interested)?
⚠ Red flags:
Is this problem real, or is it fabricated for marketing purposes?
Is there demand for the solution (which companies, users, or investors are interested)?
⚠ Red flags:
- The problem is unclear or too vague.
- The project doesn’t offer fundamentally new solutions and just copies others (riding the hype).
- The stated problem has already been solved by successful projects.
Real users of the project
No matter how cool and promising a project looks on paper, the best way to check if it has real users is to go to DappRadar and look at the number of users, and also check DeFiLlama to see the total value locked (TVL) in the project or the funds it processes.
Social media rating and who the project’s followers are
In cryptocurrency, social media—like Twitter—carries a much stronger significance than in other fields. For example, if a project is followed by major accounts of important investors, funds, or notable personalities, it indicates that the project is genuinely attracting interest from reputable people. On the other hand, if the project is only followed by a few exchanges and low-rated crypto accounts, it’s worth questioning how genuinely interesting the project is.
You can check this on twitterscore.io.
You can check this on twitterscore.io.
Roadmap
Roadmap is the project’s strategic development plan, showing key stages, goals, and deadlines. Proper analysis of the roadmap helps assess the project’s real prospects and reliability.
- Is there an official roadmap on the website or in the Whitepaper?
- How detailed is it – are specific milestones outlined or only general goals?
- Are deadlines indicated, or is everything vague?
- Compare actual progress with what is planned in the roadmap.
- Is there enough time allocated to complete complex tasks?
- Are there scaling milestones, or just promises of token price growth?
- Are there technical points, or is it all about “token growth”?
- No roadmap or too abstract.
- Promises without clear deadlines.
- Project promises too rapid growth without logical reasoning.
- Many promises, but no completed milestones.
- Project frequently delays deadlines without explanation.
- No plans for technological development, only talks about the token, listing, price growth.
- Unrealistic growth promises (e.g., “100,000 users in 3 months”).
- Number of active users of the project and transaction data — https://dappradar.com/
- Amount of locked funds in the protocol / funds on bridges / other liquidity metrics — https://defillama.com/
💬 Hi everyone! Today we’ll analyze two projects – Amazy and Chia Network.
One of them is a complete scam, disguised as a legitimate project, and the other is fairly fundamental but not so obvious. We’ll compare them across key indicators and, in the end, draw a conclusion: should you add them to your portfolio or stay away? 🚀
Let’s go! 🔍
One of them is a complete scam, disguised as a legitimate project, and the other is fairly fundamental but not so obvious. We’ll compare them across key indicators and, in the end, draw a conclusion: should you add them to your portfolio or stay away? 🚀
Let’s go! 🔍
Andrew Kabatov
Fundamentality of the projects: Chia vs. Amazy
Criterion | Chia Network | Amazy |
Blockchain Level | L1 – independent blockchain | Ecosystem project (Web3 fitness) |
Token Usage | XCH token is used for Proof-of-Space-and-Time (PoST), mining rewards | Main token usage – in-game economy and speculation |
Fundamentality | Has unique technology and its own blockchain | No own network, uses existing infrastructure |
Priority Rating | High priority (L1) | Low priority (ecosystem project) |
⚠ Red Flags | High token inflation | Token has no real utility beyond in-game use, speculative |
📌 Conclusion: Chia Network is fundamentally stronger, as it is an L1 blockchain with unique technology, whereas Amazy is a speculative ecosystem project without its own network.
Criterion | Chia Network | Amazy |
Which problem is being solved? | High energy consumption of mining (eco-friendly blockchain) | Motivating people to exercise via "Move-to-Earn" model |
Is the problem real? | Yes, high energy demand is a real challenge for blockchains (Bitcoin, Ethereum pre-PoS) | Debatable solution – people already exercise without tokens; incentive is temporary |
Is there demand for the solution? | Partially – miners are interested, but adoption remains low | There was demand during the hype, but after Move-to-Earn crash, projects lose popularity |
⚠ Red flags | Low real-world usage – institutional clients don’t use it | Main interest is speculation, no long-term value proposition |
📌 Conclusion: Chia Network provides a technological solution to a real problem, though demand is limited. Amazy was created to ride the Move-to-Earn trend, without long-term value.
Criterion | Chia Network | Amazy |
Number of users | Low – the network functions, but there’s no mass adoption; project is in early stage | High growth initially, but activity dropped after the Move-to-Earn market crashed |
DappRadar / DeFiLlama | No data – project is not DeFi-oriented | Activity sharply declined after the first few months |
TVL (Total Value Locked) | No TVL, as the blockchain operates on a mining model | Low TVL, players leaving the ecosystem |
⚠ Red flags | Network not active enough, few developers | Project “died” almost immediately after the hype faded |
📌 Conclusion: Both projects lack a significant number of active users, but Chia Network continues to function and develop, offering technical value for future users, whereas Amazy is rapidly losing interest.
Criterion | Chia Network | Amazy |
Roadmap available? | Yes, published in Whitepaper and on the website | Yes, but not detailed; mostly points related to the token |
Level of detail | Clear development stages, plans for DeFi and institutional adoption | General promises focused on marketing |
Actual progress | Many stages delayed, but development continues | Many promises, but after the Move-to-Earn crash, the Roadmap became irrelevant |
Realistic plans | Yes, but requires more time for adoption | No – Roadmap was aimed only at hype |
⚠ Red flags | Delays in implementation, limited demand | Promises unfulfilled, focus on "token price growth" |
📌 Conclusion: Chia Network has a genuine Roadmap, even with delays. Amazy does not fulfill its promises, and after the hype faded, there is almost no information about the project's development.
