Original author: YBB Capital Researcher Zeke
1. Celebrity Coin, from its birth to marketing
Warren Buffett has been carrying on the philanthropic legacy of his late wife Susan Buffett for 23 years, transforming the admiration of a group of business elites into a time auction that has attracted global attention, creating the most iconic sky-high-priced lunch model in the history of human philanthropy.
The monetization of celebrity time is not uncommon in Web3. From the ancient Time New Bank to the later Friend.tech, SocialFi has been exploring the road for more than seven or eight years, but in most cases, there is little thunder or even little rain. After all, the importance of speculative trading in the on-chain world is often greater than this fragile social established with tokens as a link. Most users really care not about the exclusive insights shared by celebrities, but focus on the volume and price of celebrities. In other words, for top celebrities, the SocialFi platform pool is too small and cumbersome to make profits. For KOLs, it is embarrassing and stupid to put their already scarce influence on the SocialFi platform, which has transparent prices and few users.
The lack of accumulation means that SocialFi is not feasible for the time being, so the path to monetize celebrity value in Web3 needs to be differentiated, transitioned, and then evolved. A paid subscription community and an X account with a blue logo, this kind of Web2 combination with accumulation is what KOLs need at present. The value conversion path of top celebrities has not been smooth enough, just like a large enterprise with tens of millions of goods waiting to be dumped. To B is not cost-effective, and To C has no carrier.
The monetization of time and influence is the first successful step in the exploration of the path, and NFT has played this role for a long time. But it is clear that NFT’s emphasis on scarcity, fixed price, and lack of liquidity cannot satisfy both buyers and sellers. This form of selling souvenirs has temporarily failed after the BTC ecosystem failed.
The value of celebrities needs a new carrier. Although the answer has long been hidden in the story of Musk and Doge, this matter still needs some opportunities. Last year, Pump.funs coin issuance fever swept the currency circle. The Meme trend was carried out along with the US presidential election. During this period, various presidential coins issued by the public have appeared. The extremely high increase and popularity made some behind-the-scenes operators in the currency circle smell the opportunity. Through signing contracts or inducing, the real celebrities were asked to issue coins, and the rest was left to them to operate. This sounds a bit like the cooperation model between MCN agencies and Internet celebrities, but the actual situation is extremely violent. From Caitlyn Jenner (US Olympic decathlon champion and one of Trumps top fans) JENNER to President Milleys LIBRA. It started with a tweet and ended with a vertically falling K-line. The whole process can take several days or even hours to complete the harvest. What happens next is that the big Vs on social media start an emergency investigation, the coin issuing team posts and blames each other, and eventually nothing is done. The concept of celebrity coin was born in this mess.
But in any case, this path has become very clear. Judging from the initial results alone, Meme, a low-threshold distribution channel, is perfect. However, celebrity Memes that lack intrinsic value will disappear after the popularity and PvP end. The problem shifts from the carrier to long-term storage. AI Agent can tell you about the future of mankind, RWA can describe a Hundred Trillion track, and what story can celebrity coins tell?
Trumps answer was cliché. He would give the first 220 TRUMP holders a presidential time bonus, and the first 25 holders would be invited to a special VIP trip to the White House the next day. The value support of the celebrity coin has been rolled back to time. In my opinion, this solution can save the short-term unlocking of tokens, but it cannot support the long-term growth of token prices.
A good enough meme should emphasize emotions and narratives, rather than empowerment. The value of celebrity coins is not the insights and time of celebrities, but the stories of celebrities and the emotions behind them. Trumps dinner invitation is more like selling a super expensive version of Social Token, and everything will dissipate when the presidents time is over. How to market TRUMP well, the crypto team behind Trump may ask Minister Doge for advice. Doge is tied to Musk, SpaceX and Tesla. To The Moon is still a slogan engraved in the hearts of cryptocurrency users. The peoples currency makes holders believe that 1 Doge = 1 U. Challenging traditional finance is in line with the genes of cryptocurrencies. In fact, every point is Musk using his own power to sell emotions to the public, even if most of these stories have not yet come true. The marketing of celebrity coins still has a long way to go. The memeization of personal influence should not be as crude as a tweet or a good news. It is not abominable to make money in the cryptocurrency circle, but at least you have to understand the cryptocurrency circle first.
2. Dragon
The Blur project has rarely been mentioned. I remember the last time it was mentioned was when Blast launched the points system.
As the narrative of NFT disappears, many stories have become a thing of the past, but the mark that Pacman left on this circle will not disappear. Blur was able to slay OpenSea that year by relying on the three-pronged combination of Points + zero handling fees, royalties + social fission, completing the siege of the city from the countryside in a PDD-style approach. The orange logo filled the entire Twitter on the day of the airdrop, and I dont think any NFT player will forget it. From a marketing perspective, Blurs three-pronged approach is invincible. It not only defeated opponents that other NFT platforms dared not even think about, but also prompted many users who had never played NFT to join the army of scoring, breaking multiple records in just a few months. Almost all Web3 projects since Blur have regarded this marketing template as a bible.
At that time, NFT players who had suffered from OpenSea for a long time were applauding, but Blur eventually turned from a dragon slayer into a dragon. To put it in a small way, Airdrop 3 was the first time I felt disgusted with Web3 incentive activities. Blur adopted a self-destructive approach in exchange for TVL and trading volume. At the beginning of the whole event, I said that NFT would accelerate its death. The Bid For Airdrop mechanism encourages users to place orders but not actually buy, resulting in false demand and a downward spiral in prices. The mechanism attracts arbitrageurs rather than real buyers. Once the value of Blurs Token collapses, all blue chips will be buried together. As for the subsequent death of NFT, from my perspective, Blurs Bid incentive was the beginning, and Azukis Elementals series launch was the end. Of course, more of it should be attributed to the fact that NFT has never found a suitable path (Pudgy does not count).
