Web3 launchpads, originally conceived to provide early investor access to new projects, are increasingly being criticized for functioning as “cash-grab funnels” that prioritize fundraising over long-term product viability. This operational shift has led to an influx of underdeveloped products entering the market, often without the foundational support required for builders to succeed. The result is a system that funds ideas that may lack substance, rather than fully realized products with a clear path to sustainability.
The scale of this token-launch infrastructure continues to expand. Data indicates that as of February 2025, the Virtuals Protocol alone has facilitated the launch of more than 17,000 AI agent tokens. While this figure demonstrates significant activity, it also raises critical questions about the long-term accountability and sustainability of projects introduced through these platforms. The current model often permits projects with minimal or no tangible product to secure funding, which frequently culminates in failure and points to a more profound systemic problem within the industry. Many launchpads have devolved into hollow mechanisms that channel funds to projects without demanding a genuine technical foundation.
The original intent behind launchpads was to create a productive meeting point for “builders and believers.” In this ideal model, launchpads would help new projects raise necessary funds and build brand awareness. Simultaneously, they would offer global investors an opportunity to participate in the early stages of potentially promising technologies. This design was meant to fill a notable gap in the ecosystem, simplifying access to both capital and community backing for emerging teams.
However, as the Web3 industry has matured, the limitations of this original model have become apparent. A significant number of launchpads have maintained a narrow focus on the fundraising aspect, neglecting the equally important goal of long-term project success. In this regard, they often operate like “decentralized Shark Tanks,” where the pitch for capital takes precedence over a project’s innovative potential. This has led to a situation where, instead of driving technical progress, many launchpads have effectively sidelined technical merit as a primary evaluation criterion.
Many platforms promote a “launch whatever” philosophy, branding themselves as chain-agnostic and therefore neutral arenas for any protocol to raise funds. While this positioning suggests openness, it also fosters a lack of focus and quality standards. This neutrality can transform launchpads into “free-for-all” environments where it becomes difficult for high-quality projects to distinguish themselves and attract the right support for growth.
Some proponents argue that innovation should not be policed and that any project should have the freedom to fundraise. Yet, the absence of clear guardrails for sophisticated technology or well-designed tokenomics can create a “cut-throat arena where no one wins.” In this environment, investors are often inundated with half-baked pitches and superficial hype cycles. Meanwhile, builders are left attempting to raise capital without receiving any meaningful support to develop their products.
This approach was more tenable for earlier Web3 projects that prioritized token distribution over sustainable, long-term growth. That model is no longer beneficial in the current market. The era of easy wins and low-effort launches has passed, partly due to increased regulatory scrutiny. Consequently, the next generation of launchpads must transition from theory to action, exclusively launching projects that are backed by real, functional products.
s
A primary challenge for developers is the fragmented nature of the tools at their disposal. Most builders must manage three to four disconnected tools to ship a single project, dealing with numerous considerations such as building backends, managing costs, and implementing server hosting and security systems. This complexity means that many promising projects stall before they can properly begin development. Building a real product is a labor-intensive process, and traditional launchpads, with their narrow focus on capital, fail to address these critical operational bottlenecks. Capital alone cannot resolve these issues, leaving builders, particularly those without significant funding or established pedigrees, in need of more comprehensive support.
The guiding ethos for launchpads must shift. A new philosophy is needed: “giving builders the tools they need to focus on their products,” rather than forcing them to patch together the necessary scaffolding as they build. This requires launchpads to provide end-to-end support that simplifies the entire development and launch journey.
Beyond improved tooling, launchpads must evolve to enable developers to build powerful, multi-agent applications that address real user problems. The current trend, with 2025 being noted as the year of AI agents, demands that modern platforms provide infrastructure for creating applications that deliver tangible utility, drive user adoption, and generate revenue. This marks a necessary move away from a singular focus on deploying token contracts.
s
Following this trend, projects are expected to first build a robust platform for creating applications and then establish a launchpad around those applications. This strategy initiates a positive cycle: successful applications drive adoption of the platform, which in turn attracts more developers. This creates powerful network effects, fostering an ecosystem of valuable applications, skilled builders, and engaged users who are solving real-world problems at scale.
For launchpads to become part of the solution, they must re-evaluate their current role. Although uniquely positioned to fuel technical innovation, better projects will not emerge without better tools. The next generation of launchpads must move past simple token distribution and focus on helping builders create superior products. This involves providing end-to-end support throughout the building and growth phases, along with offering clear incentives and guardrails to ensure the interests of all stakeholders are properly aligned.