Conclusion
Criterion | Chia Network | Amazy |
Fundamental Strength | L1 blockchain with a unique PoST model | Move-to-Earn project without its own network |
Usefulness | Solves energy efficiency problem, but adoption is low | More marketing than real utility |
Real Users | Low activity, few developers | Initial hype spike, but users leave |
Roadmap | Exists, but implementation is slow | Promises unfulfilled, project losing relevance |
Overall Rating | Medium (has technological value, but low demand) | Very low (hype-driven, fades quickly) |
✅ Chia Network – fundamentally stronger project, but not mass-adopted. ⚠ Amazy – speculative project that did not stand the test of time. From an investment perspective, Chia Network is a reasonable choice, though not immediately obvious. Amazy failed after the Move-to-Earn crash and no longer holds interest.
TEAM AND PROJECT FOUNDER
Why is it important to analyze a project’s founders and team before investing?
In the crypto world, investors often encounter projects that look promising at first glance: sleek websites, bold statements, and promises of high returns. However, without a strong team, even the most ambitious idea may remain just on paper.
Founders and the team are key factors determining whether a project can implement its strategy and achieve success. Experienced, transparent, and skilled developers, business analysts, and marketers can adapt to market changes, attract investments, and grow the product. Conversely, anonymous or questionable founders without experience in the crypto industry significantly increase investment risks.
Crypto history shows that many successful projects (like Ethereum, Solana, Binance) were led by talented leaders who built strong teams and turned ideas into reality. On the other hand, there are projects with ambitious promises but inexperienced teams that quickly became scams or failed due to poor management.
Therefore, analyzing the team is not just a formality—it’s a crucial step in selecting reliable investment projects. In crypto, where traditional protection mechanisms are limited, the people behind the project often determine its success or failure.
In the crypto world, investors often encounter projects that look promising at first glance: sleek websites, bold statements, and promises of high returns. However, without a strong team, even the most ambitious idea may remain just on paper.
Founders and the team are key factors determining whether a project can implement its strategy and achieve success. Experienced, transparent, and skilled developers, business analysts, and marketers can adapt to market changes, attract investments, and grow the product. Conversely, anonymous or questionable founders without experience in the crypto industry significantly increase investment risks.
Crypto history shows that many successful projects (like Ethereum, Solana, Binance) were led by talented leaders who built strong teams and turned ideas into reality. On the other hand, there are projects with ambitious promises but inexperienced teams that quickly became scams or failed due to poor management.
Therefore, analyzing the team is not just a formality—it’s a crucial step in selecting reliable investment projects. In crypto, where traditional protection mechanisms are limited, the people behind the project often determine its success or failure.
Experience and Reputation of Founders and Team
When analyzing a crypto project’s team, pay attention to:
- Previous experience: Have they worked on successful crypto projects or in related fields like finance, IT, blockchain, or venture capital?
- Involvement in notable companies: Were they connected to large-scale projects or reputable blockchain companies?
- Crypto-specific background: Do they understand the nuances of the cryptocurrency market, blockchain technologies, and Web3 ecosystems?
- History in the crypto space: Have the founders ever been involved in scams, fraudulent projects, or shady schemes?
- Current focus: Are they fully dedicated to this project, or are they splitting their attention across multiple initiatives?
- The team lacks technical expertise, hands-on development experience, or strong foundational education.
- Key members have no prior involvement in crypto projects.
- ✅ A team with relevant experience, full commitment, and a clean reputation is far more likely to execute the project successfully.
Transparency and Openness of the Team
Public Profiles and Communication Channels
When evaluating a crypto project’s team, check:
When evaluating a crypto project’s team, check:
- Public profiles: Do the founders have active LinkedIn, Twitter, or other professional/social media accounts? Have they participated in podcasts, interviews, or panels?
- Communication channels: Are the founders reachable on Telegram, Discord, or X (Twitter)? Do they host AMA sessions or community Q&As?
- Team members display inflated or fake credentials, presenting mediocre experience as outstanding.
- The team has no identified members or lacks transparency.
- Founders and key players have no social media presence, or their accounts have very low credibility or engagement.
- ✅ Transparent, active, and reachable founders indicate accountability and a higher likelihood of project execution.
Development and Who Is Behind the Project
Development and GitHub
For a technological crypto project, it’s essential to check the development activity:
For a technological crypto project, it’s essential to check the development activity:
- Open-source code: Is the project’s code available publicly on platforms like GitHub?
- GitHub activity: Are there regular commits, updates, and releases, showing ongoing development?
- Team size: How many developers are actively working on the project? Are they sufficient for the scope of the project?
- No GitHub repository or code hasn’t been updated for a long time.
- Very few developers relative to the scale and marketing claims of the project.
- Developer count is decreasing over time, indicating declining activity.
Reputation in the Crypto Community / Industry
When analyzing a crypto project, it’s important to check what the community and industry say about the founders and key team members:
- Social media presence: Look at Twitter/X, Telegram, Discord, and crypto forums. What are people saying about the team?
- Industry opinion: Are they recognized as competent and reliable? Do other developers, investors, or influencers support or mention them positively?
- Patterns in feedback: Are complaints about dishonesty, delays, or mismanagement recurring?
- Team members were previously involved in scams or fraudulent schemes.
