AltcoinsMarketsOpinion
|7 min ReadThe Anti-VC Portfolio: +1900%
Carter Hayes
Senior Analyst
Published
Jan 16, 2026
The crypto market is split. One side is backed by hundreds of millions in VC capital. They launch with massive FDVs, low float, and relentless unlocks. You are the exit liquidity.
The other side is backed by users. They launch with full circulation and zero hidden dilution. You are the partner.
This study by Green But Red compares 7 specific matchups to isolate what drives performance: Capital Efficiency vs. Capital Dominance.
Here is the full breakdown.
1. The Yield Play: Solomon vs Ethena
Ethena ($ENA)
Backers: Dragonfly, Pantera, Franklin Templeton ($165M raised).
Model: Synthetic dollar, speed, cyclical funding rates.
Result: Down 64.1%. Only 51% circulating. Heavy dilution risk.
Solomon ($SOLO)
Backers: MetaDAO ($8M).
Model: Reserve-backed, stability.
Result: Down 2.5%. 100% circulating. Zero dump pressure.
2. Liquidity Optimizers: Paystream vs Kamino
Kamino ($KMNO)
Backers: Delphi, LongHash ($6M+).
Status: $2.5B TVL giant.
Result: Up 50%. A rare VC win driven by massive scale, but burdened by low circulation (34%).
Paystream ($PAYS)
Backers: MetaDAO ($750k).
Status: Lean routing layer.
Result: Down 32%. A niche play with 100% circulation. While down, it offers asymmetric upside without the FDV overhang of Kamino.
3. ZK Infrastructure: ZKLSOL vs Starknet
Starknet ($STRK)
Backers: Paradigm, Sequoia ($282M raised).
Valuation: Launched with multi-billion FDV.
Result: Down 93.6%. The massive valuation crushed retail holders.
ZKLSOL
Backers: IDO (<$1M).
Result: Down 11.9%.
The Alpha: Lean capital structures preserve optionality. Heavy venture capitalization front-loads sell pressure.
4. Intelligence: Loyal vs Arkham
Arkham ($ARKM)
Backers: Coinbase Ventures, Ribbit Capital ($14.5M).
Model: Monetized surveillance.
Result: Down 61.8%. Only 23% circulating.
Loyal ($LOYAL)
Backers: Community ($2.5M).
Model: User-owned AI agents.
Result: Down 15.2%. 100% circulating.
5. Neobanks: Avici vs Plasma (The Killer Stat)
This is the most violent disparity in the dataset.
Plasma ($XPL)
Backers: Framework, 6th Man Ventures ($75M).
Model: Full-stack fintech trying to own everything.
Result: Down 75.3%. Circulating supply is only 18%.
Avici ($AVICI)
Backers: IDO ($3.5M).
Model: Protocol-first neobank.
Result: Up 1,948.7%. Circulating supply is 100%.
Avici proves that when a token has full circulation and real demand, price discovery is reflexively positive. Plasma proves that huge raises create huge liabilities.
6. Privacy vs Rollups: Umbra vs zkSync
zkSync ($ZK)
Backers: a16z, Dragonfly, Paradigm ($458M raised).
Result: Down 87.5%. Another infrastructure giant crushed by supply overhang (35% circulating).
Umbra ($UMBRA)
Backers: IDO ($3M).
Result: Up 156.3%.
The Alpha: In the current market, specific utility (privacy) is outperforming general infrastructure (rollups), especially when the infrastructure token is overpriced.
7. Lending: Omnipair vs Morpho
Morpho ($MORPHO)
Backers: a16z, Coinbase Ventures, Pantera ($69M).
Status: $6B TVL dominant player.
Result: Down 21%. Burdened by a $1.2B FDV.
Omnipair ($OMFG)
Backers: IDO ($1.1M).
Status: Tiny protocol ($12M FDV).
Result: Up 389.9%.
The Alpha: Even in "serious" DeFi, the market prefers lean, fully diluted assets over bloated institutional giants.
The Verdict
The era of the "VC predatory launch" is ending. The data is irrefutable.
VC Tokens ($STRK, $ZK, $XPL): Down 75% to 90%+.
Community Tokens ($AVICI, $OMFG, $UMBRA): Up 150% to 1900%+.
The structural flaw is Float.
VC tokens launch with 15-20% circulation. The remaining 80% is a gun pointed at your head.
Community tokens launch with 100% circulation. The price you see is the real price.
If you want alpha in this cycle, stop looking at the backers. Look at the supply schedule.
Disclaimer: This document is intended for informational and entertainment purposes only. The views expressed in this document are not, and should not be taken as, investment advice or recommendations. Recipients should do their own due diligence, taking into account their specific financial circumstances, investment objectives and risk tolerance, which are not considered here, before investing. This document is not an offer, or the solicitation of an offer, to buy or sell any of the assets mentioned.