I agree, there are some projects which start their way on DEX and end their way on Binance. For example, PEPE project made such way just recently and it took only 1 month to do it. This is an incredible result. We are talking about individual cases that break the standard perceptions, but if you look at the whole situation, many projects that start their way on DEX, they end up there, or go to CEXs, which are little-known compared to those CEXs that we are used to hearing about.
I agree with you, that if we use probabilities, then statistically 99% of projects listed on DEX are scams or have no strategies to build up their project. However, you chose this criteria to analyse my project. I think this criteria means nothing and doesn't help analysis, because you can say that any project that lists on DEX first is useless. It's a lazy way to do research. As a psychologist, such an approach is most common among people, as they prefer easy automatic processing.
I'm not saying that all projects that run on DEX are useless. That's not the point. The point is that most projects that start with DEX end up there, too. These projects can contain a unique concept, a great product and other useful features. The problem with such projects, for all their usefulness, is the lack of funding. Without funding, any project, even with the most useful functions, is doomed to the fact that it will have weak support from investors, and therefore will have low liquidity. This is what we see with tokens that are listed on DEX and nowhere else. At the same time, a completely useless project can have a huge capitalization and be popular with investors, if this project has a budget from the beginning.