- Team lacks prior experience in crypto or related industries.
- Reputation in the community is generally poor or untrustworthy, even if they claim to have “changed ways.”
- ✅ Positive feedback and a solid reputation in the crypto industry indicate reliability and increase the likelihood of project success.
Number of active developers working on a crypto project — check https://www.developerreport.com/
GitHub activity: Every serious crypto project should have a public GitHub repository. Activity should be visible (commits, updates, issues). Usually, the link is on the project’s website or on platforms like CoinMarketCap: https://github.com/
Team/Twitter analytics: Use https://twitterscore.io/ to check the Twitter accounts of founders and team members.
GitHub activity: Every serious crypto project should have a public GitHub repository. Activity should be visible (commits, updates, issues). Usually, the link is on the project’s website or on platforms like CoinMarketCap: https://github.com/
Team/Twitter analytics: Use https://twitterscore.io/ to check the Twitter accounts of founders and team members.
- High score + influential followers = positive sign.
- Only a few exchanges or medium-level accounts following = worth caution.
Teams of Chia & Amazy
✅ Founder – Bram Cohen
Chia Network is a technologically strong project with a transparent team and an experienced founder. Bram Cohen’s reputation in the IT industry adds reliability from an investor’s perspective. However, market fluctuations, coin price drops, and challenges in commercial adoption present real-world risks.
- One of the most renowned developers in tech, creator of BitTorrent, which revolutionized P2P networks.
- Extensive experience in programming and cryptography, increasing trust in the project.
- Active in media, participates in interviews, and engages with the community.
- Specialists with experience from Google, Nasdaq, Tradehill.
- Key team members, including engineers, lawyers, and business developers, are detailed on the official website.
- Focus on institutional adoption: aims to integrate with traditional financial systems, engaging with SEC and banks.
- Open and active development on GitHub.
- Secured venture funding, indicating interest from major investors.
- Strong community reputation, no scandals or fraud allegations.
Chia Network is a technologically strong project with a transparent team and an experienced founder. Bram Cohen’s reputation in the IT industry adds reliability from an investor’s perspective. However, market fluctuations, coin price drops, and challenges in commercial adoption present real-world risks.
Amazy
❌ Founders – Vladislav Urazov & Artem Nikonov
Amazy was a hype-driven project focused on marketing rather than technology. The founders lacked blockchain experience, and there was no strong development team or long-term plan. After the Move-to-Earn trend faded and token prices dropped, trust in the project evaporated, making it highly risky for investors.
❌ Founders – Vladislav Urazov & Artem Nikonov
- Vladislav Urazov: known as a blogger, influencer, and entrepreneur, but no experience in blockchain development.
- Artem Nikonov: entrepreneur in marketing, lacks technical experience in crypto projects.
- Unlike Chia, Amazy lacks transparency regarding key developers or a technical director.
- Focus was on marketing and influencers, not on technology.
- No info about technical team – a major red flag for investors.
- Initially had strong influencer support and active marketing campaigns.
- After the AMT token launch, its price plummeted, leading to accusations of pump-and-dump.
- Community complaints arose about opaque tokenomics and rapid devaluation.
Amazy was a hype-driven project focused on marketing rather than technology. The founders lacked blockchain experience, and there was no strong development team or long-term plan. After the Move-to-Earn trend faded and token prices dropped, trust in the project evaporated, making it highly risky for investors.
Final comparison:
Conclusion:
Criterion | Chia Network | Amazy |
Founder | Bram Cohen (creator of BitTorrent) | Vladislav Urazov (blogger), Artem Nikonov (marketer) |
Technical Expertise | High (experienced developers) | Low (unknown developers) |
Team Transparency | Open team, LinkedIn profiles and biographies | Little information about the team |
Investor Support | Backed by venture capital | Influencers only, no major investors |
GitHub / Code | Open-source, active development | No public code |
Reputation | High, oriented towards institutional investors | Questionable, accused of pump-and-dump |
Rating | High (strong team and founder) | Low (project only interesting for hype/marketing) |
Conclusion:
- Chia Network – a project with a strong technical team, transparent structure, and a reputable founder. Its long-term potential depends on successful commercial adoption and continued development.
- Amazy – a hype-driven project focused on marketing rather than technology, lacking transparency and a solid development background. The risks were obvious from the start, and the outcome was predictable: loss of interest and a sharp drop in token value.
Investors and Stakeholders
Investors play a key role in the development of a crypto project. Their presence can indicate high project potential, but it is important to analyze not only the fact of investment but also its structure, terms, and objectives.
Identification of key investors and their rating
Where to look for information:
- Official project website (sections like “Investors” or “Partners”)
- Investment tracking platforms: Crunchbase, Messari, DeFiLlama
- Analysis of project wallets via Etherscan, DeBank, Arkham Intelligence (we’ll learn how to use these later)
- Venture Capital (VC) – strategic players with experience in crypto. Examples: a16z, Binance Labs, Sequoia, Pantera Capital.
- Crypto funds and market makers – provide liquidity and support ecosystem growth. Examples: Jump Trading, Wintermute, Alameda Research (formerly).
- Angel investors – major market players or founders of successful crypto projects. Examples: Vitalik Buterin, Naval Ravikant, SBF (before FTX).
- Retail investors (IDO, ICO, IEO) – mass individual investors attracted via token sales.
- Investors are not disclosed or only minor unknown funds are listed.
- No information on funding rounds in official sources.
