New crypto token launches are off to a brutal start in 2025, with the overwhelming majority trading far below their debut valuations.
Fresh analysis from Ash of Memento Research shows that 84.7% of tokens that held a Token Generation Event (TGE) this year are currently below their opening TGE prices. Out of 118 launches tracked in 2025, 100 tokens are underwater compared to where they first hit the market.
On a valuation basis, the picture looks even worse. The median token has lost 71% of its initial fully diluted valuation (FDV) since launch, while its market capitalization has shrunk by 67%. Only about 15% of new tokens are managing to hold or exceed their TGE valuations, turning what used to be seen as a “getting in early” advantage into a high-risk, low-reward bet for most retail traders.
Ash summarized the findings bluntly on X, calling 2025 token launches “mostly a bloodbath” and noting that roughly four out of five new projects trade below their opening valuations.
Biggest losers: 90%+ collapses from launch
A number of the year’s most heavily hyped tokens have posted catastrophic drawdowns.
– Syndicate (SYND) has seen one of the worst performances, collapsing 93.64% from a starting FDV of 940 million dollars to just 59.8 million.
– Animecoin (ANIME) followed closely, plunging 93.59% from 870 million dollars to 55.7 million.
– Berachain (BERA) dropped 93.17%, sliding from 4.46 billion dollars at launch to 305 million.
Several other projects are not far behind in terms of destruction:
– Bio Protocol (BIO) fell 93.05%, dropping from a 2.06 billion dollar FDV to 143 million.
– Xterio (XTER) nosedived 92.85% from 420 million to 30 million.
– Lit Protocol (LITKEY) is down 92.07%, from 210 million to 16.7 million.
Smaller-cap names haven’t escaped either:
– Yala (YALA) declined 91.61%, from 240 million to 20.1 million.
– Towns (TOWNS) is down 91.22%, from 691.8 million to 60.7 million.
– Nillion (NIL) has crashed 91.21%, from 720 million to 63.3 million.
Even venture-backed tokens are getting crushed
Previously, tokens backed by top-tier venture capital were often perceived as safer bets or at least more resilient. The 2025 data challenges that assumption.
– Mira (MIRA), which raised from prominent investors, has dropped 91.05% from a 1.4 billion dollar launch FDV to 125.4 million.
– Venice Token (VVV) declined 90.83% from 1.23 billion to 112.4 million.
The pattern suggests that even institutional backing and large fundraising rounds are not enough to protect token prices once they start trading freely. Elevated initial valuations, aggressive vesting schedules, and limited organic demand are proving lethal, regardless of who was on the cap table.
Both early- and late-2025 launches are suffering
The dataset spans token launches from both the first and second halves of 2025, and the pain is spread across the calendar.
– H1 2025 launches include Bio Protocol (BIO), Xterio (XTER), Berachain (BERA), and Nillion (NIL).
– H2 2025 launches include Syndicate (SYND), Animecoin (ANIME), Lit Protocol (LITKEY), Yala (YALA), and Towns (TOWNS).
The fact that tokens from both halves of the year show similar drawdowns indicates that this is not just a temporary market mood swing tied to a particular quarter. Instead, it looks more like a structural repricing of how the market values newly issued tokens.
Overpriced giants: massive FDV at launch, massive collapses after
A striking trend in 2025 is the disproportionate damage suffered by projects that came to market with bloated, nine- or ten-figure fully diluted valuations.
– Falcon Finance (FF) launched with a 6.7 billion dollar FDV and is now down 85.83% to 949.7 million.
– OG started at 4.9 billion and dropped 84.42% to 763.6 million.
– Plasma (XPL) entered with a staggering 12.97 billion dollar FDV and has fallen 89.93% to 1.31 billion.
– Anoma (XAN) declined 90.22% from 1.6 billion to 156.2 million.
– Plume slipped 87.84% from 1.3 billion to 158 million.
These figures highlight a recurring issue: projects launching with valuations that imply mature, large-scale adoption from day one, despite minimal real usage or revenue. When the hype fades and actual on-chain activity fails to justify those numbers, valuations collapse.
Smaller caps are not safe either
One might assume that more modest launches would fare better, but the numbers show otherwise.
– Balance (EPT) sank 90.60% from 170 million to 16 million.
– Tree (TREE) dropped 89.34% from 670 million to 71.4 million.
– Camp Network (CAMP) declined 89.11% from 637 million to 69.4 million.
Whether the initial FDV was in the hundreds of millions or in the multi-billion range, the outcome has been largely the same: steep, prolonged drawdowns and little sign of sustained price recovery for most new listings.
“TGE isn’t early anymore”: the end of launch-day edge
Ash’s core conclusion is simple but powerful: buying at TGE no longer equates to getting in early. In previous cycles, token launches were often framed as rare opportunities to capture upside before the wider market caught on. In 2025, that narrative appears to be broken.
