Is there still room for new L1 chains without VC? LOGOS (LGN) as an example

[LogosLRB]

Hi everyone,

I’ve been watching the market for years and I see two extremes around altcoins:

– either it’s another meme / fork with zero tech, 
– or a huge VC-backed L1 where retail gets leftovers and everything is driven by marketing.

So I wanted to ask a serious question:

Is there still room in 2025 for a new independent L1 chain, built by a small team without big VC money?

I’m not asking in theory only – I’ve actually been building one and I’d really like to hear feedback from people here.


What I’m building – LOGOS (LGN)

Very short:

• Own L1 blockchain, written in Rust – not an ERC20/BEP20 token and not an EVM fork.
• Fixed supply: 81,000,000 LGN, deflationary model (part of fees is burned, no inflation).
• Mainnet is live: node, explorer and non-custodial web wallet are already running.
• Internal load tests show around ~2000+ tx/s with fast finality.
• Focus on privacy + performance: phase-mixing delay on tx endpoints, strict nonce policy, anti-spam guard, Prometheus metrics, etc.

No big fund behind it – for a long time it was literally just me writing code and running nodes. 
Now I’m finally at the point where the chain works under load, so I started doing the first public ANN and a small airdrop / presale to bring real users and validators.


Why I think it might still make sense

My feeling is that:

– there are many L1s, but most of them are either too heavy / over-engineered, 
– or completely centralised around a few entities, 
– or focused purely on hype with no real infra.

I tried to build LOGOS as a “boring but solid” L1:

– simple account model, 
– strict rules on tx acceptance (no random junk in mempool), 
– transparent metrics, 
– hardened perimeter (no extra metadata around tx where it’s not needed).

Nothing magical, but the goal is: a chain that can handle real usage and doesn’t depend on a marketing budget to exist.


My questions to the community

I’m honestly curious what people here think:

• Do you still believe that a new independent L1 (without big VC names) can get traction in today’s market?
• What do you personally look at first: code, real TPS, tokenomics, audits, community, listings – or something else?
• What are the biggest red flags you see when a new L1 appears?
• Is “privacy + high TPS + no VC” actually a plus for you, or just marketing noise at this point?

I’m not here to scream “next 100x coin!”. I really want to understand if there is still space for a project like this, or the market has fully moved to only meme coins and top-tier L1s.


If you want details

I posted a full ANN with more technical info and tokenomics here:

ANN LOGOS (LGN) – new L1 Resonance Blockchain | 81M supply | Airdrop & Presale

I’ll be happy to answer technical questions in that thread or here. 
Any feedback – positive or negative – is welcome. If you see obvious flaws or risks, tell me. It’s better to hear it now than later.

Thanks for reading.

[passwordnow]

Is there still room in 2025 for a new independent L1 chain, built by a small team without big VC money?

I’m not asking in theory only – I’ve actually been building one and I’d really like to hear feedback from people here.

You'll never know but you're getting the timing wrong. It doesn't matter if you're in a small or big team, with or without money. People look at how useful the project is and what you're proposing. But I think that doing it at the end of the bull run, it's kind of not a good timing you're doing here. The market knows the cycle of it and that's why if you're going to do it this time, even on how good it is and very useful, but you'd see that the cycle is the one determines how a project can be successful. You'll also see that there will be less interest when you suppose to do it by the end of the bull cycle.

[TastyChillySauce00]

The reason L1 need VC is because market is too competitive and they need fund for development, bootstrap, incentivizes, and listings.

We've actually got tons and tons of L1 already out there in the market, some of them falling by the days because no revenue. I don't think creating new L1 is really a wise thoing in this market even worse is without VC. That's the truth.

[LogosLRB]

I don't really disagree with you.

You're right that the L1 space is overcrowded and extremely competitive,
and that most networks fail due to lack of funding, incentives, or real usage.

For us, building without VC is not about ideology or claiming we can
outcompete well-funded ecosystems. It's simply the constraint we're
operating under, and we're designing LOGOS accordingly.

The scope is intentionally narrow:
predictable execution, ordered transaction processing,
and bridges designed to survive retries and failures.

We're not trying to win listings or liquidity wars.
If this approach doesn't find real users, that's a fair outcome.
But we prefer to validate usefulness first, before scaling economics.

Appreciate the honest perspective — these are risks we're fully aware of.

[LogosLRB]

The reason L1 need VC is because market is too competitive and they need fund for development, bootstrap, incentivizes, and listings.

We've actually got tons and tons of L1 already out there in the market, some of them falling by the days because no revenue. I don't think creating new L1 is really a wise thoing in this market even worse is without VC. That's the truth.

I don't really disagree with your point.

You're absolutely right that the L1 space is extremely competitive,
and that most networks fail because they can't sustain development,
incentives, or real usage — even with funding.

For us, avoiding VC is not about ideology or claiming we can
outcompete well-funded ecosystems. It's more about scope
and the constraints we're consciously operating under.

One important distinction is that LOGOS wasn't launched as a concept
or a promise. The core technology was built first:
the network, node, wallet, and explorer were running
before we started any broader market exposure.

LOGOS is being developed with a very limited and pragmatic goal:
predictable execution, stable behavior under load,
and bridges designed to survive retries and failures.
We're not trying to outspend anyone on incentives or listings.

If this approach fails to find real users, that's a fair outcome.
But we prefer to validate real-world usefulness first,
before scaling economics or considering external funding.

Appreciate the honest take — these are exactly the risks we're aware of.

[LogosLRB]

 Just to clarify the current state:

LOGOS is not a concept or a whitepaper-only idea.
The network is live, and core components are already operational.

The initial phase is intentionally modest.
The goal is not rapid expansion or hype, but validating that
an independent L1 can function reliably under real conditions.

For transparency:
there is an early presale running to support continued
development and infrastructure costs.
This is high-risk and clearly not for everyone.

Constructive feedback and critical questions are welcome.