2026-01-07 18:25:53

People often say that Crypto players are only in it for the money, and this impression is deeply ingrained. But more and more projects are proving this wrong with actual data — when the mechanism design is proper, those participants who come truly because of their faith create value returns that far surpass what can be gained from simply throwing money into subsidies.

Looking at it from another angle, for project teams, those who come to exploit a quick profit and leave quickly are not the target users. The truly valuable users are the "insiders" who are willing to stay with you long-term — they stay longer, contribute more, and can attract more like-minded people. Why shouldn't such users be given special treatment? Conversely, projects that still only throw money around and ignore people will eventually pay the price for it.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

15 Likes

Reward
15
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

BridgeTrustFund

· 8h ago

You're right, throwing money at woolly supporters is really a thankless effort; it's better to figure out who the true believers are. --- The importance of conviction and value should have been emphasized long ago. After the break-in period, it all depends on who can go the distance. --- With the right mechanism, the compounding effect of loyal fans is unbeatable; this is the healthy ecosystem. --- Projects that only want to harvest short-term gains definitely deserve to suffer losses; it's just a matter of time. --- The reputation value of long-term holders can sometimes be a hundred times more cost-effective than market subsidies, but unfortunately, many projects haven't figured this out yet. --- Really, instead of spending money to exploit woolly supporters, it's better to let true believers spread the word themselves—that's true wisdom.

View OriginalReply0

BearMarketMonk

· 01-07 18:55

This set of logic sounds smooth, but in reality? How much is faith worth? That's true, but how many projects can really survive? Dividing users into different tiers, this step is easy to go wrong. Money spent to attract users can also be retained; it all depends on how you operate. This idea is a bit idealistic... Market testing is the real test. What happened to the once-held faith? Let's look at the data. I agree, but projects that dare to truly allocate resources to long-term users are indeed rare. It sounds good, but who can guarantee that "insiders" won't betray? Having a good mechanism is just the prerequisite; ultimately, it still depends on the token price. If such projects don't incorporate actual business growth, it's just a mirage.

View OriginalReply0

AlphaLeaker

· 01-07 18:53

The word "faith" sounds nice, but how many can truly stick to it? Most are just waiting for the moment to be harvested like a leek.

View OriginalReply0

WhaleWatcher

· 01-07 18:44

That's right, projects that only want to harvest quick profits truly deserve to die. Believers and those who exploit users are fundamentally different. Users built on subsidies can't be retained; true believers are the real core assets. That's why some projects last a long time, while others disappear in a flash.

View OriginalReply0

FloorSweeper

· 01-07 18:43

True believers are indeed the gold, while those who just farmed tokens have long dispersed --- Well said. Projects that rely solely on subsidies are really not going to last long --- Once the mechanism is well-designed, the community can operate itself without daily spending --- The key is to have real people, not a bunch of arbitrage bots --- That's why I always look at the community first, then the tokenomics of a project --- The retention rate of long-term holders is really tied to the project's survival --- There are too many "use and leave" in the crypto world; only those who can settle down are the real deal --- The referral effect among insiders can't be bought with subsidies --- Good mechanisms retain good people; bad mechanisms only keep the leeks --- Faith empowerment > airdrops and subsidies, this is the fundamental logic

View OriginalReply0