- Project claims secret strategic investors – probably false.
- No high-quality funds involved (there should be at least a few from top 10 lists).
Funding Round Structure
Main Types of Investment Rounds:
- Seed / Pre-seed – early investments for MVPs, usually high risk.
- Private Sale / Strategic Round – investments for development, typically under private terms.
- Public Sale (ICO / IDO / IEO) – open token sale, high level of speculation.
- Venture Round / Series A, B – traditional venture capital investments for project scaling.
- Investment Size – how much money the project raised, and is it enough for the stated Roadmap?
- Token Sale Terms – did early investors have vesting, or did they receive tokens immediately?
- Team & Fund Allocation – if the team holds too many tokens, there is a high risk of immediate sell-off (“dump”).
- Low funding – the project claims big plans but raised little, or relies mostly on retail investors.
- No vesting – early investors can sell tokens immediately after listing.
- Overvalued project – raising $100M in early stages without a working product is a warning sign.
Influence of Investors on a Project
It’s not enough to just know which funds invested; strong investors actively contribute to the project’s growth and credibility.
Key Points to Analyze:
Key Points to Analyze:
- Active Involvement – Check if the fund is helping with development, marketing, or strategic partnerships, or if it only provided capital.
- Participation in Grants and Partnerships – Some funds help the project access government grants, enterprise clients, or collaborative initiatives.
- Governance Role – In decentralized projects, some funds may have a role in voting or governance, influencing project decisions.
- Reputation and Network – Strong investors often bring valuable industry connections and credibility.
- ✅ Polygon (MATIC) – Supported by Sequoia, Tiger Global, Binance Labs, which helped establish partnerships with institutional clients.
- ✅ Arbitrum (ARB) – Backed by a16z and Sequoia, becoming a leading Layer-2 solution due to investor guidance and connections.
- Investors do not engage after the funding round.
- Venture funds immediately sell (dump) tokens after vesting periods (check via Lookonchain, Nansen).
- Investors have a history of market manipulation or involvement in shady schemes (e.g., Alameda Research & FTX).
Monitoring Investor Activity After Funding
How to Check Investor Behavior
Understanding how investors act after funding helps evaluate the project’s real support and risk level.
Methods to Monitor Investors:
✅ Optimism (OP) – a16z continues strategic support after investing.
✅ Injective Protocol (INJ) – Binance Labs not only invested but actively develops the ecosystem.
Red Flags:
Understanding how investors act after funding helps evaluate the project’s real support and risk level.
Methods to Monitor Investors:
- On-Chain Data Analysis:Track large wallet transactions through tools like Etherscan, Arkham, Nansen.
- Look for token sales, transfers, and accumulation patterns.
- ⚠ Red flag: sudden large sales right after vesting periods.
- Venture Fund Reports:Check if VC funds publish updates or continue supporting the project.
- Look for strategic involvement, advisory roles, or additional funding rounds.
- ⚠ Red flag: investors disappear from public updates, showing no ongoing involvement.
- Social Activity:Observe if investors actively promote the project via Twitter, blogs, or conferences.
- Positive signal: investor engagement boosts community trust and adoption.
✅ Optimism (OP) – a16z continues strategic support after investing.
✅ Injective Protocol (INJ) – Binance Labs not only invested but actively develops the ecosystem.
Red Flags:
- Funds remain silent after investment – possible early sell-off.
- Large on-chain transactions immediately after vesting unlocks.
- Price spikes and crashes without news – potential insider selling.
- Investors with low credibility or unknown reputation.
- Platforms for tracking information about investors — https://messari.io/, https://www.crunchbase.com/, https://www.cypherhunter.com/en
- You can also check funds with ratings and investment rounds — https://dropstab.com/
TIER 1
Аnadreessen Horowitz - https://a16z.com/
Polychain Capital - https://polychain.capital/
Digital CurrencyGroup - https://dcg.co/
Coinbase Ventures - https://ventures.coinbase.com/
Fenbushi Capital - https://www.fenbushicapital.vc/
Arrington - https://arringtonxrpcapital.com/
Panter Capital https://panteracapital.com/
#HASHED - https://www.hashed.com/
Alameda Research - https://www.alameda-research.com/
AU21 CAPITAL - https://au21.capital/
Placeholder - https://placeholder.vc/
Аnadreessen Horowitz - https://a16z.com/
Polychain Capital - https://polychain.capital/
Digital CurrencyGroup - https://dcg.co/
Coinbase Ventures - https://ventures.coinbase.com/
Fenbushi Capital - https://www.fenbushicapital.vc/
Arrington - https://arringtonxrpcapital.com/
Panter Capital https://panteracapital.com/
#HASHED - https://www.hashed.com/
Alameda Research - https://www.alameda-research.com/
AU21 CAPITAL - https://au21.capital/
Placeholder - https://placeholder.vc/
Тier 2
KR1 - https://www.kryptonite1.co/
Spark - https://www.sparkdigitalcapital.com/
NGC Ventures - https://ngc.fund/
Binance Labs - https://research.binance.com/
Blockdream Ventures(OKEx fund) - https://www.okex.com/blockdream-ventures
Huobi Capital - https://www.huobi.com/
MIH - https://mih.vc/
KR1 - https://www.kryptonite1.co/
Spark - https://www.sparkdigitalcapital.com/
NGC Ventures - https://ngc.fund/
Binance Labs - https://research.binance.com/
Blockdream Ventures(OKEx fund) - https://www.okex.com/blockdream-ventures
Huobi Capital - https://www.huobi.com/
MIH - https://mih.vc/
Tier 3
Morningstart Ventures - https://morningstar.ventures/
Coin98 Ventures - https://coin98.ventures/
Hypersphere Ventures - https://hypersphere.ventures/
Solidity Ventures - https://www.solidity.ventures/
Moonwhale - https://moonwhale.io/
Kyros Ventures - https://kyros.ventures/
X21 - https://x21digital.com/
Moonrock Capital - https://www.moonrockcapital.io/
Vendetta Capital - https://vendetta.capital/
Morningstart Ventures - https://morningstar.ventures/
Coin98 Ventures - https://coin98.ventures/
Hypersphere Ventures - https://hypersphere.ventures/
Solidity Ventures - https://www.solidity.ventures/
Moonwhale - https://moonwhale.io/
Kyros Ventures - https://kyros.ventures/
X21 - https://x21digital.com/
Moonrock Capital - https://www.moonrockcapital.io/
Vendetta Capital - https://vendetta.capital/
BACKERS OF Chia & Amazy
Chia Network
- Key Investors:
- Andreessen Horowitz (a16z): One of the leading venture capital firms in Silicon Valley, known for investing in tech startups and crypto projects.
