Quote from: X-ray on Today at 02:06:06 AM

Quote from: Ararbermas on April 06, 2025, 04:42:43 AM

Many projects are now undergoing rebranding, even those that initially seemed focused solely on raising funds from investors. Like for example those projects that ended up becoming irrelevant in the market after listing. Honestly, this method of recovery is quite confusing, and it's likely to raise questions, especially among those who have taken a break from the space. Why choose to rebrand instead of reviving the original project if it was simply forgotten? To be honest, it doesn't seem very promising to me.

maybe the original concept of the project wasn't a success in the first place and rebranding give them a way to rethink about the project and give it fresh start.
honestly rebranding is way better than the the other option which is the developer just outright abandoning the project because the old holder will be at loss if that's the case, meanwhile rebranding can help the old holder to migrate their token to the new tech and potentially make profit in the future.
nothing wrong with rebranding as far a I know. as long as it doesn't just magically inflate the total supply and dilute the circulating supply which therefore reduce the worth of the coin.

They might do good if they re-brand their project, but the thing is that it should be as close as the last one. It should be a entirely new concept so that investors are going to be made aware of the new one and maybe they will start all over again to invest.

But not sure if this is a good strategy or not, maybe the stigma is going to be their with that project already and investors will not be interested. It's really hard to understand the sentiments of the crypto investors to be honest. There are goo project that lacks supports, and then bad projects that has been heavily invested, just saying.