/
Navigation
Chronicles
Browse all articles
Explore
Semantic exploration
Research
Entity momentum
Nexus
Correlations & relationships
Story Arc
Topic evolution
Drift Map
Semantic trajectory animation
Posts
Analysis & commentary
Pulse API
Tech news intelligence API
Browse
Entities
Companies, people, products, technologies
Domains
Browse by publication source
Handles
Browse by social media handle
Detection
Concept Search
Semantic similarity search
High Impact Stories
Top coverage by position
Sentiment Analysis
Positive/negative coverage
Anomaly Detection
Unusual coverage patterns
Analysis
Rivalry Report
Compare two entities head-to-head
Semantic Pivots
Narrative discontinuities
Crisis Response
Event recovery patterns
Connected
Search: /
Command: ⌘K
Embeddings: large
TEXXR

Chronicles

The story behind the story

days · browse · Enter similar · o open

Analysis of 3,759 non-stablecoin tokens: ~80% of freshly minted cryptocurrencies are underwater, with average one-year returns close to zero relative to bitcoin

The market for new tokens looks surprisingly efficient … Tweets: Leigh Drogen / @ldrogen : The issue with the Jump paper is that it intentionally leaves out any filtering whatsoever on the universe it measures Yea, if you include every nonsense thing listed on Coingecko no matter what there's no alpha in new issues https://www.bloomberg.com/...

Bloomberg Olga Kharif

Context & Ripple Effects

This Bloomberg study lands two weeks after a January analysis showing most coins underperform BTC and ETH over time, with VC-backed tokens delivering the worst returns of all — so the finding that roughly 80% of 3,759 freshly minted non-stablecoin tokens are underwater extends an already-established pattern from the broad market to the new-issue market specifically.

Leigh Drogen's pushback sharpens the interpretation: he argues the underlying paper applies no filtering to its universe, so measuring every Coingecko listing 'no matter what' mechanically produces no alpha in new issues. The debate is whether that is a bug (bad methodology) or the point (the average new token really is a zero-versus-bitcoin bet).

First-order effects

  • Buyers of fresh token listings learn that, unfiltered, the asset class offers no edge over simply holding bitcoin — issuers and exchanges whose listing pipelines monetize new launches face direct scrutiny over what those listings are actually worth to buyers.

Second-order effects

  • Capital concentrates further into BTC and ETH: if the marginal new token returns nothing relative to bitcoin, the liquidity premium of established assets tightens its grip, and VC token portfolios — already flagged as the worst performers in the January analysis — come under added pressure to justify their markups.

Third-order effects

  • If the pattern holds, token issuance stops functioning as an investment category and starts functioning as raw capacity supply — a trajectory later borne out by [[a:1161708|CoinGecko's finding that over half of the 20.2M tokens launched since 2021 are now inactive]] — echoing the same illiquidity dynamic seen when most OpenSea NFTs stopped trading altogether.

The trend: Crypto's new-issue market is maturing into an efficient, washout-prone segment where unfiltered fresh tokens deliver no alpha versus bitcoin, steadily consolidating value in a handful of established assets.

Discussion

  • @ldrogen Leigh Drogen on x
    The issue with the Jump paper is that it intentionally leaves out any filtering whatsoever on the universe it measures Yea, if you include every nonsense thing listed on Coingecko no matter what there's no alpha in new issues https://www.bloomberg.com/...