- Slow Ventures: A fund that invests in early-stage technology companies.
- IDEO CoLab Ventures: Invests in innovative projects related to design and technology.
- Richmond Global Ventures: A fund focused on global technology investments.
- Funding Rounds:
- Series D (May 24, 2021): Raised $61 million at a $500 million valuation. (source: cryptorank.io)
- Strategic Round (August 11, 2020): Amount undisclosed.
- Investor Impact:
- Having well-known funds like a16z on board indicates strong confidence in the project and its potential. These investors provide not only financial support but also contribute to the project’s development through their networks and expertise.
Amazy
- Key Investors:
- Unlike some competitors, Amazy has not attracted major venture capital funds. The main focus is on collaboration with media personalities and influencers. Among them:
- Sergey Kosenko: Well-known blogger and entrepreneur.
- Over 100 other influencers: According to the founders, they received allocations in the project in exchange for media support.
- Investment Structure:
- The project did not attract traditional venture investments, relying instead on marketing support from influencers. This may imply a lack of the strict oversight and auditing typical of VC-backed projects, as well as the fact that no reputable fund would invest in a “hollow” project.
- Investor Impact:
- Since the main “investors” are influencers, their contribution is primarily in promoting the project to a wide audience. The absence of institutional investors may indicate a lack of long-term financial support and strategic guidance.
Conclusion:
Chia Network attracted significant investments from leading venture capital funds, reflecting strong confidence in the project and its potential. In contrast, Amazy relied on media support from influencers, which provided broad audience reach but may not guarantee the project’s long-term sustainability and development.
Chia Network attracted significant investments from leading venture capital funds, reflecting strong confidence in the project and its potential. In contrast, Amazy relied on media support from influencers, which provided broad audience reach but may not guarantee the project’s long-term sustainability and development.
TOKENOMICS
BTC TOKENOMICS
Bitcoin (BTC) is a unique asset with transparent and predetermined tokenomics based on scarcity, issuance, and the halving mechanism. Let’s break it down.
1. Key Parameters of Bitcoin TokenomicsFixed Supply (21 million BTC)
Bitcoin will not disappear, but its future depends on demand, regulation, and technological changes.
1. Key Parameters of Bitcoin TokenomicsFixed Supply (21 million BTC)
- The maximum number of bitcoins is 21,000,000.
- New bitcoins are created through mining and rewarded to miners for finding blocks.
- The limited supply makes BTC a scarce asset, often compared to “digital gold.”
- Bitcoins are rewarded to miners approximately every 10 minutes.
- Halving occurs every 210,000 blocks (~every 4 years), cutting the block reward in half:
- 2009: 50 BTC
- 2012: 25 BTC
- 2016: 12.5 BTC
- 2020: 6.25 BTC
- 2024 (April): 3.125 BTC
- The last BTC is expected to be mined around 2140.
- Circulating supply: ~19.6 million BTC
- Remaining to mine: ~1.4 million BTC (~6.7% of total supply)
- Annual inflation: ~1.7%; after the 2024 halving, it will drop to ~0.85%
- Long-term investors (HODLers): hold over 70% of BTC
- ~4–5 million BTC are lost forever (lost private keys)
- Large players (funds, exchanges): control significant BTC volumes
- In the first 7 years, 15 million BTC were mined out of 21 million
- Most bitcoins were distributed early; mining new coins is increasingly difficult
- Concentration of BTC in the hands of a few can create manipulation risks
- If most BTC is held by a small group (e.g., internal teams), price manipulation is possible
- Marketing and news were actively used to attract investors and increase BTC price
- Halving reduces the number of new bitcoins entering circulation, creating artificial scarcity and buying incentives
- Why Bitcoin’s Growth Could SlowLack of Fundamental ValueBTC does not generate dividends, interest, or income
- Its value relies entirely on demand and belief
- Pressure from Large HoldersFunds and miners may sell BTC over time, creating market pressure
- Rising CompetitionNew technologies (e.g., Solana, Ethereum Layer 2) offer faster and cheaper solutions
- Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) could reduce the need for BTC
- Bitcoin as Digital GoldDespite risks, BTC remains a key crypto-market asset and plays a central role in the blockchain industry
- Considered “digital gold” due to its limited supply
- Its growth momentum is slowing, so investors may explore new crypto projects with higher utility
Bitcoin will not disappear, but its future depends on demand, regulation, and technological changes.
