Author: Choze , Crypto KOL
Compiled by: Felix, PANews
A new paradigm is emerging: loud, fast, and speculative. It’s called Internet Capital Markets (ICM), and some see it as the most exciting development in crypto, while others see it as the most dangerous distraction.
In 2025, a wave of independent developers begin issuing tradable tokens for internet-native apps directly on X (yes, that’s the place), using tools like Launchcoin and Believe. The result? A permissionless marketplace where ideas become tokens, hype becomes capital, and speculation becomes product appeal.
ICM is getting attention, but the bigger question isn’t whether it will be a hit, but whether the model is sustainable.
ICM is a decentralized platform where capital flows directly to app developers and creators. There are no venture capital, no banks, and no app stores. It blurs the lines between crowdfunding, token issuance, and equity speculation.
Developers publish an idea. The public participates through tokens. Volume grows, fees accumulate, and developers profit. If enough people believe in it, the token will skyrocket. If not, it will die. This is the core mechanism behind platforms like Believe and Launchcoin.
Supporters argue that ICMs democratize innovation. Critics argue that they financialize virtual products. Perhaps both have a point.
The strongest arguments in favor of ICM can be summarized in four aspects:
This flywheel has gained tremendous momentum:
The pitch is appealing: fund an idea immediately, capitalize on the hype, then build a product based on community belief.
Source: @Prateek0x_
But beneath the surface lie deep structural risks:
I personally believe that this trend has the potential to undermine the “ICM” label, diluting its original promise of on-chain IPOs and liquid digital equity, turning it into a speculative venue filled with “pump and dump” meme coins.
Even among active traders, many freely admit that their intention is simply to make a quick profit, suggesting that even so-called believers are playing the short game.
The core of the ICM ecosystem is the Believe ecosystem, which allows anyone to issue tokens in seconds. The process is simple:
Builders don’t need to raise capital the way they would in the traditional way. But therein lies the problem.
When profits are earned upfront before a product exists, the line between builders and speculators becomes blurred.
While projects like $DUPE and $GIGGLES are showing some traction, others feel more like memes. The infrastructure is impressive, but the tooling doesn’t serve the purpose.
There are fundamental differences of opinion on ICM:
Both theories are circulating. Depending on which builder gains more momentum, one could displace the other.
Admittedly, ICM taps into some realities: the desire to back ideas early, the joy of funding culture, and the instinct to speculate on things that might be hot in the future.
But this same convenience also brings with it the risk of dilution. Without discipline or long-term synergy, ICM risks becoming just another pump-and-dump venue. In this case, meme coins take on the trappings of productivity, and liquidity masks a lack of substance.
While some players see ICM as the future of startup financing, others see it purely as a profit-making tool. This duality makes it difficult to distinguish the signal from the noise.
For ICM to move beyond the hype cycle and mature, the following points need to be achieved:
ICMs are not the enemy, but they are not the solution at this point. They are like a canvas, and the end result depends on what is painted on it.
Although the concept is new, the mechanism of operation is not new. The key is whether this can evolve into something structurally significant or fade away like many previous crypto crazes. Time and development trends will tell the answer.
Related reading: Pump.fun’s dominance is challenged by new platforms, the traffic war of MEME coin Glonk begins, and the founder comes out to help