Coincidentally, many projects with good primary and secondary fundamentals have generally fallen back to around $50M. Rather than considering whether they are bottom areas, it is better to think about the investment layout logic of the next round of value return after the foam is squeezed out? 1) Product PMF has become a focus of attention, and hard indicators such as user retention rate, interaction depth, and on chain revenue are replacing the past pure "narrative" indicators. The application of solving practical pain points is forming a flywheel effect on the chain; 2) The structure of holders is more critical than size, and the quality dimensions such as the proportion of diamond holders, the proportion of long-term funds such as Smart Money and institutions, and active stickiness determine whether the project can withstand fluctuations and continue to develop. Projects that only attempt to capture the minds of retail investors through short-term marketing are difficult to truly break through; 3) The ecological niche moat of the project should be deep enough. When the homogenization of the track is severe, the differentiated positioning and irreplaceability of the project are the real barriers to crossing the cycle. For a long time, most projects have to face the problem of too many homogeneous competitors and their value cannot be highlighted. In bull markets, valuation is based on the track, while in bear markets, differentiation is needed to break through the shackles of the track; 4) The tokenomics model should avoid "idle" and generate stable on chain revenue through real application scenarios, with a reasonable token destruction mechanism and long-term holder additional equity design. The most crucial thing is to ensure that token holders can share the growth dividends of the project, with clear short-term value evaluation dimensions and long-term value feedback paths; Foam extrusion is not the end, but the starting point of value reconstruction.