VC Coin VS Hyperliquid: Who is the death knell sounding for, but the difference in financing models? After reading the interview with Jeff, the founder of Hyperliquid, I strongly recommend that every Web3 project team that is still telling the financing story should read this article word for word. On the surface, the failure of VC coins and the success of Hype seem to be just a dispute over financing and self-financing. But the real differences are far deeper than this. The fundamental difference is who is the ultimate beneficiary of this project. In the past, the model of VC coins was to harvest liquidity, and various narratives were nothing more than peddling tokens, serving the exit of capital, and users were only the last buyers. And Jeff makes it very clear: let users get real value from what you do, not benefit early investors. The implication is that under Hyperliquid's mechanism, tokens are not the goal, but the product runs through, and after user recognition, it consolidates user trust and the continuation of the positive income structure. Therefore, from this point of view, what can really determine the vitality of the project is not the financing method or the amount of financing, or how awesome the product is, but who you are creating value for. This is the fundamental reason why VC coins collapsed and why Hyperliquid rose. All VC coins should actually ask themselves: what value do you create, who do you plan to share, in the entire interest structure, for the long-term benefit of users, or for the short-term cash-out of capital? If you answer incorrectly, then the death knell will ring for you at the next moment. The nature of finance is only two questions: Are you really creating value? Are you really willing to let users share it? Jeff has already answered with Hyperliquid, but I don't know how many more can be given next in the industry?