Hey there, crypto enthusiasts! If you’ve been keeping an eye on the blockchain space, you might have stumbled across a thought-provoking tweet from Ignas | DeFi dated July 25, 2025. Ignas raises a burning question: “Is this still valid for 2021?”—referring to a now-famous thread by blockchain investigator ZachXBT that listed the top 10 worst crypto venture capital (VC) firms. Let’s unpack this, explore the context, and figure out if these warnings still hold weight in 2025.

What’s the Buzz About?

Back in December 2021, ZachXBT dropped a thread that sent shockwaves through the crypto community. He named names—Moonwhale, Moonrock Capital, X21 Digital, Momentum 6, Master Ventures, DCI Crypto, Morningstar VC, Blocksync VC, Magnus Fund, and Banter Capital—as VCs with a track record of backing “cash grabs” and even outright scams. The criteria? Little to no vesting periods, launchpads, and vaporware (projects with big promises but no substance). Ignas’ recent tweet links back to this list, wondering if it’s still relevant today.

Why Should You Care?

Venture capital firms play a huge role in the crypto world. They fund early-stage projects, helping them grow, but not all VCs have your best interests at heart. If a VC is known for pumping and dumping tokens—buying low, hyping the project, then selling off quickly—it can leave regular investors (that’s you!) holding the bag. ZachXBT’s list was a red flag for projects tied to these firms, and Ignas is asking if we should still steer clear in 2025.

Digging Into the 2021 List

Let’s break down why these VCs made the naughty list. ZachXBT pointed to patterns like short vesting periods (where investors can sell tokens almost immediately) and ties to influencer shilling (paid promotions without disclosure). For example, Moonrock Capital was called out for projects like Polkamon ($PMON) and Polkamarkets ($POLK), where early investors allegedly dumped tokens on retail buyers. Moonwhale, meanwhile, was linked to rugs like $KPAD and $POLA. The thread even included visuals—charts and screenshots—showing suspicious price drops post-launch.

Ignas’ tweet sparked a lively discussion. Some users, like @waleswoosh, questioned the “worst” label, while others, like @MaransCrypto, hinted at specific projects (e.g., $TIA) to avoid. @Eugene_Bulltime and @milaidik dug into Moonrock Capital, with Ignas admitting he was just learning about their shady past. The consensus? The list might still have legs, with @joaonflages and @0xMitesh suggesting it could apply through 2023—or even now.

Is It Still Valid in 2025?

Fast forward to today, July 26, 2025, and the crypto landscape has evolved. The 2021 bull run is a distant memory, replaced by new trends like meme coins and AI-driven DeFi. But does that mean these VCs have cleaned up their act? Not necessarily. Many of these firms operated on a model that prioritized quick gains over long-term value, a strategy that can still thrive in today’s hype-driven market—especially with meme tokens.

Without real-time data (I’d love to search for updates, but let’s work with what we know!), we can infer that reputation sticks in crypto. If these VCs haven’t publicly reformed—say, with transparent vesting schedules or legit project portfolios—their past could still signal risk. Projects backed by them might attract attention but could be primed for dumps, especially if tokenomics favor early investors.

Which Projects to Avoid?

So, what should you watch out for? While Ignas’ tweet doesn’t name specific 2025 projects, the logic is clear: avoid tokens where these VCs are lead investors or heavily involved. Check the project’s whitepaper or website for the cap table (who owns what) and vesting details. If you spot names like Moonrock or Momentum 6 with no lock-up periods, proceed with caution. Community chatter, like @MaransCrypto’s $TIA mention, also hints at ongoing red flags—keep an ear to the ground on platforms like X.

Tips to Stay Safe

• Do Your Homework: Look beyond the hype. Research the team and VC backers using tools like Etherscan or Dune Analytics.
• Check Tokenomics: Short vesting or high VC allocations are warning signs.
• Follow Trusted Voices: Analysts like ZachXBT (still active, I presume!) often flag risky moves.

The Bottom Line

Ignas’ question taps into a timeless crypto concern: who can you trust? The 2021 ZachXBT list might not be a perfect crystal ball for 2025, but it’s a solid starting point. Until these VCs prove they’ve changed, projects tied to them deserve a second look—or a hard pass. What do you think? Drop your thoughts in the comments, and let’s keep the conversation going!

Published by Meme Insider at meme-insider.com. Stay tuned for more crypto insights!