Crypto coins crash 97%+: ATOM, ALGO, IOTA, EOS/A, ICP sink
A new report argues that these crypto coins have “almost died” after two market cycles: ATOM, ALGO, IOTA, EOS (rebranded to Vaulta as A), and ICP. It says the key reason is not that the networks stopped shipping, but that tokens failed to capture value from real usage.
Market context: Bitcoin is in the low-to-mid $60,000s after peaking around $126,000 (Oct 2025). Total crypto market cap is near $2.17T, Bitcoin dominance is above 56%, and the Fear & Greed Index remains in fear—suggesting capital is not rotating aggressively into higher-risk narratives.
Largest drawdowns from ATH: ICP -99.7% (to ~$2.15 vs ~$700.65), A -99.6% (to ~$0.06 vs ~$22.89), IOTA -99.3% (to ~$0.035 vs ~$5.25), ALGO -97.6% (to ~$0.084 vs ~$3.56), ATOM -96.8% (to ~$1.39 vs ~$44.70). The piece claims none are proven scams and all still produce blocks, but recurring patterns include: “token not equal to product” (ATOM), heavy valuation plus unlock pressure (ICP, EOS/A), and narratives expiring before demand materializes (IOTA, ALGO).
For traders, the takeaway is that some crypto coins trade as “working tech, low expectations,” so any shift in measurable, recurring, fee-paying usage routed through the token would matter more than marketing or rebrands.
Neutral
The article is bearish for the specific tokens it highlights (all are down ~97–99% from ATH), but it’s not a clear market-wide bearish signal. It argues these networks are still operating and shipping, so there’s no outright “project death” catalyst—more a value-capture failure. Historically, when crypto narratives fade yet the underlying tech keeps working, traders often see two phases: (1) continued underperformance and low liquidity while attention moves elsewhere, and (2) potential selective rebounds only if measurable usage begins to route through the token.
Short-term impact: likely neutral-to-bearish sentiment for ATOM/ALGO/IOTA/A/ICP because the headline reinforces ongoing drawdown risk and low expectations. Without a new catalyst tied to fee-paying activity, rallies may be sold.
Long-term impact: neutral overall. If future governance changes or token supply/inflation adjustments lead to real recurring demand, these “asymmetric” assets can re-rate. But if historical patterns (tokens as not-the-product; supply arriving before demand) persist, the downtrend behavior can remain sticky even with continued development. Similar past cases show that utility alone rarely reverses price unless value accrues to holders via fees, staking, or burns tied to sustained users.