Then Pacman launched the NFT lending protocol Blend and Ethereum Layer 2 Blast. The gameplay of these two protocols basically continued the underlying strategy of Blur. Blend uses a lending point reward mechanism. Users who participate in NFT mortgage lending can get airdrop points, continuing the logic of trading is mining. Blast adopts the deposit points + invitation points model. Users can earn Blast native income and airdrop points by staking ETH or stablecoins. The formers income logic relies on common income methods in the lending market such as lending interest and liquidation arbitrage. The latter is to put ETH into DeFi protocols such as Lido to pledge interest and realize income. Pacman built a self-circulating crypto bank through the ETH locked in the three, but the income returned to users is not equal. Except for Blurs early period, which was quite profitable, the incentive activities of subsequent projects basically announced the end of the airdrop era. Centralized points make all incentives a black box, and the rules are self-defined. The spontaneous gameplay of points is criticized by users.
What other consequences did the point system cause? First, it was a false prosperity. When the rewards were visualized, users would lock their assets into various protocols just to exchange for project tokens. The project owners could raise funds everywhere with these false user data and super high TVL, and negotiate listing. VCs, who were used to measuring value by data, suffered heavy losses. The second point was that it hindered innovation. It was better to do a good job in the project than to do a good activity. Projects that really had technology but did not understand marketing were buried. The third point was the fragmentation of liquidity. Really valuable assets were locked in various protocols just to play this game that they thought would not lose money. The fourth point, and the most important point, was that when the point system was launched, it was equivalent to issuing coins. A large number of studios, retail investors, and whales rushed in just to compete for a small piece of cake. Either compete in quantity or compete in funds. It was also common for retail investors to have such a small per capita allocation that it was difficult to make up for the gas. The era of airdrops truly ended here.
Today, the point system is still the mainstream model in Web3. Point mining has led to the proliferation of speculative culture, and Point Market has amplified this phenomenon. The incentive of airdrops has changed the nature of early users and communities. The airdrop era started by Uni a few years ago was well-intentioned, which not only promoted DeFi Summer but also achieved real user retention and growth. In this era, every project launch means a large withdrawal of funds and the emergence of a ghost town. If the project cancels this model, it will fall into a more passive situation. In this dilemma, users can only find a new habitat.
3. Public Chain
Ethereum relied on the development of technology and adherence to decentralization in the wild era, which formed such a vast ecosystem. But the path to success is different in each era. If it were ten years ago, who would have thought that Tencent could not replicate a short video platform, and Taobao would eventually be eliminated by an e-commerce company whose user interface was full of cuts. Similarly, two years ago, I couldnt imagine that Solana would really trip up the giant one day. But the fact is that in this era of stagnation at the application layer, marketing and practicality are more important than so-called technical beliefs.
Two days ago, EF published three articles reaffirming Ethereums future vision and foundation management structure. The key information revealed is not complicated. First, EFs power is decentralized. It will strategically intervene in projects when necessary and take the initiative to withdraw when it is not necessary. Second, EFs leadership reorganization will improve execution efficiency and strengthen communication with the community. Third, it will maintain the technical path of sub-type expansion, and is also exploring RISC-V to replace EVM. Although the overall feeling is still somewhat halal, EF has indeed put down its arrogant attitude.
But are these the real problems of Ethereum? I can only say that there is a relationship, but not absolutely. Some of the changes mentioned above are mainly focused on users dissatisfaction with EF. The unwillingness to integrate into the secular world is also the root cause of Ethereums problems, and this person is naturally Vitalik. It is not wrong to not understand or want to understand Meme, but the mistake is that Vitalik himself still plays an absolute leadership role in Ethereum. A project with a market value of 220 Billion is led by a somewhat willful and idealistic young man, and this person is unwilling to accept the mainstream culture in the current circle, so the loneliness at this time is only a kind of inevitability. However, fortunately, among the lonely Layer 2, there are still sparks like Base that can fight with Solana. If I were a member of EF, I would definitely apply for some foreign aid from CB.
Putting aside the conspiracy theory, at least CZ, the leader who also does not understand Meme, is trying his best to accept these concepts. During the period after being released from prison, he also brought out a hot track like DeSci, but the lack of a Western base made each prosperity of BNB a little short-lived.
Solanas victory lies in its lower profile. After the SBF crash, Solana is no different from a child who has lost the protection of his parents. Facing the giant Ethereum, it has to seize every opportunity. Starting from the catalyst Silly Dragon, to various super memes, Dapps, and PayFi later. We always joked that Solana is a stand-alone chain in the past, but from the perspective of tolerance and support for the ecosystem, it appears to be more decentralized.
It is not Pump.fun that made Solana turn around, but Pump.fun can only be born on the soil of Solana. This is similar to Uni and Ethereum a few years ago. The first chain for non-technical users is the core concept of Solanas marketing, which is civilian, easy to use, and efficient. Today, when Crypto is moving towards Western mass users, pragmatism is supreme, and long live the civilians. Solana is indeed suitable to be the first chain.
Conclusion
Regarding the marketing story, I omitted NFT and GameFi here. If they can be revived in the future, I may add them. The narrative of the crypto world has always evolved in the tug of war between technological idealism and human greed. The rise of tokens, the prosperity of projects, and the revival of public chains are essentially originated from a successful marketing. In the past, we listened to technical narratives, but now we have to integrate into the secular world.
