import { Image } from 'astro:assets';

Hey there, crypto enthusiasts! If you’ve been scrolling through X lately, you might’ve stumbled across a thought-provoking thread by Arthur @Arthur_0x that’s got everyone talking. Posted on July 10, 2025, at 07:58 UTC, this thread dives into why comparing two crypto projects—let’s call them “P” and “H”—based solely on their 12-month revenue figures is a big no-no. As someone who’s spent years covering the crypto space (including a stint as editor-in-chief at CoinDesk), I’m here to break it down for you in a way that’s easy to digest, while adding some insider insights from the world of meme tokens and blockchain trends over at meme-insider.com.

The Core Argument: Revenue Isn’t Everything

Arthur kicks things off by challenging the lazy habit of comparing “P” and “H” using just their past revenue. He argues that these projects are worlds apart when you dig into the details. For starters, “H” has been steadily growing its market share, tapping into a bigger total addressable market (TAM), and showing strong monetization potential. Plus, it’s got no private sales dragging it down and a community that’s tightly aligned with its goals. On the flip side, “P” is losing ground to competitors, operates in a TAM already dominated by its own product, and struggles with a less proven revenue model that’s prone to ups and downs.

This is a classic case of looking beyond the numbers. In traditional finance, you might lean on metrics like the price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio, but crypto’s a different beast. Revenue snapshots don’t capture the full story—especially when market dynamics and community strength are in play.

Digging Deeper: TAM, Monetization, and Community

Let’s unpack Arthur’s points. TAM, or the total addressable market, is the total revenue opportunity available to a product if it captured 100% of the market. For “H,” this seems to be expanding, giving it room to grow. “P,” however, is stuck in a saturated space, making growth tougher. Then there’s monetization—how effectively a project turns users into profits. “H” seems to have cracked this, while “P”’s cyclical revenue suggests it’s still figuring things out.

Community alignment is another biggie. In crypto, your community isn’t just a fanbase—it’s the backbone of your project. A strong, engaged community can drive adoption and defend against competitors. Arthur hints that “P” might be lacking here, which could spell trouble long-term. Think of meme tokens like Dogecoin—their success often hinges on community hype, as we’ve covered on meme-insider.com.

The $2B Elephant in the Room

Arthur also raises a red flag about “P”’s plan to deploy $2 billion in capital. With a track record that doesn’t inspire confidence and a team that might lack experience, this could be a recipe for disaster. He points to the 2017–2018 ICO boom, where massive capital raises often led to overhyped projects that fizzled out. Research from ScienceDirect backs this up, showing that institutional backing can boost post-ICO performance, but only if the team knows how to allocate funds wisely.

This is where execution becomes king. A big war chest is great, but without a clear strategy, it’s like handing a toddler a flamethrower. Arthur’s skepticism echoes lessons from the ICO graveyard—capital doesn’t guarantee success; it amplifies your ability to succeed or fail spectacularly.

What the Community Thinks

The thread blew up with replies, and they’re worth a look. Nimona @RealNimona doubles down on Arthur’s take, emphasizing that “P vs. H” ignores structural differences like network depth and user trust—key factors in crypto’s long game. Kripto HaYalet @Kripto_HaYalet asks a sharp question: what would convince Arthur that “P” has learned from past ICO mistakes? It’s a great point—proof of better capital allocation or a revitalized community could shift the narrative.

Others, like Famus 🎱 @0xFamus, keep it simple with an “apples to oranges” analogy, while Patrick Basedman @basedafpatrick agrees that context beats raw numbers every time. Even the playful jabs, like big tree @BigTree62118 teasing Arthur’s analysis, add flavor to the debate.

Lessons for Crypto Investors

So, what’s the takeaway? Comparing crypto projects like “P” and “H” based on revenue alone is a rookie move. Look at TAM growth, monetization strength, community alignment, and how well the team handles capital. History shows that big raises from the ICO era—like those in 2017–2018—often led to bloated projects that couldn’t deliver. If you’re diving into investments, especially in meme tokens or emerging blockchains, check out our guides on meme-insider.com to stay ahead of the curve.

Arthur’s thread is a wake-up call: numbers tell part of the story, but the real magic (or disaster) lies in execution and ecosystem health. What do you think—does “P” have a shot at turning things around, or is “H” the clear winner? Drop your thoughts in the comments, and let’s keep the conversation going!