Tokenomics (from the words token and economics) is the economics of a token — the set of principles, rules, and mechanisms that determine the creation, distribution, usage, and value of a token within a crypto project. Tokenomics plays a key role in the success of any blockchain project, as it establishes the economic incentives for users, investors, and developers.
Key Aspects of TokenomicsTokenomics typically includes the following main aspects:
Key Aspects of TokenomicsTokenomics typically includes the following main aspects:
- Token Type – Utility token, payment token, investment token, governance token, etc.
- Issuance Model – How many tokens will be created, when, and in what manner.
- Distribution Mechanisms – Who receives the tokens and under what rules.
- Token Use – The purpose of the token in the ecosystem and its functions.
- Inflation and Deflation Mechanisms – Factors that affect the total supply of tokens.
- Economic Incentives – Mechanisms that keep users and investors engaged with the project.
- Governance Mechanisms – Who and how decisions about project development are made.
Tokenomics
What to Check in Tokenomics
- Total Token Supply (Max Supply) – How many tokens exist in total.
- Will there be additional issuance? – Any future minting of tokens.
- Method of Token Creation – How new tokens are issued (Proof-of-Work, Proof-of-Stake, Staking Rewards, Airdrops, etc.).
- Token Release Schedule – Are tokens released gradually or is the full supply available immediately?
- Unlimited token issuance, which can lead to inflation and lack of control mechanisms.
- Most tokens are already in circulation while the project is just launching.
- The entire supply is immediately available to the team and investors — high risk of dumping.
- Whitepaper → Token Supply section
- TokenUnlocks.app (for monitoring issuance and vesting schedules)
Token Distribution Mechanisms
- What to Check in Token DistributionHow tokens are distributed – Team, investors, community, marketing, development, reserves, etc.
- Team and investor share – Safe level: less than 30% of total tokens.
- Vesting Period – Are there restrictions on selling tokens for early investors?
- Liquidity Allocation – How much is set aside for market liquidity.
- Team and early investors hold too large a share (>50%).
- Hidden issuance labeled as “useful,” but actually for team/marketing or irrelevant purposes.
- No vesting – allows instant selling on the market.
- Too many tokens in the “development fund” without clear rules for usage.
- Whitepaper → Token Allocation section
- TokenUnlocks.app → Vesting schedule
Token Utility in the Ecosystem
- What to Check in Token UtilityToken function – What does the token do? (e.g., pay fees, governance/voting, staking, etc.)
- Necessity of the token – Can the project operate without the token?
- Holder incentives – What benefits or rewards do token holders receive?
- No real use – the token exists only for trading.
- Token functions duplicate existing solutions (e.g., “just another DeFi token”).
Inflation and Deflation Mechanisms
- What to Check in Inflation and Deflation MechanismsWill new tokens be issued? – If yes, under what model.
- Is there a token burn mechanism? – Examples: BNB burn, Ethereum’s EIP-1559.
- Inflation rate – How fast is the token supply increasing.
- High uncontrolled inflation – the token can lose value quickly.
- No supply control mechanism – increases risk of long-term price decline.
Economic Incentives for Users and Investors
What to Check in Economic Incentives
- User retention mechanisms – How does the project keep users engaged? (e.g., staking, rewards, cashback).
- The only incentive is token price growth – no real utility.
- “Earn, invite, get rewards” mechanics – possible pyramid scheme signs.
Project Governance Mechanisms
What to Check in Governance
- Who controls the project? – Is it decentralized or centrally managed?
- Community voting rights – Does the community have a say via DAO?
- Decisions through Governance – What actions can be taken using governance mechanisms?
- Governance token without real power – votes don’t affect anything.
- Team holds >50% of voting power – the project is not decentralized.
Check all statistical information about the asset, investment rounds, purchase prices, as well as tokenomics and unlocks on this website:
Let’s take a closer look at the issuance model: token issuance determines how many tokens will be created and in what way.
Fixed Supply (Limited Issuance)There is a fixed number of tokens, like Bitcoin (21 million BTC).
Scarcity can drive price growth when demand increases.
Infinite Supply (Unlimited Issuance)New tokens are constantly issued, like Ethereum (no maximum ETH supply).
Requires mechanisms to control inflation.
Fixed Supply (Limited Issuance)There is a fixed number of tokens, like Bitcoin (21 million BTC).
Scarcity can drive price growth when demand increases.
Infinite Supply (Unlimited Issuance)New tokens are constantly issued, like Ethereum (no maximum ETH supply).
Requires mechanisms to control inflation.
МЕХАНИЗМЫ РАСПРЕДЕЛЕНИЯ
Распределение токенов — это один из важнейших аспектов токеномики, поскольку оно определяет, кто получит токены, когда и на каких условиях. Ошибки в этом процессе могут привести к дисбалансу спроса и предложения, что отрицательно скажется на проекте. Чтобы понять, стоит ли проект внимания, важно анализировать, кому достаются токены и как они распределяются во времени.
Основные категории распределения токенов
💡 Примечание: Оптимальные значения могут варьироваться в зависимости от типа проекта (DeFi, Layer 1, NFT, Gaming, DAO и т. д.), но вот общие рекомендации.
