Crypto’s “Marketing Aesthetics”

Written by: YBB Capital Researcher Zeke

1. Celebrity Coin, from its birth to marketing

Warren Buffett has continued the philanthropic legacy of his late wife Susan Buffett with 23 years of persistence, transforming the pursuit of a group of business elites into a "time auction" that has attracted global attention, creating the most iconic "sky-high lunch" model in the history of human charity.

The monetization of celebrity time is actually 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, in the on-chain world, speculative trading is often more important than this kind of "fragile social" established with tokens as a bond. 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 profit pool of the SocialFi platform is too small and cumbersome. For KOLs, it is embarrassing and stupid to put their scarce influence on the SocialFi platform, which has transparent prices and few users.

The lack of precipitation means that the SocialFi path is not feasible for the time being, so the realization path of celebrity value in Web3 needs to be differentiated, transitioned, and then evolved. A paid subscription community and an X account with a blue label, this kind of Web2 combination with sedimentation is what KOLs need at present. However, 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 to the monetization of influence is the first successful step in the path exploration, and NFT has played this role for a long time. But obviously, NFT emphasizes scarcity, fixed price sales, and lack of liquidity, which 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.fun's coin issuance fever swept the currency circle, and the Meme tide 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 have made some behind-the-scenes operators in the currency circle smell an opportunity. They let the real celebrities issue coins through signing contracts or inducing them, and the rest is left to them to operate. This sounds a bit like the cooperation model between MCN institutions and Internet celebrities, but the actual situation is extremely violent. From Caitlyn Jenner (US Olympic decathlon champion and one of Trump's top fans) JENNER to President Milley's LIBRA. It starts with a tweet and ends with a vertically falling K-line. The whole process can take several days or even hours to complete the harvest. Then the script is often that the big V on social media starts an emergency "investigation", the coin issuing team posts to blame each other, and finally nothing is done. The concept of celebrity coins was born in this mess.

But in any case, this path has indeed become very clear. From the initial results alone, Meme, a low-threshold distribution channel, is perfect. It's just that celebrity Memes that lack intrinsic value disappear after the heat and PvP end. Where should they go? The problem shifts from carriers to longevity. AI Agent can tell you about the future of mankind, RWA can describe a Hundred Trillion track, and what story can celebrity coins tell?

Trump's answer is very cliché. He will give the first 220 holders of TRUMP a "presidential time", and the top 25 holders will be invited to participate in the special VIP tour of the White House the next day. The value support of celebrity coins has 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 celebrity's insights and time, but the celebrity's story and the emotions behind it. Trump's dinner invitation is more like selling a super expensive version of Social Token, and everything will dissipate when the president's 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 people's currency makes holders believe that 1Doge=1U. 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 hateful to make money in the cryptocurrency circle, but at least you have to understand the cryptocurrency circle first.

Second, the evil dragon

Few people have mentioned the Blur project. I remember the last time it was mentioned was when Blast launched the points system.

With the disappearance of NFT narratives, many stories have become the past, but the mark left by Pacman on this circle will not disappear. Blur was able to slay the dragon OpenSea that year by relying on the three-pronged combination of "Points + zero handling fees, royalties + social fission", and completed the siege of the city from the countryside in a PDD-style way. The orange logo filled the entire Twitter on the day of the airdrop, and I don't think any NFT player will forget it. From a marketing perspective, Blur's three tricks are 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 score-brushing, breaking many records in just a few months. Almost all Web3 projects since Blur have regarded this marketing template as the 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, Airdrop3 was the first time I felt disgusted with Web3 incentive activities. Blur used a self-destructive approach in exchange for TVL and trading volume. At the beginning of the entire 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 spiraling price decline. The mechanism attracts arbitrageurs rather than real buyers. Once the value of Blur's Token collapses, all blue chips will be buried together. As for the death of NFT, from my perspective, Blur's Bid incentive was the beginning, and Azuki's Elementals series was the end. Of course, it is more due to the fact that NFT has never found a suitable path (Pudgy is not counted).

Then Pacman launched the NFT lending protocol Blend and Ethereum Layer2 Blast. The gameplay of these two protocols basically continues 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 who pledge ETH or stablecoins can earn Blast native income and airdrop points. The former's income logic is based 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 to realize income. Pacman built a self-circulating crypto bank through the ETH locked in the three, but the benefits returned to users are not equal. Except for Blur, which was quite profitable in the early days, the incentive activities of subsequent projects basically announced the end of the airdrop era. The centralized points system makes all incentives a black box, and the rules are self-defined. The spontaneous gameplay of points is criticized by users.

What other consequences does the point system cause? The first is false prosperity. When the rewards are visualized, users will lock their assets into various protocols just to exchange for project tokens. The project party can raise funds everywhere with these false user data and ultra-high TVL, and negotiate listing. VCs who are used to measuring value by data suffer heavy losses. The second point is to hinder innovation. It is better to do a good project than to do a good activity. Projects that really have technology but don’t understand marketing are buried. The third point is the fragmentation of liquidity. Really valuable assets are locked in various protocols just to play this game that is thought to be loss-free. The fourth point, and the most important one, is that when the point system was introduced, 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 is also common for retail investors to have a per capita allocation that is too small to make up for Gas. The era of airdrops has truly ended.

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 opened 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". The cancellation of this model will fall into a more passive situation. Under this dilemma, users can only find a new habitat.

3. Public Chain

Ethereum relied on the development of technical paths and adherence to decentralization in the wild era, which formed such a vast ecosystem later. 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 was eventually eliminated by an e-commerce company whose user interface was full of cuts. Similarly, two years ago, I couldn't imagine that Solana would really trip up the giant one day. But the fact is that in this era of stagnation in the application layer, marketing and practicality are more important than so-called technical beliefs.

Two days ago, EF published three articles reaffirming the future vision of Ethereum and the foundation's management structure. The key information revealed is actually not complicated. First, EF's power is decentralized, strategically intervening in projects when necessary, and actively withdrawing when unnecessary. Second, EF's leadership reorganization improves execution efficiency and strengthens communication with the community. Third, it maintains 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 above changes are mainly focused on users' dissatisfaction with EF. The unwillingness to integrate into the secular world is also the root cause of Ethereum's disease, 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 Layer2, 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.

Apart from the perspective of conspiracy theories, look at BNB. 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, it also brought out a hot track like DeSci, but the lack of the Western base made each prosperity of BNB a little short-lived.

Solana's victory lies in a lower posture. After the SBF explosion, 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 over, 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 Solana's 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 the two can be revived in the future, I may add them. The narrative of the crypto world has always evolved in the struggle between technological idealism and human greed. The rise of tokens, the prosperity of projects, and the revival of public chains all originated from a successful marketing campaign. In the past, we listened to technical narratives, but now we have to integrate into the secular world.