The blockchain space is a dynamic frontier—full of innovation, ambition, and fierce competition. While new projects emerge constantly, only a few achieve lasting success. Some once-bright stars captured global attention during their peak, only to fade into obscurity after the 2018 bear market. Despite their decline, these projects left behind valuable lessons for future innovators.
This article explores five prominent blockchain projects—Bitcoin Cash (BCH), Ethereum Classic (ETC), NEO, EOS, and Internet Computer (ICP)—that failed to maintain momentum after the 2018 downturn. We’ll examine their original visions, analyze why they faltered, and assess whether they still hold potential for resurgence in today’s evolving crypto landscape.
Bitcoin Cash: The Payment-Focused Fork
Bitcoin Cash (BCH) emerged in August 2017 as a hard fork of Bitcoin (BTC), designed to address Bitcoin’s scalability limitations. With an increased block size—now up to 32MB—BCH enables faster transactions and lower fees compared to BTC, positioning itself as a peer-to-peer electronic cash system.
At its all-time high on December 23, 2017, BCH reached $3,923 per token. As of early 2025, it ranks around 27th by market capitalization. While its price movements often mirror BTC’s, it has never surpassed its parent chain in value or adoption.
Why Bitcoin Cash Struggled
Despite technical improvements, Bitcoin Cash faced several structural challenges:
- Divergent Use Case: While BCH emphasizes fast, low-cost payments, Bitcoin evolved into a "digital gold"—a store of value rather than a medium of exchange. This shift limited BCH’s competitive edge.
- Loss of Momentum: The 2018 bear market coincided with macroeconomic headwinds—rising interest rates and shrinking liquidity—which dampened speculative interest.
- Community and Developer Support: BTC enjoys broader institutional backing and developer activity, making it harder for forks like BCH to gain long-term traction.
👉 Discover how payment-focused cryptocurrencies are adapting in the current cycle.
However, with growing demand for efficient cross-border transactions and renewed interest in sound money principles, BCH may find renewed relevance—especially if macro conditions favor decentralized payment networks.
Ethereum Classic: Upholding Immutability
Ethereum Classic (ETC) originated from the 2016 DAO hack, when Ethereum developers executed a hard fork to recover stolen funds. A faction of the community opposed this intervention on philosophical grounds, believing in blockchain immutability. They continued supporting the original chain—Ethereum Classic.
Today, ETC holds the 34th spot in market cap rankings. It champions decentralization and censorship resistance but lags far behind Ethereum in ecosystem development and network usage.
Why Ethereum Classic Failed to Gain Traction
Several factors contributed to ETC’s stagnation:
- Loss of Core Development Team: Vitalik Buterin and key contributors moved to Ethereum post-fork, leaving ETC with limited technical leadership.
- Lower Hashrate and Security: ETC commands only about 15% of Ethereum’s original hashrate, making it more vulnerable to attacks.
- Sparse Ecosystem: Unlike Ethereum, which hosts thousands of dApps and leads in total value locked (TVL), ETC lacks compelling decentralized applications.
While ETC remains a symbol of ideological purity in blockchain governance, practical utility determines long-term survival in Web3.
NEO: The “Chinese Ethereum” That Lost Its Way
Originally launched in 2014 as AntShares, NEO rebranded in 2017 and quickly gained traction as a smart contract platform aiming to digitize assets and enable digital identity solutions. At its peak in January 2018, NEO surged to $198.38—a 2,478% increase from its initial offering price of $0.08.
Despite this meteoric rise, NEO’s momentum evaporated rapidly. As of 2025, it trades around $21 and ranks 77th by market cap.
Why NEO Declined
Key reasons behind NEO’s downfall include:
- Slow Code Updates: Development slowed significantly after 2018, failing to keep pace with competitors like Solana and Avalanche.
- Stagnant Ecosystem Growth: Few high-impact dApps were built on NEO, reducing user engagement and developer interest.
- Low Decentralization: Only seven consensus nodes—controlled by the NEO Foundation—validate transactions, undermining trust in its decentralization claims.
Without aggressive upgrades and community-driven innovation, NEO risks becoming a relic of the early smart contract era.
EOS: Speed at the Cost of Decentralization
Launched in 2017 by block.one, EOS promised to solve Ethereum’s scalability issues with near-instant transactions and zero fees. Using Delegated Proof-of-Stake (DPoS), EOS achieved high throughput—processing millions of transactions daily during its peak.
In mid-2018, EOS boasted over 30,000 daily active users—ten times Ethereum’s at the time—earning it the nickname “Ethereum killer.”
Why EOS Failed to Sustain Dominance
Despite early promise, EOS stumbled due to:
- Centralization Concerns: Just 21 elected block producers control the network, creating risks of collusion and vote-buying.
- Lack of Killer Apps: No major dApp emerged on EOS capable of driving sustained user adoption.
- Weak Token Utility: Without strong economic incentives or staking mechanisms tied to real-world usage, EOS token value eroded over time.
While fast and efficient, EOS sacrificed core blockchain principles—decentralization and permissionless access—undermining its credibility in the crypto community.
Internet Computer (Dfinity): Visionary But Delayed
Founded in 2016, Dfinity aimed to create a decentralized cloud computing platform called the Internet Computer. Backed by top-tier investors like a16z (which invested $102 million in 2018), the project sought to replace traditional cloud services like AWS with a blockchain-based alternative.
Its vision included hosting entire web applications directly on-chain and enabling open internet services governed by tokenized communities.
Why Internet Computer Underperformed
Despite bold ambitions, ICP faced critical setbacks:
- Delayed Launch: After years of anticipation, the alpha mainnet didn’t go live until December 2020—missing crucial market windows.
- Not First-Mover Advantage: Platforms like Alchemy already provided robust infrastructure for Web3 developers.
- Concept Over Execution: While ideas like fully on-chain apps were innovative, real-world demand remained limited.
Though technically impressive, ICP struggled to differentiate itself meaningfully from existing solutions.
Key Lessons from Fallen Crypto Projects
These five cases reveal common patterns behind failure:
- Execution Speed Matters: Delayed launches cost trust and market share.
- Decentralization Is Non-Negotiable: Users prioritize censorship resistance over raw performance.
- Ecosystem Drives Value: A strong dApp ecosystem creates organic demand for native tokens.
- Community Trust Is Fragile: Once lost, it’s difficult to regain.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Can Bitcoin Cash ever surpass Bitcoin?
A: Unlikely. BTC’s dominance as a store of value and its institutional adoption create a moat that BCH cannot easily overcome.
Q: Is Ethereum Classic secure enough for long-term investment?
A: While functional, ETC’s lower hashrate makes it more susceptible to 51% attacks. Investors should weigh this risk carefully.
Q: Why did NEO lose its early lead?
A: Poor post-peak development, lack of decentralization, and failure to attract developers led to ecosystem stagnation.
Q: Is EOS still used today?
A: Yes, but usage is minimal compared to top-tier chains like Ethereum or Solana. Some gaming projects still operate on EOS.
Q: Does Internet Computer have any real-world use cases now?
A: A few decentralized social media platforms and canister-based apps exist, but widespread adoption remains elusive.
👉 Explore emerging blockchain platforms that are learning from past failures.
Final Thoughts
The crypto world rewards innovation—but only when paired with execution, community trust, and sustainable design. The projects discussed here were pioneers in their time, each offering unique solutions to pressing problems. Yet without continuous development, genuine decentralization, and vibrant ecosystems, even the brightest stars can fade.
As we enter new market cycles in 2025 and beyond, the legacy of these fallen giants serves as both a cautionary tale and a source of inspiration for tomorrow’s builders.