Вывод:
Оптимальная модель распределения:
Оптимальная модель вестинга:
Основные категории распределения токенов
💡 Примечание: Оптимальные значения могут варьироваться в зависимости от типа проекта (DeFi, Layer 1, NFT, Gaming, DAO и т. д.), но вот общие рекомендации.
Категория | Рекомендованный диапазон | Описание и цель |
Команда и основатели | 10–20% | Вознаграждение за создание и развитие проекта. Должен быть вестинг (2-4 года) + клифф. |
Ранние инвесторы (Seed / Private Sale) | 10–25% | Фонды и инвесторы, поддерживающие проект на ранних стадиях. Должен быть вестинг + период блокировки. |
Публичная продажа (ICO/IDO/IEO) | 1–10% | Токены, продаваемые через открытый сейл (crowdfunding). Обычно доступ сразу или с небольшим локапом. |
Комьюнити и экосистема | 20–40% | Поддержка пользователей, награды за стейкинг, геймификация, баунти-программы, airdrop. |
Фонды для развития проекта | 10–30% | Резерв для партнерств, грантов, инвестиций в рост проекта. |
Ликвидность (DEX, CEX) | 5–15% | Токены для обеспечения ликвидности на биржах (Uniswap, Curve, Binance и т. д.). |
Майнинг / Стейкинг награды | 10–50% | Если токен основан на PoS, PoW или механике награждения. |
Советники и партнеры | 1–5% | Вознаграждение ключевым партнерам, советникам проекта. Должен быть вестинг. |
Баг-баунти / Безопасность | 1–3% | Фонд для поиска уязвимостей, выплат хакерам за white-hat атаки. |
Говернанс и DAO | 5–15% | Управление проектом, распределение через голосования. |
Вывод:
Оптимальная модель распределения:
- Команда + инвесторы – <40%
- Комьюнити + экосистема – >40%
- Ликвидность + развитие – 10-20%
Оптимальная модель вестинга:
- Команда & инвесторы – разлок в течение 3+ лет.
- Комьюнити & экосистема – равномерное распределение на 2-5 лет.
- Ликвидность – 5-15% сразу, но не больше.
- Публичная продажа – 10-30% сразу, остальное в течение 6-12 месяцев.
- Фонды развития – 3-5 лет разлок.
- Стейкинг & майнинг – механизм постепенного уменьшения эмиссии.
Распределение токенов — это один из важнейших аспектов токеномики, поскольку оно определяет, кто получит токены, когда и на каких условиях. Ошибки в этом процессе могут привести к дисбалансу спроса и предложения, что отрицательно скажется на проекте. Чтобы понять, стоит ли проект внимания, важно анализировать, кому достаются токены и как они распределяются во времени.
Основные категории распределения токенов
💡 Примечание: Оптимальные значения могут варьироваться в зависимости от типа проекта (DeFi, Layer 1, NFT, Gaming, DAO и т. д.), но вот общие рекомендации.
Вывод:
Оптимальная модель распределения:
Оптимальная модель вестинга:
Основные категории распределения токенов
💡 Примечание: Оптимальные значения могут варьироваться в зависимости от типа проекта (DeFi, Layer 1, NFT, Gaming, DAO и т. д.), но вот общие рекомендации.
Категория | Рекомендованный диапазон | Описание и цель |
Команда и основатели | 10–20% | Вознаграждение за создание и развитие проекта. Должен быть вестинг (2-4 года) + клифф. |
Ранние инвесторы (Seed / Private Sale) | 10–25% | Фонды и инвесторы, поддерживающие проект на ранних стадиях. Должен быть вестинг + период блокировки. |
Публичная продажа (ICO/IDO/IEO) | 1–10% | Токены, продаваемые через открытый сейл (crowdfunding). Обычно доступ сразу или с небольшим локапом. |
Комьюнити и экосистема | 20–40% | Поддержка пользователей, награды за стейкинг, геймификация, баунти-программы, airdrop. |
Фонды для развития проекта | 10–30% | Резерв для партнерств, грантов, инвестиций в рост проекта. |
Ликвидность (DEX, CEX) | 5–15% | Токены для обеспечения ликвидности на биржах (Uniswap, Curve, Binance и т. д.). |
Майнинг / Стейкинг награды | 10–50% | Если токен основан на PoS, PoW или механике награждения. |
Советники и партнеры | 1–5% | Вознаграждение ключевым партнерам, советникам проекта. Должен быть вестинг. |
Баг-баунти / Безопасность | 1–3% | Фонд для поиска уязвимостей, выплат хакерам за white-hat атаки. |
Говернанс и DAO | 5–15% | Управление проектом, распределение через голосования. |
Вывод:
Оптимальная модель распределения:
- Команда + инвесторы – <40%
- Комьюнити + экосистема – >40%
- Ликвидность + развитие – 10-20%
Оптимальная модель вестинга:
- Команда & инвесторы – разлок в течение 3+ лет.
- Комьюнити & экосистема – равномерное распределение на 2-5 лет.
- Ликвидность – 5-15% сразу, но не больше.
- Публичная продажа – 10-30% сразу, остальное в течение 6-12 месяцев.
- Фонды развития – 3-5 лет разлок.
- Стейкинг & майнинг – механизм постепенного уменьшения эмиссии.
