Is the community the culprit for the project's failure? Crypto projects are digging their own graves
1/ The project owner’s tricky operation
New projects nowadays generally face a common problem: the price of the token drops as soon as it is listed. As soon as the token is launched, there is a huge selling pressure, but no one is willing to buy it.
In order to avoid this situation and make the token look better in the early stage of listing, the project team also invented a series of "sexy operations":
- A large amount of funds were controlled through insider trading before TGE;
- Pre-market airdrop pledge lock-up;
- Or simply not send airdrops through the so-called witch method.
2/Community = Buy or Sell
But what’s interesting is that the project’s behavior subconsciously equates its own community with the selling of tokens. The community’s airdrop pressure is the culprit for the disappointing performance of the coin price.
Then the question is, why did the community that the project party worked so hard to build end up being sold instead of bought?
If the community is just for sale, why would the project owner invest so much energy in building the community?
3/Assembly Line Community Factory
In fact, many project owners do not understand the community, and have not figured out why they should build a community. In many cases, the starting point of the project owner is just to submit an answer sheet to the exchange, because it is a condition for the exchange listing and a bargaining chip for listing on a better exchange.
As a result, "community" has been quantified into a series of cold numbers. They pursue the number of community members, pursue rapid growth, and pursue a cold start of the community today and reach a result of 500k in one month.
It is not difficult to make something like this. On the contrary, this is the most mature GTM strategy in the current Crypto market, with complete links and tools to help project owners achieve such goals.
Such as various task platforms similar to Galxe, Tg traffic tools, KOL matrix, etc. They mainly use words such as "zero threshold to participate", "zero airdrop", "one fish, two ways to eat" to attract a large number of users, and finally achieve the so-called "organic growth".
But the result of this approach is also obvious: the portrait of community members has been targeted at those who are into "money-grabbing" from the very beginning, and the ultimate result is that it will attract a large number of users with the portrait of "money-grabbing" to form the so-called "community" of the project party.
If the goal of the project is simply to quickly list the currency and then exit, then there is nothing wrong with this approach. It can even be said to be extremely efficient without any detours.
4/Why is the community a selling platform rather than a buying platform?
Back to the original question: Why has the current community become a selling point rather than a buying point?
The answer is simple, because from the very beginning, the project party’s positioning of the community and GTM strategy have determined the outcome.
The purpose of the project is to find these people to brush up the data for themselves. The original purpose of community members to participate is to earn airdrops by contributing data and labor. Both parties know that the other party has no value, but they both take what they need and pretend to be confused. The coins issued are essentially debts for the project, which are expenses for providing data to users, not assets.
So when TGE occurs, what else could these airdrops be if not selling orders?
