Two worlds, two visions – what's really behind them?
Anyone exploring blockchains today encounters a colourful and often confusing landscape. Hundreds of projects advertise revolutionary promises, massive ecosystems and seemingly endless growth. But behind this diversity lie two fundamentally different development models – models that differ greatly in their philosophy, their financing and, in the long run, their behaviour: native blockchains on one side, and VC-blockchains on the other.
This article explains what defines these two models, where they differ, and why this distinction matters to anyone seriously engaging with blockchain technology.
Two Worlds, Two Origins
To understand what separates native blockchains from VC-blockchains, it's worth looking at their respective origins. Because the way a blockchain project is born and financed shapes everything that follows – from token distribution and governance to long-term stability.
Native Blockchains: Born from Ideas
Native blockchains are blockchain networks that were not financed by external investors or venture capital firms. They emerge from a technical or societal conviction – often driven by developers, visionaries or small communities who believe in a specific idea.
The most well-known example is Bitcoin. Satoshi Nakamoto did not found Bitcoin to enrich investors or build a company. The idea was to create a decentralised, manipulation-resistant monetary system that operates independently of banks and governments. There were no investor rounds, no early token sales to privileged buyers, and no corporate structure in the background.
Another example from today's ecosystem is Infinity Economics (XIN). This project was developed from the same core convictions as Bitcoin – with the goal of providing additional features while preserving genuine decentralisation. A key principle: all tokens should be fully created at the moment the blockchain comes into existence. To distribute the tokens as fairly and broadly as possible, a community was deliberately built in advance. Those who participated could not invest through venture capital – instead, they contributed to building the community itself. More than 80 percent of the incoming funds were redistributed back to the community via an affinity system.
Infinity Economics is, in a sense, a minimal hybrid: there was a conscious community-building phase before launch – but no classic investor round, no privileged early investors, and no corporate structure behind the blockchain itself. The approach remains true to the native model at its core: no investor tokens, no external return pressure, and no capital bringing yield expectations into the project. Instead, the focus is on decentralisation, security, independence, manipulation resistance and community-driven development. Growth is organic and arises from genuine demand.
VC-Blockchains: Born from Capital
VC-blockchains – that is, blockchains financed by venture capital – follow a different model. Here, the starting point is often a founding team with a technical vision that secures capital through professional investor rounds. Venture capital firms, angel investors or strategic partners receive early token allocations at favourable terms in return.
Such projects launch with considerably more resources: large marketing budgets, paid developers, ecosystem grant programmes and, from the outset, a strong media presence. Well-known examples of VC-financed blockchain projects include Solana, Aptos and Sui – projects that have built large ecosystems within a short period of time.
It is important to emphasise: venture capital is a completely legitimate and widespread financing model in the traditional business world. Companies like Apple, Google and Airbnb were built with risk capital. VC enables rapid growth and can accelerate innovation. In the blockchain world, however, this model creates a particular dynamic that differs significantly from traditional companies.
Different Economic Dynamics
The respective financing model has a direct impact on the economic development of a blockchain project. Native and VC-blockchains grow in very different ways.
Organic versus Subsidised
Native blockchains generally grow more slowly. There is no large marketing budget buying attention, and no incentive programmes luring users with token rewards. Growth happens because people genuinely want to use the network – out of conviction, because of technical advantages or because of the community behind it. This process is slower, but it generates a type of usage that doesn't immediately disappear once the incentive is removed.
VC-blockchains, on the other hand, can rely on so-called "subsidised usage" from the very beginning. This means: users are incentivised with financial rewards – such as token rewards, fee rebates or grant programmes – to use the network. This quickly generates impressive usage numbers, and the on-chain activity looks very promising at first glance.
However, this subsidised usage is not organic demand. It is a form of "borrowed activity" that lasts as long as the financial incentive exists – and in many cases, not a moment longer.
Why Many VC-Blockchains Face Long-Term Challenges
Despite billion-dollar financing, many VC-blockchains face serious long-term challenges. This is not because their technology is poor – it is often technically impressive. The problem runs deeper: in the structure of incentives and in the expectations of those involved.
Mercenary Capital: Capital That Only Stays While It's Paid
A central phenomenon is so-called "mercenary capital." This refers to capital and usage that remains in an ecosystem only as long as it receives direct financial benefits. The moment grant programmes expire, yield programmes become unattractive, or the next hot project offers better terms, this capital moves on.
The result: a network that appeared active on paper loses a large portion of its users within a few months. What remains is often a shadow of former activity.
Token Unlocks and Selling Pressure
Another structural problem for many VC-blockchains is so-called token vesting schedules. Early investors and founders typically receive their tokens at a very low price, but they are locked for a certain period – referred to as "vesting." When these locks expire and large quantities of tokens enter the market at once, significant selling pressure arises.
This selling pressure pushes the token price down, unsettles the community and makes it difficult to rebuild trust. Many VC-financed projects struggle with exactly this pattern: initial euphoria followed by a prolonged period of declining prices and fading community activity.
Short-Term Return Interests
Venture capital firms are not philanthropists. Their goal is a return on their investment – and usually within a manageable time frame of three to seven years. These return expectations are not necessarily aligned with what a blockchain network needs in the long term: patience, gradual decentralisation and the development of genuine usage.
When the focus is on short-term value creation, decisions are often made based on what raises the token price or looks good in the next funding round – not necessarily what benefits the network in the long run.
Why Native Blockchains Can Remain Stable Long-Term
At first glance, native blockchains often appear less glamorous than their VC-financed counterparts. No large marketing campaign, no prominent investors as guarantors, no multi-million ecosystem programme. And yet, some of them demonstrate remarkable long-term stability.
Usage from Conviction
The most important advantage of native blockchains is that their users are there out of genuine interest. Nobody is paying them to use the network. This means: those who stay truly believe in the project. This type of community is more resilient, more actively involved in development and less susceptible to short-term shifts in sentiment.
No Investor Token Structures
Without early investor tokens, there is also no vesting pressure. There is no privileged group that can sell en masse when prices rise and drive the price down. This makes the token economics of native blockchains structurally fairer and more stable.
Long-Term Motivation
The people working on native blockchains are, in many cases, not primarily motivated by a quick return. Their drive is the conviction in the project, the technology or the societal idea behind it. This leads to a different development culture: longer-term, more stable, more sustainable.
Of course, this also means that progress sometimes comes more slowly. Without large budgets, the development of infrastructure and ecosystem takes longer. But what is built often has a more solid foundation.
Conclusion: Two Models, Two Futures
Native blockchains and VC-blockchains are not a moral category of "good" and "bad." They are two fundamentally different development models with different strengths, weaknesses and dynamics.
VC-financed blockchains can grow quickly, build large ecosystems and deliver technically impressive solutions. They have the resources to achieve a great deal in a short time. Their structural risk lies in the dependence on subsidised usage, investor interests and token mechanisms that can generate long-term pressure.
Native blockchains grow more slowly, but their foundations are in many cases more robust. When usage arises from conviction, when no privileged investors are waiting in the background for their returns, and when decentralisation and security are genuine priorities – then something emerges that is not so easily brought down.
The choice between these models has long-term consequences: for network culture, for governance structures, for the type of usage and for stability over years and decades.
As a user or interested party, it is worth looking beyond the shiny surfaces and asking: who is actually benefiting here? Whose interests come first? And what kind of system should continue to exist in the long run?
Blockchains are more than technology – they are also a societal decision about how we want to build decentralised systems. It is worth making that decision consciously.