Токеномика проектов Chia и Amazy
Сравнение токеномики Chia Network (XCH)(скрин слева на фото выше) и AMAZY (AZY)( скрин справа на фото выше)
1️⃣ Общая информация
2️⃣ Фандрайзинг (раунды финансирования)
💡 Вывод по финансированию:
3️⃣ Распределение токенов (Token Allocation)
💡 Вывод по распределению токенов:
4️⃣ График разлоков (Vesting Schedule)
💡 Вывод по разлокам:
📌 Итог:
📌 Итог: ✅ Chia Network – фундаментально более сильный проект, но не массовый.
⚠ Amazy – спекулятивный проект, который не выдержал испытания временем.
Если рассматривать инвестиции, Chia Network – разумный вариант, но не такой очевидный на первый взгляд. Amazy не выдержало краха Move-to-Earn и уже не представляет интереса.
1️⃣ Общая информация
Критерий | Chia Network (XCH) | AMAZY (AZY) |
Дата запуска | 4 мая 2021 | 22 июля 2022 |
Тип проекта | L1 блокчейн (Proof of Space and Time) | Move-to-Earn платформа |
Модель монетизации | Майнинг (фарминг) | Геймификация, вознаграждения за активность |
Общий объем привлеченных инвестиций | $69.7 млн | $2.95 млн |
Использование токена | Оплата комиссий, вознаграждения майнерам | Внутренняя валюта экосистемы |
2️⃣ Фандрайзинг (раунды финансирования)
Раунд | Chia Network (XCH) | AMAZY (AZY) |
Pre-seed | Сентябрь 2017 (сумма неизвестна) | - |
Seed | Март 2018 – $3.4 млн | - |
Series A | Июль 2018 – $300 000 | - |
Series B | Июль 2020 – $5 млн | - |
Series D | Май 2021 – $61 млн | - |
Private Round 1 | - | Май 2022 – $1.2 млн (цена $0.0167) |
Private Round 2 | - | Июнь 2022 – $400 000 (цена $0.02) |
IDO (DAO Maker) | - | 14 июля 2022 – $250 000 (цена $0.025) |
IDO (Seedify) | - | 13 июля 2022 – $100 000 (цена $0.025) |
Influencers Allocation | - | Март 2022 – $1 млн (цена $0.0125) |
💡 Вывод по финансированию:
- Chia привлекла значительно больше средств ($69.7M) и финансировалась в традиционных VC-раундах.
- AMAZY собрал всего $2.95M, но ориентировался на IDO и партнерства с инфлюенсерами.
3️⃣ Распределение токенов (Token Allocation)
Категория | Chia Network (XCH) | AMAZY (AZY) |
Команда и основатели | 50% (основатели) | 12% (вестинг 48 месяцев) |
Проект/Эмиссия | 50% | - |
Фарминг и награды | - | 35% (разлок 59 месяцев) |
Казначейство (Treasury) | - | 14.6% (разлок 47 месяцев) |
Маркетинг и партнерства | - | 12% (разлок 11 месяцев) |
Инфлюенсеры | - | 8% (разлок 23 месяца) |
Private Sale (Инвесторы) | - | 7.2% (разлок 23–35 месяцев) |
IDO | - | 5% (разлок 5 месяцев) |
Ликвидность | - | 5% (разлок 11 месяцев) |
Советники (Advisors) | - | 2% (вестинг 11 месяцев) |
- Chia Network более централизован (50% у основателей, 50% – фарминг).
- AMAZY имеет более сложную токеномику, но значительная часть токенов идет на маркетинг и вознаграждения.
4️⃣ График разлоков (Vesting Schedule)
Категория | Chia Network (XCH) | AMAZY (AZY) |
Команда | Нет информации о вестинге | Клифф 12 месяцев, вестинг 48 месяцев |
Инвесторы | Нет вестинга | Частичный разлок 5–35 месяцев |
Фарминг и награды | Постепенная эмиссия | Вестинг 59 месяцев |
Казначейство | Постепенное распределение | Вестинг 47 месяцев |
Ликвидность | Неограниченная | 30% сразу, 70% за 11 месяцев |
- Chia Network использует модель постепенного майнинга, без жестких графиков вестинга.
- AMAZY имеет строгую вестинговую структуру (от 5 до 59 месяцев).
📌 Итог:
- Chia – фундаментальный долгосрочный блокчейн, но небыстрым развитием.
- AMAZY – хайповый Move-to-Earn проект с агрессивной токеномикой и маркетингом.
Финальный итог
Критерий | Chia Network (XCH) | AMAZY (AZY) |
Фундаментальность | Высокая | Низкая |
Долгосрочная перспектива | Есть | Практически отсутствует |
Токеномика | Структурированная, но не для спекуляций | Гиперинфляция, высокая доля маркетинга |
Инвесторы | Крупные фонды | Инфлюенсеры |
📌 Итог: ✅ Chia Network – фундаментально более сильный проект, но не массовый.
⚠ Amazy – спекулятивный проект, который не выдержал испытания временем.
Если рассматривать инвестиции, Chia Network – разумный вариант, но не такой очевидный на первый взгляд. Amazy не выдержало краха Move-to-Earn и уже не представляет интереса.
1
Сделайте себе на диск копию нашей таблицы по отбору проектов в портфель. Возьмите несколько проектов и пострайтесь провести самостоятельный анализ следующих проектов:
- Aptos (https://latoken.com/)
- Arbitrium (https://arbitrum.io/)
- Latoken (https://latoken.com/)
- Aurora (https://aurora.dev/)
- Flow (https://flow.com/)
