The Old Tricks of the Web3 World: The Rise and Fall of DePIN Projects

Since the rise of the digital currency market, the Web3 field has been repeating the old routine of "economic incentives + scenario packaging." The last wave of hype was the speculation of game finance (GameFi), where concepts like "earn tokens by playing games" and "earn tokens by running" once became popular narratives. However, although these projects were briefly popular, they failed to establish sustainable business models. GameFi ultimately did not become a long-term viable track, with token prices fluctuating wildly, severe user attrition, and ecosystem collapse.

In the current round, the concept of decentralized physical infrastructure network ( DePIN ) has emerged, once again igniting a narrative frenzy within the Web3 community. It's not just about "mining by using"; it's more like "everything can be DePIN": earning tokens by charging, earning tokens by making calls, earning tokens by installing sockets, earning tokens by driving, earning tokens by watching ads, and even "drinking water" can earn tokens.

These concepts seem to have more imaginative space than GameFi—after all, compared to games in virtual worlds, the electricity, communication, transportation, and energy in real life appear to have more "real value". However, after closely observing the actual implementation and economic models of these projects, we find that: in the current DePIN market, most device suppliers come from electronic industry hubs like Shenzhen, and the prices of these devices are often dozens of times the wholesale price, resulting in nearly all hardware investors suffering enormous losses. The purchased DePIN tokens also have almost no chance of rebounding, and investors can only watch helplessly as their assets shrink, waiting in vain for the distant "ecological landing" and "next round of airdrops". Rather than being infrastructure innovation, it could be considered a replay of a "zombie hardware scam".

Project Review: Investors' Bitter Lessons

Helium: From hard-to-find to being ignored today

Helium was once a star project in the DePIN field, with its flagship Helium Hotspot device building a decentralized LoRaWAN network. Later, it partnered with major telecom companies to launch mobile communication services, focusing on low-cost plans, which attracted a large number of users in a short period.

On the surface, it seems that the prospects are bright, but the story of Helium devices is actually a typical case of "retail investor harvesting": hotspot mining machines that used to cost dozens of dollars have been speculated to $2,500 each, claiming to break even in three days (. However, the reality is that due to some nodes being banned by the authorities in certain areas, many users have suffered heavy losses, and the mining machines have become a burden, with the coin price plummeting and miners suffering significant losses. The dream of "mining equals financial freedom" has now been shattered.

) Hivemapper: Buying a camera "trap"? The payback period is far away.

Hivemapper sells a $549 dashcam that allows users to upload geographic data during their drives to earn token rewards. At first glance, this "drive-to-earn" model seems easier to get into than traditional mining. But the problem is:

• Behind the expensive hardware prices, there is a lack of strong token support. The token price has been sluggish for a long time, and the payback period is lengthy.
• The quality and update frequency of the map data are questionable, and it has yet to be verified whether a network can truly be built to compete with mainstream map services.
• Its map network mainly covers developed countries, with almost no landing scenarios in other markets.

In addition, the project generated over sixty million dollars through hardware sales, but this is more of a "selling equipment" revenue rather than a healthy performance of the DePIN economic model.

Jambo: The African Myth of Web3 Mobile, Another Hardware Speculation

Jambo has launched a combination of "DePIN + Web3 wallet" and has sold over 400,000 units of the Jambo phone at $99 in the African market, activating over 1.23 million wallet addresses. The underlying reason is not the investors' faith in the project, but rather a marketing campaign leveraging the surge of certain tokens and the rapid development of the ecosystem. The phone comes pre-installed with the decentralized application ###dApp(, allowing users to earn JAMBO tokens, but the liquidity and value of the tokens remain questionable, and achieving a closed data sales loop is difficult. Without large data buyers, the phone ecosystem struggles to support the long-term usage needs of Web3 users.

) Ordz Game: The Web3 Modification of Retro Handhelds

Ordz Game focuses on "Play to Earn" + hardware handheld BitBoy, with high-priced pre-sale devices selling out as soon as they went online, and the standard version has also sold thousands of units.

But essentially:

• The gaming experience is almost at the level of retro handheld console ROMs, lacking innovation;
• After the token transformation, it still lacks liquidity and actual value;
• The essence is to replicate the GameFi mining model, just with a "handheld" shell.

The possibility of truly achieving long-term retention and return on investment for players is extremely low. The promised airdrop may not be fulfilled, but the loss of investors' funds is very real.

TON phone: High-priced Android "senior phone"?

During the heated period of a well-known instant messaging platform and related blockchain projects, the TON phone emerged, priced at nearly 500 dollars, with considerable sales. However, user reviews describe it as having an "elderly phone feel" and "not as good as domestic brands." The specifications are average—only 6GB of RAM, 128GB of storage, and Android 14, and although it comes with a phone case and claims to have "airdrop expectations," it:

• The quality of the airdrop is far inferior to that of other similar projects;
• The user interface/user experience lacks distinct features, and the phone itself shows no innovation;
• The payback period is long, and ecological construction is still at the planning stage.

Buyers are looking forward to "future airdrop opportunities," but see no signs of this hope being realized.

Starpower: trap, incomprehensible marketing tactics

Starpower claims to be a smart power DePIN project under a certain blockchain ecosystem, selling hardware such as smart sockets, car chargers, and batteries, and has received support from some investment institutions. It is said that tokens will be issued in the second quarter, with a price of $100 for one plug, while similar products on other platforms are priced only in the dozens of yuan.

The project company has a short establishment time, opaque technology, unclear ecological incentives, and relies entirely on "storytelling" to sell equipment.

Looking back at the history of similar projects' "mining machine futures scams" and then looking at Starpower's development plan, it is not difficult to find the similarities.

Energy DePIN projects: Stay away from market logic, ultimately paid by investors.

Some projects focus on idealized models such as carbon credit trading and peer-to-peer distributed energy trading. For example, a certain project rewards green power generation from solar power plants through a dual-token mechanism, but faces many issues in actual operation:

• Who will buy carbon credits?
• How to verify the actual power generation of the power station?
• What tokens does the equipment rely on for appreciation?

Another project is attempting to create a P2P trading platform for the electricity market, but the value of the platform token has nearly dropped to zero, and there are no successful case studies for the core business model. While the ideals are promising, the gap between regulation and commercial implementation has yet to be bridged.

DePIN is essentially an attempt to extend the Web3 "economic incentive model" into the real physical world. Theoretically, it has infinite possibilities:

The real-world infrastructure ### such as communication, electricity, maps, and devices ( can be decentralized, allowing for the construction of large-scale user network effects, and fair incentives and transparent governance can be achieved through token design.

But at the current stage, the majority of truly implemented DePIN projects rely on "selling hardware" to harvest retail investors: token models with hardware attributes are generally a combination of "air + bubbles". The so-called "ecological empowerment" often relies on opinion leader packaging, concept hype, and airdrop expectations to attract new users. Most project parties come from electronic industry hubs, earning equipment income through "supply chain + exorbitant pricing", rather than truly building networks.

Successful DePIN truly requires a robust supply and demand model design, a transparent and continuous incentive mechanism, and an in-depth understanding of the hardware/infrastructure domain. The biggest bubble in the current DePIN market lies in the fact that most projects are not solving real problems but are instead packaging concepts to harvest users. When hardware turns into a speculative tool in the form of "futures," when device tokens become worthless "digital vouchers," and when all narratives revolve around airdrop expectations, DePIN is merely another Ponzi cycle of Web3. We look forward to seeing some DePIN projects in the near future that survive not by selling hardware or telling stories, but by real use and real income.