The logic and mindset I had when participating in early projects

Recently, at the end of some articles, readers have mentioned a very common question:

If I miss the earliest stage of a project, what mindset should I have to evaluate whether it is still worth participating?

An important concept mentioned in this question is "early stage."

However, in my experience, determining whether a project is still in its early stage is largely subjective, and it is difficult to have an objective standard.

It is very likely that something we think we have discovered is not new at all, while most people in the ecosystem have not encountered it yet; conversely, something we consider fresh may already be well-known to others in the ecosystem.

If I had to mention a general reference standard, it would be to look at the frequency with which Twitter and related media mention this sector or related projects.

But what constitutes "frequent" and what constitutes "not frequent" is again a matter of personal experience. After experiencing a few bull markets in the crypto ecosystem, investors may be able to establish a rough emotional judgment.

In addition, one can roughly refer to the total circulating market value (FDV) of a new project's token, comparing its FDV with the market value of tokens from more mature projects in the ecosystem.

For example, if the token ranked 100th now has an FDV of $1.3 billion, then if a token has an FDV of less than $1 billion, I think it is likely still in a stage of not much speculation.

For such projects, I do not consider price to be a factor of concern.

If we cannot find such projects based on the above standards, then missing out is just missing out, and there is nothing to regret— even if we see a project we once considered but let go of soaring later, we should not let emotions take over. Instead, we can reflect on whether we can adjust our judgment standards or learn any lessons for future opportunities.

If we are lucky and find such a project, the next thing I focus on is not the price but the fundamentals of the project: such as the sector, team, and development.

However, at this point, we often encounter another awkward situation: the project information is pitifully scarce, or it is completely blank.

At this time, I think what is most needed is courage— to boldly participate with assets that can be completely sacrificed according to one's own ideas.

For example, when I first saw the Virtuals platform, it was in this situation.

At that time, there were no interviews with project co-founders, and I can't quite remember where I saw the information about this platform, so I just curiously took a look at it.

After looking at it, I could roughly understand that it was financing AI agents in a manner similar to ICOs, but beyond that, I had no deeper understanding.

On the Virtuals platform at that time, the top three were the three AI agents supported by the project: LUNA, GAME, and CONVO. Then there were about a hundred or two hundred other alt agents.

I once mentioned in an article that I didn't have much feeling for LUNA.

As for GAME, when I looked at its introduction, I only had the impression that it was related to gaming, but there were no details about what this agent could actually do, let alone a detailed introduction.

As for CONVO, I also didn't quite understand it; I seemed to think it was related to the user experience of AI agents, but I couldn't find more information about its actual use.

For the remaining alt agents, I casually looked at a few and felt they were no different from GPT, probably just dressed up in flashy packaging.

So, in this situation, what was I thinking?

The first thing I thought was: VIRTUAL is a platform token; regardless of its success, other agents will have to rely on it to list their tokens, so I had to buy it.

And what about the others?

I couldn't possibly trust those alt tokens with no background, so after selecting, I could only choose from the three agents supported by the platform.

That was my logic.

I had no profound insights, no insider information, and certainly no foresight.

By the end of December, the GAME project suddenly announced that they had created an AI agent framework, which was a competitor to ELIZA, and from then on, the project token skyrocketed.

But how could I have known this when I bought GAME?

It was entirely the result of bold participation.