CRCL hits new high: founders sell 330 million, early shareholders collectively miss out on 1.9 billion
Original title: Circle execs and VCs misread the market—it cost them $2B
Original author: Protos
Original translation: Ismay, BlockBeats
Editor's note: Circle's stock price has continued to soar since its listing. CRCL has soared from the issue price of US$29.30 to US$300, becoming one of the biggest winners at the intersection of Wall Street and the crypto circle. However, in this equity feast of the leading stablecoin, the earliest executives and venture capitalists have become "losers" who missed the main uptrend. Many of them chose to reduce their holdings on the day of the IPO, missing out on potential gains of billions of dollars in just two weeks. This not only reveals a serious misjudgment of market expectations, but also reflects the cognitive gap between the primary and secondary markets in the new era of crypto finance. When even the founders cannot predict the true value of their own stocks, we may have to rethink: Who is the real smart money in this era full of narrative drive and emotional leverage?
The following is the original content:
Executives and venture capitalists who chose to sell shares in Circle's (ticker: CRCL) IPO missed out on a rocket-like stock price surge.
As of June 6, 2025, these early sellers have missed out on potential profits of up to $1.9 billion. Rather than selling, it is better to say that they "lost because they didn't buy" - their choice is tragic.
The executives and VCs cashed out at $29.30 per share, earning a combined $270 million. But if they had held on for a few more weeks, their shares could have been worth billions.
Take Circle's chief product and technology officer, for example. He sold 300,000 Class A common shares in the IPO at $29.30 per share. If he had not sold these shares, their value per share would have reached $240.28 as of the close of last Friday. In other words, he personally lost about $63 million in potential gains.
Circle's chief financial officer also sold 200,000 shares at the same price in the IPO, missing out on about $42 million in proceeds.
Even the founder Jeremy Allaire was not spared. He sold 1.58 million shares in the IPO, also at $29.30 per share. If he had chosen to hold on at the time, he would now have an additional paper profit of up to $333 million.
Circle VC Misses Out on Billion-Dollar Gains
In Circle's initial public offering (IPO), venture capitalists, executives and other insiders sold a total of at least 9,226,727 shares of common stock at a price of $29.30 per share.
Although these stocks brought them a considerable cash profit of US$270 million, the "opportunity cost" of this transaction was staggering just two weeks later.
If they had chosen to continue holding these shares, they would have made an additional $1.9 billion today.
Objectively speaking, some venture capital firms only sold part of their holdings in the IPO. For example, General Catalyst, a well-known venture capital firm, only sold about 10% of its CRCL shares. According to its latest Form 4 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the firm currently still holds more than 20 million shares.
The situation is similar for founder Jeremy Allaire, who still holds more than 17 million shares and has options and restricted shares. Many other venture capital firms and company executives also retained a significant portion of their initial investments.
But even so, the decision to sell at $29.30 is still quite embarrassing when CRCL's stock price has soared to $240.28. Although no one can predict the future, the prediction error of 88% is undoubtedly a "shocking misjudgment" and has already left its place in financial history.
You May Also Like
The Role of Blockchain in Building Safer Web3 Gaming Ecosystems
- Immutable Ownership of Assets Blockchain records can be manipulated by anyone. If a player owns a sword, skin, or plot of land as an NFT, it is verifiably in their ownership, and it cannot be altered or deleted by the developer or even hacked. This has created a proven track record of ownership, providing control back to the players, unlike any centralised gaming platform where assets can be revoked.
- Decentralized Infrastructure Blockchain networks also have a distributed architecture where game data is stored in a worldwide network of nodes, making them much less susceptible to centralised points of failure and attacks. This decentralised approach makes it exponentially more difficult to hijack systems or even shut off the game’s economy.
- Secure Transactions with Cryptography Whether a player buys an NFT or trades their in-game tokens for other items or tokens, the transactions are enforced by cryptographic algorithms, ensuring secure, verifiable, and irreversible transactions and eliminating the risks of double-spending or fraudulent trades.
- Smart Contract Automation Smart contracts automate the enforcement of game rules and players’ economic exchanges for the developer, eliminating the need for intermediaries or middlemen, and trust for the developer. For example, if a player completes a quest that promises a reward, the smart contract will execute and distribute what was promised.
- Anti-Cheating and Fair Gameplay The naturally transparent nature of blockchain makes it extremely simple for anyone to examine a specific instance of gameplay and verify the economic outcomes from that play. Furthermore, multi-player games that enforce smart contracts on things like loot sharing or win sharing can automate and measure trustlessness and avoid cheating, manipulations, and fraud by developers.
- Cross-Platform Security Many Web3 games feature asset interoperability across platforms. This interoperability is made viable by blockchain, which guarantees ownership is maintained whenever assets transition from one game or marketplace to another, thereby offering protection to players who rely on transfers for security against fraud. Key Security Dangers in Web3 Gaming Although blockchain provides sound first principles of security, the Web3 gaming ecosystem is susceptible to threats. Some of the most serious threats include:
Vitalik Buterin Challenges Ethereum’s Layer 2 Paradigm