With more than four out of five tokens now trading below their TGE valuations, launch participation looks less like early-stage investing and more like providing exit liquidity to earlier stakeholders, market makers, or pre-launch buyers who received allocations at lower effective prices.
This shift has significant implications for retail traders who still treat TGE or listing day as a default buy signal. The data suggests that, for many tokens, time is working in favor of patient observers rather than day-one participants.
Why are 2025 token launches performing so badly?
Several structural factors are likely converging to create this hostile environment for new tokens:
1. Excessive initial valuations
Many projects are debuting with FDVs that assume future dominance or mass adoption, long before they prove product-market fit. When growth fails to match these expectations, the market reprices sharply lower.
2. Liquidity versus supply overhang
Circulating supply at TGE is often small relative to the fully diluted amount. As vesting cliffs and unlocks kick in, more tokens hit the market, putting constant sell pressure on prices.
3. Weaker speculative mania
Compared to previous cycles, speculative demand appears more cautious. Traders are less willing to chase every new ticker, especially after repeated examples of 70–90% drawdowns.
4. Macro and regulatory uncertainty
Regulatory scrutiny, enforcement actions, and broader macroeconomic concerns have reduced risk appetite. This environment punishes tokens that rely mainly on narrative rather than clear utility or cash flows.
5. Information asymmetry
Early insiders, private round investors, and launchpad participants often enjoy much lower entry prices than the TGE or listing level. Retail users paying the highest price on day one are structurally disadvantaged.
What this means for retail investors
For individual traders and small investors, the message from 2025’s data is clear: TGE FOMO is more dangerous than ever.
– Day-one is rarely the bottom. For the median token, prices have moved significantly lower after launch. Waiting for the dust to settle may offer better entry points, if the project is worth backing at all.
– FDV matters more than ever. A token with a modest market cap but a massive FDV is often less “cheap” than it looks. The market eventually prices in the full supply, not just the fraction currently in circulation.
– Vesting and unlock schedules are critical. Understanding when and how much supply will be released can help investors avoid periods of intense sell pressure.
– Hype is not a thesis. Backing a token solely because it trends on social media, features flashy branding, or carries a popular narrative has rarely worked in 2025.
How to analyze new token launches more rigorously
In this environment, buyers need a more disciplined framework before touching any fresh listing:
1. Examine FDV relative to traction
Compare the launch valuation to actual metrics: users, transactions, fees, total value locked, or real-world revenue. Projects with “unicorn” valuations and near-zero usage should raise red flags.
2. Study token utility and value capture
Ask how the token accrues value. Does it earn protocol fees, govern critical parameters, or secure a network? Or is it mainly a speculative instrument with loosely defined use cases?
3. Check funding and insider terms
Major backers can be a positive signal for resources and network effects, but only if their cost basis and lockups suggest long-term alignment rather than short-term exit pressure.
4. Look at emissions and unlocks
Large, frequent unlocks can crush price, even if fundamentals are improving. A smoother, longer vesting schedule is usually healthier for price stability.
5. Assess roadmap and delivery history
A strong whitepaper and ambitious vision are not enough. Check what has already shipped, how fast the team iterates, and whether they communicate transparently when things go wrong.
Could this reset be healthy for the market?
As brutal as these drawdowns are, they may represent a necessary reset. Several potential long-term benefits can emerge from this painful phase:
– More realistic valuations at launch
Teams may be forced to reduce initial FDVs and raise more modest rounds, aligning prices more closely with fundamentals and leaving more room for upside if they execute.
– Better alignment between builders and investors
Harsh market conditions can discourage purely speculative launches and favor teams genuinely focused on product-market fit and sustainable token economics.
– Higher bar for participation
Retail investors, burned by repeated TGE losses, are likely to demand clearer value propositions, stronger transparency, and more conservative token structures before committing capital.
– Reduced noise, clearer signal
As low-quality projects fade, it becomes easier to identify genuinely innovative protocols with compelling technology, real users, and thoughtful governance designs.
The bottom line: TGE is no longer the “safe early bet”
The 2025 data set leaves little room for romanticizing token launches. With 84.7% of new tokens trading below their TGE valuations and the median FDV down 71%, the launch phase has become one of the riskiest moments to buy.
For traders and investors, adapting to this reality means:
– Treating TGE participation as a high-risk speculative trade, not an automatic early opportunity.
– Prioritizing deep fundamental analysis over hype cycles.
– Respecting valuation, unlock schedules, and actual usage data.
– Accepting that, in this cycle, patience and skepticism may be more profitable than chasing the newest ticker on day one.
In Ash’s words, “TGE isn’t early anymore.” For anyone still operating with last cycle’s playbook, 2025 has been a costly reminder that the rules of the game have changed.