0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
🔥 Celestia Is Struggling Under the Weight of Its Own Narrative, While Hyperliquid Triumphs
The main idea is that when a project launches its token, the market often prices it based on the grand narrative rather than actual progress. Celestia is “bleeding” narrative-wise it promised a modular blockchain future but hasn’t yet gained enough traction. Meanwhile, Hyperliquid is winning by underpromising and overdelivering.
The market views this gap as a sort of narrative debt, which demands rapid progress to be repaid otherwise, the token price will reflect the shortfall.
🎯 Personally, I think Celestia might be judged a bit too early. Its long-term potential is still there, and comparing it directly to Hyperliquid might be a bit off since the products are fundamentally different. There’s also a lack of clear valuation metrics, and part of the “debt” may stem from an unexpected staking strategy; memecoins lie outside this model altogether. As a startup, Celestia doesn’t necessarily need revenue right away — perhaps the real issue is that market expectations were too high.
Scalability is the key long-term factor, especially for long-term holders (like Namik with TIA), because it directly affects competitiveness. From a narrative standpoint, learning from Hyperliquid’s bottom-up approach instead of making grand promises can help avoid market psychology traps. Tokenomics remains a tool for gauging financial health, while competition forces investors to stay agile and ready to pivot if a project loses its edge.
These three aspects scalability, narrative strategy, and tokenomics can help guide how we evaluate and decide to hold a coin. 0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
